Hi Glen and All
On 3 Jul 2001, at 9:43, N. Glen Dickey wrote:
> The purpose of the Thought Experiment was to see if there were any
> conditions in which capital punishment would be justified. It seems like
> you are saying there would be, which while we might differ on the
> circumstances we seem to agree that these conditions do exist. That's
> reasonable, good.
I thought that it was obvious from the context of Pirsigs statement that if there is
an
immediate and overwhelming threat to a society then it is justified in killing to
protect itself.
This does not mean that any half-assed excuse that a representative of a lazy and
degenerate society wheels out is, of itself, sufficient reason. The circumstances have
to be
exceptional and no alternative is possible. But it is capital punishment we are
talking about,
which is the sentence that a LEGITIMATE state passes in response to a FAIR TRIAL (at
which the accused MUST be present) at which point the guilty party is contained and in
almost every conceivable situation thereafter unable to threaten that society further.
As a
consequence this effectively rules out capital punishment.
Horse wrote:
> > I would say that the MOQ does support cryogenic preservation for seriously criminal
> > behaviour - it is just one more form of containment. But why "never to be
>re-awakened"?
> > When we reach the point where we can comprehensibly remove anti-social behaviour by
> > some form of reconditioning why not revive the criminal. A chilling thought. I
>hope that any
> > society that can do this is morally beyond reproach.
Glen Replied:
> Better yet why waste the time on fixing the criminal at all? Is anybody
> really going to vote for a tax to awaken homcidal maniacs only to perform a
> complicated medical procedure so they can be retrained to live in a society
> that that have little connection to? Probably not, in which the criminals
> have for all intents and purposes been put to death. I don't know if that's
> completely bad though, and at least the social pattern has the option of
> reawakening them.
Certain types of 'aberrant' behaviour have been shown to be attributable to hormonal
and
chemical imbalances which when removed corrected the behaviour. This may be the case
with certain homicidal tendencies etc. Also, as psychiatric methods and various forms
of
holistic non-drug related therapies and treatments are refined these can be utilised.
In a
civilised society with civilised members there will be a move towards civilised
treatments for
sick members - that is unless we cling to these medieval beliefs that these people are
just
born evil and/or possessed by the devil. Or alternatively we can continue to accept
the
argument that people are of less value than money.
> Horse wrote:
> > Justice and the law are STATIC value patterns. Justice IS law. If you want
> > to improve justice then improve the law!
Glen Replied:
> While I certainly agree that law does represent a static pattern of social
> quality the law is not justice, no not at all. Justice is an intellectual
> pattern that pertains to the balance of good vs. evil. Go check your C.O.D.
> for justice.
Concise Oxford Dictionary
justice // n.
1 just conduct.
2 fairness.
3 the exercise of authority in the maintenance of right.
4 judicial proceedings (was duly brought to justice; the Court of Justice).
5 a a magistrate. b a judge, esp. (in England) of the Supreme Court of Judicature or
(in the US) of the US Supreme Court or a state Supreme Court.
I don't see good or evil mentioned - fairness and right do get a mention though!
Glen continues
> The laws may implement justice but they are do not contain it.
> LAWS may be JUST but JUSTICE is not solely the province of the LAW. The
> state may not convict someone under the law but that does not mean that
> society (the population) should treat them as if they never did anyone
> wrong. Why would I volutarily have commerce with a murderer? True the
> state may have aquited the murderer but it would be unjust of me to pretend
> that they did not violate the social pattern. Confusing Justice with the
> Law is like confusing Social Patterns of Quality with the State. The second
> item is a sub set of the first, not equal to. Some of the Social Patterns
> of Quality are represented by the State but not all.
Justice may be Intellectual patterns of Value but what do these patterns create? They
create
laws which create justice which creates laws which...... It is an interactive process
guided by
DQ:
"Justice and law are identical. Static morality is full of heroes and villains, loves
and hatreds,
carrots and sticks. Its values don’t change by themselves. Unless they are altered by
Dynamic Quality they say the same thing year after year."
LILA Chapter 9
"These patterns can’t by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a
living
being can do that. "
LILA Chapter 13
History is also full of people who disagree with the law, believe themselves to be
above the
law (due mainly to their interpretation of 'JUSTICE') and subsequently take the law
into their
own hands. The consequences of this are vigilantism, kangaroo courts, lynch mobs,
social
exclusion etc. etc. It is one thing to fight to change the law in order to improve
justice but quite
another to mete out 'Justice' outside of a formal system of evidence and procedure. No
judicial system is perfect or anywhere near it but an important principle contained in
the
concept of justice is:
"It is better that ten guilty men should go free rather than one innocent person
should be
punished"
and this is nowhere more accurate than in relation to capital punishment.
