Actually, it does help a large number of people, both psychologically and practically. So, you're wrong to ignorantly dismiss it or attempt to understate its effectiveness. — Sapientia

Depends how you define help. If you define help as making them feel as secure as they felt before the crime, then NO, they are not helped by it, full stop. If you define "help" as providing a "crutch" which helps them manage, then yes, some of them are helped. I don't consider such to be help though - only misleading us that we have solved the problems, when in fact we haven't.

There are very few professionals who endorse extreme sadistic punishment as a healthy way of dealing with issues resulting from being the victim of a crime — Sapientia

Sadistic punishment isn't a way to deal with being the victim of a crime. It's a way to punish the criminal of an equally offensive crime - it's the demand of justice, ie an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.

I wonder why. — Sapientia

I tell you why: progressive culture; it's a phenomenon that has existed for limited periods of time before in history as well. Nothing new under the sun. This combines with the delusion that "we" are more moral and morally superior to the people who came before. It happened before in history! Look at the golden age of the Islamic Empire for example. They're decadence also started with progressivism, the same way as ours has. They also thought they were more moral than those before, because they no longer fought, they were educated, civilised.... nonsense!

No, we shouldn't stone criminals or bash babies heads against rocks or commit genocide or drown almost everyone alive, despite it being in the Bible. — Sapientia

If the laws of the state are to stone criminals, then criminals will be stoned. If you think those laws should be changed (as I do, for example), fair enough, then put a reason as to why forward (I would say because the punishment is too severe for the offence), and try to convince the other citizens. A criminal shouldn't commit crimes in a state where the laws state that the punishment is stoning if they don't want to be stoned. It's that simple really.

"O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do you disagree with proportionate punishment? If so, why? Also, before you jump up with all sorts of nonsense, you should be aware that this passage is metaphorical. The metaphorical meaning is that the one who does justice will be happy. It also means that the injustice of Babylon has been so great, that an extremely severe punishment (alike throwing their babies on stones) is deserved - just like in the case of the serial killer in this case. Another meaning of the passage, is that this punishment will befall on the guilty sooner or later - a promise from God to Israel in this case. Because unlike your false justice, God promises REAL JUSTICE to be delivered to those who were injured.

There is no instance in the Bible of human beings drowning everyone. There is also no instance of genocide. Do not mistake war for genocide. War is war, and has been fought all through history, regardless of your sensibilities to it.

Then what does your definition of reasonable entail? If you say that it follows the dictates of this metaphysical Reason that is behind all things, than that begs the question and just puts it in a loftier status. — schopenhauer1

Reasonable is what follows once the nature or being or essence of something is understood. The properties of circles follow once the essence of a circle is understood. They follow necessarily. Likewise morality follows necessarily once the nature of man is understood.

You say tomato, I say tomato. I'm just saying what it comes off as. To call boasting about one's virtue as dignity seems a bit of a stretch. Dignity would be not even mentioning it. Dignity is something which is shown but not stated. — schopenhauer1

I haven't stated it. You have assumed, and I responded to your assumption, since you seem to be more interested in the character that I have, and why I have it. So I am just explaining. It's not boasting when it's true, also keep that in mind.

No, rather false dignity is assuming one has knowledge of one's own (of course) virtuous character. Rather, one would just be a good person. It doesn't sound virtuous or inviting to be virtuous to shout one's accolades from the rooftops, um forums. — schopenhauer1

Yes it doesn't. I haven't done that, let me remind you once again. I didnt come here shouting I am virtuous, all of you bow! You have said my remarks come off as that, so I addressed it only because you have to begin with. So don't raise the dust and then pretend you cannot see.

I can't help but think that Mr. Hume and Mr. Spinoza might be saying the same thing that I am saying that most people pursue virtue (aka "self-improvement" plans) because it makes them feel good. "Peculiar lustre", and "noble elevation" meaning a sort of pleasure of the mind from doing high-minded self-improving stuff. — schopenhauer1

Virtue is not self-improvement. I've already covered that it has to do with character. Projects of self-improvement may or may not be part of character building.

But, if he knew that he was going to die no matter what, why not rub their faces in it and let them know the great error of killing someone like himself? — schopenhauer1

No, in fact, he didn't know this as he had MULTIPLE chances to escape if he had wanted to ;)

Virtue is the goal and the path to virtue is self-improvement plans — schopenhauer1

Not necessarily. Some of the virtues can be gained merely through understanding, not any sort of what is associated with self-improvement projects, which do not consist of mere understanding, but of actually doing something.

In the Western world this takes the form of self-help books. If one wants to feel a bit more fancy about it with more systematization (of varying degrees), one reaches for a Spinoza or Aristotle or Epictetus. — schopenhauer1

No, there is something admirable about people like Epictetus, Socrates, Alexander the Great, etc. they are not just any other human being. They are great. It is not, contrary to what you say here:

Or you can think all of it is bullshit we do to keep our minds occupied, and this seems the most user-friendly version for those who have personalities that gravitate to this sort of thing. There are some personalities that take to following what they view to be foundational ethical practices- usually the ones commonly taught in societies. — schopenhauer1

It's not just a personality. It is something more, something authentically superior about those people. That is virtue.

I just kind of did in my previous paragraph there, but to reiterate, we are motivated out of supreme existential boredom and survival. — schopenhauer1

Survival yes - boredom no. Boredom occurs when we are not motivated - it's exactly the opposite of motivation. Boredom cannot motivate - by definition, since it is the absence of all motivation. The person who is motivated is not bored, and the person who is bored is not motivated. For this reason, boredom cannot act as a motivating factor. If it did, it could not be the opposite of the motivated state.

