What is Justice?

[TheScornedReflex]

Believing in justice is mostly about not being a douche yourself.

I'm a douche? Where is the justice? WHERE?!

 

[Duxwing]

Logic. Bentham's Utilitarianism suggests that one attempt to do the least harm to the least number of people. Ideally, we might be able to do no harm. But sometimes, like at the moment, harm seems to happen no matter what, and then we have to choose between the options we know now, to avoid as much harm as we can now, while we develop better solutions in the fullness of time.

Right, and are you saying that we'd be better off arguing about something else?

If that's all it will cause, then yes. But how do you actually know how much of a reduction it will cause? You want to guess, and hope it works? Is that being logical? Provide a solid argument, and cross-check by the available data for every relevant case.

What frame of reference are we using? Are we arguing that the death penalty ought to be banned, or simply that it hasn't any good grounding? The distinction is subtle but important: the former debate makes having the death penalty the default, and vice versa for the latter.

No. You really can't.

So you're agreeing with me?

All courts do at the moment, is award them some money. How would you like to get a million dollars for spending the next 5 years in prison? I doubt you would.

At least I would be alive after prison.

Never heard of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism?

I've heard of both, but I can't read your mind.

I wasn't. I was saying, that right now, millions are in prison for crimes whose details exclude death row, and for many, it would have been easier for them if they'd done those crimes, and also for others who never did that or any other crime.

Would you please reword that? I still can't understand it.

There is a huge motive in many situations for murder. There is also a large deterrant for doing murder on any one day. Diminish the deterrant, and you diminish it for not just those on death row, but for everyone, for every day. Statistically, you increase the chances by 300 million for the USA alone, and for every subsequent day. This raises the average yearly death rate.

You're assuming a homogeneous distribution of deterrence and benefit. What if some would rather die than rot in prison? What if some cannot be deterred? What if some would never murder, no matter the cost (bizarre contrivances excluded)?

With those types of numbers, the deterrant would have to be below 1 in 1 billion, for it to not cause at least one more murder a year. To be below 1 in 1 billion, would mean that only 1 in a billion murderers would avoid killing to escape the possibility of the death penalty. That's awfully low for such a high cost in people's perceptions.

And how many die on death row each year? Their lives matter in this moral calculus, too.

Besides, that is linked to the value that one places in life, that is one of the axioms for abolishing the death penalty in the first place. Lower the value on individuals not getting the death penalty, and you lower the value for banning it in the legislature.

Like I said, I assumed that we weren't building our views from the ground up. Are we?

It's important data. There are lots of situations when we get data from the other side, that with it, we get an accurate answer, and if we ignore it, we get an inaccurate answer, or even a very wrong answer. The consequences are often if one makes beneficial or harmful choices in one's life.

Sure, but shouldn't we be more concerned with the points at hand?

Wrong on all counts. I never said that the death penalty was a good idea. I wasn't even suggesting that it's better to keep it.

You argued against getting rid of it, a position which, due to the binary nature of the problem, is the same as arguing for keeping it.

I was pointing out that it seems that when it comes to the issue, it's sophisticated and complex, and requires much consideration, before deciding, and so even those that might want to keep it, have enough of a basis to form an opinion, even if they've not checked the figures completely.

I'm a bit lost about what you mean, here.

I also didn't point this out. But, while we are here: Since these people have enough to form an opinion, dismissing their opinions, will just give them the impression that people who are against the death penalty are not interested in reason or helping to diminish harm, and then many will oppose the ban, in the belief that they are fighting an unjustified and irrational law, that would increase murder. You can't expect people to not want to keep fighting that, until they get their way. They'll never get tired. They can't. Morals don't get tired. So they'll keep fighting, no matter what. If some leave, then others will join. If you want all these conflicts in your country to cease, then you're gonna have to learn to make these people think that you ARE taking them seriously. It's your choice what you want out of life.

That's a separate issue, but I agree that morals never tire. One of my 'morals' is never giving up in a debate, and rare is the day that I leave an opponent hanging.

-Duxwing

 

[Duxwing]

Now THAT, is how Duxwing should argue!

Finally, someone gives me a model!

-Duxwing

 

[Proletar]

I'm a douche? Where is the justice? WHERE?!

I never said that... :-]


No but seriously. People just tend to jump straight to punishment when it comes to the term 'justice'. That's not the same thing at all as social justice. Social justice is the concept of treating people right. It's not about state and law. It's not about deciding whether a person should be put in prison or hanged for a crime. That's criminal justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice

 

[TheScornedReflex]

I never said that... :-]


No but seriously. People just tend to jump straight to punishment when it comes to the term 'justice'. That's not the same thing at all as social justice. Social justice is the concept of treating people right. It's not about state and law. It's not about deciding whether a person should be put in prison or hanged for a crime. That's criminal justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice

.

Hmm. I can be one of those quick judges. But that is because I see that if someone has done a crime then they should be punished. Fairly though. Depending on the severity of course.