|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:17:02 GMT -6
I think the balancing would come out different. Where the right at issue is the mother's own life, I'm not sure her interest in preserving that right could be overcome by the government's interest punishing her murderous son. How do you decide these things? For one, you consider the importance of the right in question along with the extent to which the right is to be deprived. You then factor in the culpability of the people who are to be incidentally deprived of the right and compare it with whatever justice the deprivation might produce.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:23:13 GMT -6
How do you decide these things? For one, you consider the importance of the right in question along with the extent to which the right is to be deprived. You then factor in the culpability of the people who are to be incidentally deprived of the right and compare it with whatever justice the deprivation might produce. But when I do this I get different answers to yours. You seem to think that the innocence of the POS's son is to be weighed against the pursuit of justice, but to me it seems integral to it. Only by robbing him of an INNOCENT son can we deliver justice.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:27:22 GMT -6
I think the balancing would come out different. Where the right at issue is the mother's own life, I'm not sure her interest in preserving that right could be overcome by the government's interest in punishing her murderous son. If the mother says "I'd rather they killed me than killed my son" it follows that she has a greater interest in her son's life than in her own. And since her interest in her own life outweighs the state's interest in killing for justice, her interest in her son's life outweighs it even more. We must assign such values objectively and independent from the particular mother's appraisals. Afterall, some scumbags would rather be juiced than spend the rest of their lives in prison.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:33:55 GMT -6
If the mother says "I'd rather they killed me than killed my son" it follows that she has a greater interest in her son's life than in her own. And since her interest in her own life outweighs the state's interest in killing for justice, her interest in her son's life outweighs it even more. We must assign such values objectively and independent from the particular mother's appraisals. Afterall, some scumbags would rather be juiced than spend the rest of their lives in prison. I would have thought that the best way to determine what her interests are is to ask her. Tell me about this 'objective' method you have for deciding what her interests really are, despite what she says.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:36:48 GMT -6
For one, you consider the importance of the right in question along with the extent to which the right is to be deprived. You then factor in the culpability of the people who are to be incidentally deprived of the right and compare it with whatever justice the deprivation might produce. But when I do this I get different answers to yours. You seem to think that the innocence of the POS's son is to be weighed against the pursuit of justice, but to me it seems integral to it. Only by robbing him of an INNOCENT son can we deliver justice. There are competing notions of justice at play. On one hand we have the pursuit of justice against the POS, and on the other hand we want justice for the son to be killed. We can call these micro-justices, if you will. Sometimes, a micro justice will have to be sacrificed if we are to ensure macro justice. To determine the macro-just solution, we should weigh the competing micro-justices and act based on whichever one predominates. In other words, we consider what would be just about a particular course of action and subtract from that what would be unjust about doing it. If the difference results in a positive number we do it; if the equation yields a negative number we refrain.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:42:48 GMT -6
But when I do this I get different answers to yours. You seem to think that the innocence of the POS's son is to be weighed against the pursuit of justice, but to me it seems integral to it. Only by robbing him of an INNOCENT son can we deliver justice. There are competing notions of justice at play. On one hand we have the pursuit of justice against the POS, and on the other hand we want justice for the son to be killed. We can call these micro-justices, if you will. Sometimes, a micro justice will have to be sacrificed if we are to ensure macro justice. To determine the macro-just solution, we should weigh the competing micro-justices and act based on whichever one predominates. In other words, we consider what would be just about a particular course of action and subtract from that what would be unjust about doing it. If the difference results in a positive number we do it; if the equation yields a negative number we refrain. I see. Could you tell me how much the loss of a child is worth in your calculus, and how that relates to the loss of your own life? Is losing a child only half as bad as losing your own life? Gimme some numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:43:07 GMT -6
We must assign such values objectively and independent from the particular mother's appraisals. Afterall, some scumbags would rather be juiced than spend the rest of their lives in prison. I would have thought that the best way to determine what her interests are is to ask her. Tell me about this 'objective' method you have for deciding what her interests really are, despite what she says. If someone runs into you while you are driving the 1976 Dodge pickup your dad left you (which means the world to you), you'll still get only the Bluebook value of the pickup. Your personal sentiment will be irrelevant. Same thing should apply here. We assign an objective value to a right and apply that value across the board regardless of whether the right might mean more to one person than it does another.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:47:27 GMT -6