>
> My point with the size of our hypothetical nation being ten people is that
> the size of what might be considered the State is irrelevant. If in the
> island case you believe it is just for the State to sentence the serial
> killer to die (or at least be confined to perpetual incarceration) for their
> crimes. Then it follows that even if the State does not convict them it is
> still 'just' that they pay some price for their violation of Static Patterns
> of Social Quality. Destroying other individuals on a whim can not be
> accepted even if it is legal or the State chooses not to act. This is in
> fact a more fundamental Social Pattern of Quality than the Law!
Firstly I don't believe that ANY state should should sentence a serial killer to die
and secondly
the state should only punish where it is obvious or beyond reasonable doubt that the
guilty
party is responsible for their actions. Oddly, I'm no more in favour of punishing
mentally ill
people than physically ill. If the state does not convict then it is not for
individuals to take the
law into their own hands - far from being "a more fundamental Social Pattern of
Quality than
the Law" this sort of 'justice' is little more than a rationalisation of Biological
patterns of
Value, otherwise known as revenge.
>
> Let me propose a twist to the Thought Experiment:
>
> Thought Experiment #2:
> Say you are the citizen of an inhabitated island in the south pacific that
> is a sovereign nation with a population of ten citizens. A serial killer
> kills seven of the citizens. You, a friend and the serial killer are the
> only people left on the island. You both have witnessed the serial killer,
> (let's call him Charlie for obvious reasons) Charlie murder at least one
> other person and are in complete agreement from physical evidence that he is
> guilty.
> He does not however confess. You can confine Charlie but unfortunately your
> island nation is a difficult place to live and each person on the island
> must spend eight hours a day gathering food in order to survive. While you and
> your friend could let Charlie gather his own food it would be very likely
> that he could escape in the dense foliage or over come one or both of you. The
> alternative is for you to gather food for him. This would consume a further
> eight hours a day for one of you or four hours a day for both of you.
>
> Two questions:
> 1) Your friend is willing to do what ever you decide is right. What do you
> do?
>
> 2) Your friend refuses to let Charlie gather his own food and refuses
> to gather food for him. What do you do?
1) Make sure that Charlie is properly confined then both go and gather food for
yourselves
and Charlie.
2) Make sure that Charlie is properly confined then you go and gather food for Charlie
and
half of your own food. Tell your friend to go and gather his own food and appeal to
his sense
of friendship to also gather half of yours.
Put an ad in a foreign newspaper for more people to come and live in your sovereign
state -
if it's good enough then you'll repopulate in no time.
Whoever said having your own sovereign state was easy?
> I've met and seen some interviews with creatures that wear a human form but
> do not poccess IMO an intellectual awarness or a social awarness such as I
> recognize it.
Oh right - so you've met George W. Bush and his band of merry oilmen.
> Do you think it is possible for a creature to be biologically
> human but not possess these other characteristics? You say no? I think
> this is possible.
Well, OK we had Margaret Thatcher too - but I didn't vote for her.
But on a more serious note I'd like to close with yet another quote from Lila:
"And as a matter of fact that looked like the answer to Rigel’s question that had been
bugging him all day: “Does Lila have Quality?”
Biologically she does, socially she doesn’t. Obviously! Evolutionary morality just
splits that
whole question open like a watermelon. Since biological and social patterns have
almost
nothing to do with each other, Lila does and Lila does not have quality at the same
time.
That’s exactly the feeling she gave too—a sort of mixed feeling of quality and no
quality at the
same time. That was the reason.
How simple it was. That’s the mark of a high-quality theory. It doesn’t just answer
the question
in some complex round-about way. It dissolves the question, so you wonder why you ever
asked it.
Biologically she’s fine, socially she’s pretty far down the scale, intellectually
she’s nowhere.
But Dynamically .. Ah! That’s the one to watch. There’s something ferociously Dynamic
going
on with her. All that aggression, that tough talk, those strange bewildered blue eyes.
Like
sitting next to a hill that’s rumbling and letting off steam here and there.It would
be interesting
to talk to her more."
LILA Chapter 13
Lila needed help not punishment.
Horse
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