There are competing notions of justice at play. On one hand we have the pursuit of justice against the POS, and on the other hand we want justice for the son to be killed. We can call these micro-justices, if you will. Sometimes, a micro justice will have to be sacrificed if we are to ensure macro justice. To determine the macro-just solution, we should weigh the competing micro-justices and act based on whichever one predominates. In other words, we consider what would be just about a particular course of action and subtract from that what would be unjust about doing it. If the difference results in a positive number we do it; if the equation yields a negative number we refrain. I see. Could you tell me how much the loss of a child is worth in your calculus, and how that relates to the loss of your own life? Is losing a child only half as bad as losing your own life? Gimme some numbers. That is too vague. The value to be assigned in the case of an execution is not the loss of a child, but rather, the loss of having a relationship with a child who is to be lawfully executed as a result of the "child's" choice to commit murder.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:50:44 GMT -6
I would have thought that the best way to determine what her interests are is to ask her. Tell me about this 'objective' method you have for deciding what her interests really are, despite what she says. If someone runs into you while you are driving the 1976 Dodge pickup your dad left you (which means the world to you), you'll still get only the Bluebook value of the pickup. Your personal sentiment will be irrelevant. Same thing should apply here. We assign an objective value to a right and apply that value across the board regardless of whether the right might mean more to one person than it does another. That seems right. I should be entitled to the market rate for the pickup - i.e. what people are generally willing to pay for a pickup of that sort. Any excess of sentimentality I have for the pickup is irrelevant. By the same token, then, a mother's interest in her son's life should be regarded as equal to what the interest of mothers is in their sons' lives quite generally. If it is common for a mother to express more interest in the life of her children than in her own life, then the mother of the POS should be regarded as having a greater interest in the POS's life than in her own. Agree?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 22:53:20 GMT -6
I see. Could you tell me how much the loss of a child is worth in your calculus, and how that relates to the loss of your own life? Is losing a child only half as bad as losing your own life? Gimme some numbers. That is too vague. The value to be assigned in the case of an execution is not the loss of a child, but rather, the loss of having a relationship with a child who is to be lawfully executed as a result of the "child's" choice to commit murder. No, it's the loss of a child. There is a difference between your child being killed and your child leaving home and breaking off all contact. The former is worse. But you introduced this notion of a justice calculus, where we were to 'add up' injustices and check for inequalities. Sounds a bit like horsesh*t to me, but I'll roll with it. Just gimme some numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 22:59:22 GMT -6
That is too vague. The value to be assigned in the case of an execution is not the loss of a child, but rather, the loss of having a relationship with a child who is to be lawfully executed as a result of the "child's" choice to commit murder. No, it's the loss of a child. I disagree. Your interest is to communicate with the child or have a relationship with the child; your interest is not in the child himself.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:02:43 GMT -6
No, it's the loss of a child. I disagree. Your interest is to communicate with the child or have a relationship with the child; your interest is not in the child himself. You are claiming that if I was given a choice between: (a) My child being killed. (b) My child being taken from me and raised by a wonderful family, and my never seeing him again. ...I would flip a coin? Dead wrong. I would choose (b). So would any parent. A parent's interest is in the life of her child as well as the relationship she has with it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:03:40 GMT -6
If someone runs into you while you are driving the 1976 Dodge pickup your dad left you (which means the world to you), you'll still get only the Bluebook value of the pickup. Your personal sentiment will be irrelevant. Same thing should apply here. We assign an objective value to a right and apply that value across the board regardless of whether the right might mean more to one person than it does another. That seems right. I should be entitled to the market rate for the pickup - i.e. what people are generally willing to pay for a pickup of that sort. Any excess of sentimentality I have for the pickup is irrelevant. By the same token, then, a mother's interest in her son's life should be regarded as equal to what the interest of mothers is in their sons' lives quite generally. If it is common for a mother to express more interest in the life of her children than in her own life, then the mother of the POS should be regarded as having a greater interest in the POS's life than in her own. Agree? No. If your 1976 pickup only had 10,000 miles on it, it would be worth more than if it had 200,000 miles. A murderous child is like a pick up with 500,000 miles. On any account, a mother does not have an interest in her child. Rather, she has an arguable interest in having a relationship with the child.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:04:04 GMT -6
Where are those numbers?
And you still haven't told me why the POS's innocent children should be treated with more fairness than he treated the innocent children of others. How is that justice?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:08:34 GMT -6
I disagree. Your interest is to communicate with the child or have a relationship with the child; your interest is not in the child himself. You are claiming that if I was given a choice between: (a) My child being killed. (b) My child being taken from me and raised by a wonderful family, and my never seeing him again. ...I would flip a coin? Dead wrong. I would choose (b). So would any parent. A parent's interest is in the life of her child as well as the relationship she has with it. I don't care what you prefer. I could be wrong, but I don't see how the 1st, 5th, or 14th Amendment protects one person's interest in another person. Rather, the Constitution protects your ability to communicate with or associate with that person.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:09:30 GMT -6
That seems right. I should be entitled to the market rate for the pickup - i.e. what people are generally willing to pay for a pickup of that sort. Any excess of sentimentality I have for the pickup is irrelevant. By the same token, then, a mother's interest in her son's life should be regarded as equal to what the interest of mothers is in their sons' lives quite generally. If it is common for a mother to express more interest in the life of her children than in her own life, then the mother of the POS should be regarded as having a greater interest in the POS's life than in her own. Agree? No. If your 1976 pickup only had 10,000 miles on it, it would be worth more than if it had 200,000 miles. A murderous child is like a pick up with 500,000 miles. On any account, a mother does not have an interest in her child. Rather, she has an arguable interest in having a relationship with the child. It's the same principle. The 1976 pickup with 10,000 miles is worth more because people are willing to pay more for it. But if that changed tomorrow, and it became chic to have pickups that had provably been around the block, then the 100,000 mile pickup might be worth more. It all depends on how highly people generally rate the car. So if mothers in general decide that their own life is worth more than their child's when that child becomes a murderer, then you are right that the mother's interest in the child is lessened. But if they generally maintain that they still care more for the POS's life that their own - that they cannot help it - then you must concede that their interest outweighs the interest of the state.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:11:28 GMT -6
Where are those numbers? And you still haven't told me why the POS's innocent children should be treated with more fairness than he treated the innocent children of others. How is that justice? Because his children are autonomous entities with their own rights. They are not extensions of the murderer.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:12:55 GMT -6
You are claiming that if I was given a choice between: (a) My child being killed. (b) My child being taken from me and raised by a wonderful family, and my never seeing him again. ...I would flip a coin? Dead wrong. I would choose (b). So would any parent. A parent's interest is in the life of her child as well as the relationship she has with it. I don't care what you prefer. I could be wrong, but I don't see how the 1st, 5th, or 14th Amendment protects one person's interest in another person. Rather, the Constitution protects your ability to communicate with or associate with that person. To kill my child is to impose agony upon me. Either the constitution protects me from the infliction of agony by the state, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's useless. Burn it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:13:48 GMT -6
No. If your 1976 pickup only had 10,000 miles on it, it would be worth more than if it had 200,000 miles. A murderous child is like a pick up with 500,000 miles. On any account, a mother does not have an interest in her child. Rather, she has an arguable interest in having a relationship with the child. It's the same principle. The 1976 pickup with 10,000 miles is worth more because people are willing to pay more for it. But if that changed tomorrow, and it became chic to have pickups that had provably been around the block, then the 100,000 mile pickup might be worth more. It all depends on how highly people generally rate the car. So if mothers in general decide that their own life is worth more than their child's when that child becomes a murderer, then you are right that the mother's interest in the child is lessened. But if they generally maintain that they still care more for the POS's life that their own - that they cannot help it - then you must concede that their interest outweighs the interest of the state. The question is not how much value mothers place on their murdering brats. The question is how much of that value society should recognize.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:14:46 GMT -6
Where are those numbers? And you still haven't told me why the POS's innocent children should be treated with more fairness than he treated the innocent children of others. How is that justice? Because his children are autonomous entities with their own rights. They are not extensions of the murderer. Do you think it's fair that he gets to laugh as we treat his kids as innocents, and deliver unto them only what they deserve, while he delivered rape and death unto other people's kids, despite their innocence? Is that fair?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:16:51 GMT -6
I don't care what you prefer. I could be wrong, but I don't see how the 1st, 5th, or 14th Amendment protects one person's interest in another person. Rather, the Constitution protects your ability to communicate with or associate with that person. To kill my child is to impose agony upon me. Either the constitution protects me from the infliction of agony by the state, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's useless. Burn it. The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:17:25 GMT -6
It's the same principle. The 1976 pickup with 10,000 miles is worth more because people are willing to pay more for it. But if that changed tomorrow, and it became chic to have pickups that had provably been around the block, then the 100,000 mile pickup might be worth more. It all depends on how highly people generally rate the car. So if mothers in general decide that their own life is worth more than their child's when that child becomes a murderer, then you are right that the mother's interest in the child is lessened. But if they generally maintain that they still care more for the POS's life that their own - that they cannot help it - then you must concede that their interest outweighs the interest of the state. The question is not how much value mother's place on their murdering brats. The question is how much of that value society should recognize. When it comes to determining the value of pickups, you told me, society consults the free market - in other words it asks what folks in general are willing to pay. So when it comes to determining the proper value of a child to its mother, shouldn't it find out how much mothers in general value their children? If not, then I ask you again, how should society determine that value? What is this objective method you have in mind?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:18:07 GMT -6
To kill my child is to impose agony upon me. Either the constitution protects me from the infliction of agony by the state, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it's useless. Burn it. The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony. Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:19:45 GMT -6
Because his children are autonomous entities with their own rights. They are not extensions of the murderer. Do you think it's fair that he gets to laugh as we treat his kids as innocents, and deliver unto them only what they deserve, while he delivered rape and death unto other people's kids, despite their innocence? Is that fair? No. And he won't be laughing after receiving the Huntsville Happy Meal.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:22:29 GMT -6
The Constitution is not designed to protect you from agony. It is designed to establish and protect certain rights. The Constitution certainly does not grant you some blanket right to be free from agony. Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state? Sure. For starters, it protects you from the deprivation of your life, your liberty, and your property without due process.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:24:50 GMT -6
The question is not how much value mother's place on their murdering brats. The question is how much of that value society should recognize. When it comes to determining the value of pickups, you told me, society consults the free market - in other words it asks what folks in general are willing to pay. So when it comes to determining the proper value of a child to its mother, shouldn't it find out how much mothers in general value their children? If not, then I ask you again, how should society determine that value? What is this objective method you have in mind? Joseph Phillips. In the alternative, public consensus, which involves more than just asking mothers how much they love their kids.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:26:12 GMT -6
Does it grant me any rights against the arbitrary imposition of agony by the state? Sure. More starters, it protects you from the deprivation of your life, your liberty, and your property without due process. Good. I sense common ground. If someone breaks the legs of my son, it is ok for the state to break the legs of his son. Right? The constitution offers his son no protection from that, and it would be just punishment for the father.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:27:09 GMT -6
When it comes to determining the value of pickups, you told me, society consults the free market - in other words it asks what folks in general are willing to pay. So when it comes to determining the proper value of a child to its mother, shouldn't it find out how much mothers in general value their children? If not, then I ask you again, how should society determine that value? What is this objective method you have in mind? Joseph Phillips. In the alternative, public consensus, which involves more than just asking mothers how much they love their kids. So if the public generally acknowledges that a mother's interest in her kids is greater than that in her own life, then you will accept this?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 2, 2011 23:37:30 GMT -6
Joseph Phillips. In the alternative, public consensus, which involves more than just asking mothers how much they love their kids. So if the public generally acknowledges that a mother's interest in her kids is greater than that in her own life, then you will accept this? Not all sons are of equal value. What you are saying analogous to a general statement that most people value their cars over their TV. While that might be true generally, some TVs are worth more than some cars. The question is how much value society should assign to a mother's interest in being able to have a relationship with her son after the son committed murder.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 2, 2011 23:40:34 GMT -6
So if the public generally acknowledges that a mother's interest in her kids is greater than that in her own life, then you will accept this? Not all sons are of equal value. What you are saying analogous to a general statement that most people value their cars over their TV. While that might be true generally, some TVs are worth more than some cars. The question is how much value society should assign to a mother's interest in being able to have a relationship with her son after the son committed murder. So if society determines that mothers have an interest in the lives of their sons, except Jewish mothers and Black mothers, then that is the objective truth?
|
|