Alexander - probably motivated by the desire to be great and to achieve the impossible
Socrates - probably motivated by the desire to teach virtue to others in order to create a virtuous society
Plato - probably motivated by the desire to outline what the Just man and Just society consist in... also by a love of Agathon
Aristotle - probably motivated by the desire to understand the whole of Nature
etc.

His philosophy (along with many others) only fails if YOU mistakenly bring in the flawed expectation philosophy is going to be all encompassing and "save" us from worthlessness. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:s You have become quite obsessed by worthlessness - you have started to see worthlessness everywhere. It's not there, but you always read it in! Talk about projecting...

Virtue cannot be taught, only enacted. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree. If it cannot be taught, then the efforts of Socrates were for nothing. This, for a philosopher, is alike saying that Jesus's death was in vain for a Christian - blasphemy.

He just knows he is talking about something specific about, metaphysics, and tells it to its fullest extent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It can "teach" (inspire) virtue in people, particularly with respect to metaphysics and our relationships to them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's not called Metaphysica. It's called Ethica ;)

I never understood how virtue is a reward unto itself. — schopenhauer1

I think S. states this to show, primarily, that it is UNREASONABLE not to pursue virtue - anyone who is reasonable must pursue it. I think furthermore, that since virtue is something that simply is the flowering of one's real nature and being, it cannot, by definition and once understood, be anything but a reward unto itself. Furthermore, S. combats those who aim to be virtuous for some other reason - he states "no no, don't avoid cheating on your wife because God will reward you in Heaven - avoid it because this is against your own nature here on Earth!" - in other words, don't prostitute yourself - don't be good in order to be paid - the only payment is the goodness itself.

It sounds like bragging in a high-minded manner- aka smug and self-righteous. — schopenhauer1

Knowledge of one's own virtue is dignity of character - it's not arrogance. Lack of this would be a false humility. I am well aware that modern society demands this false humility - it's a way to protect itself and its lack of virtue - no one can criticise them, or be a gadfly, as Socrates was a gadfly - because then they are labelled as arrogant.

"Greatness of mind or dignity of character; with elevation of sentiment, disdain of slavery, and with that noble pride and spirit, which arises from conscious virtue [...] To any one who duly considers of the matter, it will appear that this quality has a peculiar lustre, which it derives wholly from itself, and from that noble elevation inseparable from it" - David Hume, Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morality

For reasons such as these - Alexander the Great is, well, the Great! We call him the Great for his magnanimity - for his greatness of mind - and we do not label him as arrogant, etc. We respect him BECAUSE he showed no fear in situations where others would have cowered. So too, the moralist and the philosopher - like Socrates - will not cower in front of those who lack virtue, but will stand towering above. Remember that Socrates was dismissive in front of the court in Athens. He told them "Yeah, you bastards go ahead and kill me, but you will only hurt yourselves. You think you're hurting me... but you will see!" He mocked them in the court. Was Socrates arrogant? I don't think so. That quality is not called arrogance, as it is confidence based on truth.

Anyways, virtue to me, is just a fancy word for self-improvement projects. — schopenhauer1

Virtue is eudaimonia. Or in other words, virtue consists in development of character. Not self-improvement projects. Self-improvement projects may be part of virtuous living though, but they are not virtue. Virtue is the character being cultivated.

Now, I personally think there is a more rudimentary cause of why people seek self-improvement that is more than just their stock answer of "it feels good", but that would be going on a tangent. — schopenhauer1

Then go on a tangent and tell us what it is ;)

Also, one is not virtuous because "it feels good", but RATHER:
"Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself ; neither do we rejoice therein, because we control our lusts, but, contrariwise, because we rejoice therein, we are able to control our lusts." - B. Spinoza ;)

Yeah, Agustino's marriage of retributive justice and enlightenment philosophy baffles to me to no end. — csalisbury

What enlightenment philosophy? Have I associated this with Hegel, Kant, etc? :s

Spinoza, after my reading, is pre-modern. Hume is also pre-modern.

I will respond to this soon :)

For those of you who are drawn to Spinoza, would you be willing to share what makes him so attractive? I just can't get into him, I don't know what it is. Deleuze is one of my faves and he raves about Spinoza. Continental philosophers love him, scientists love him, historians love him, even analytic philosophers seem partial. But idk I just don't get it. — csalisbury

Spinoza is an ethicist - for him, the whole of philosophy is done for ethics - that is why even his magnum opus is called Ethica More Geometrico Demonstrata. Most philosophers - those that you have mentioned - are interested in Spinoza, surprise surprise, not for ethical reasons, but rather for his metaphysics. They want to take over Spinozist metaphysics because it avoids the difficulties of substance dualism, and is a coherent backbone for explaining the whole of reality, which accords physical science a fitting place. Furthermore, it is largely immanent, which means that it can allow them to dispense with God and/or the transcendent.

Despite this, Spinoza as a person must have been a very devoted believer - although he was also a very intelligent believer, and disagreed with the common conceptions of God. Spinoza lived an impeccable moral life, a moral life that would not have justified adultery, promiscuity, etc. In fact, neither would his philosophy, which condemns those acts to be similar to drinking poison. Spinoza, for me, is the first philosopher I have read who showed that "virtue is its own reward" - and who had supreme confidence in our capacity to identify virtue through reason. He was against the religion of his times, all of them, because people were hypocrites - they thought they were religious by going to Church, but when they went home, they still committed adultery, etc. Spinoza was against this mockery. He had faith that human beings were much better than this - and they could reach up to the potential of living the moral life. His intellectual martyrdom at the end of Ethica is awe inspiring:

"Even if we did not know that our mind is eternal, we would still regard as of the first importance morality, religion, and absolutely all the things we have shown to be related to tenacity and nobility [...] The usual conviction of the multitude seems to be different. For most people apparently believe that they are free to the extent that they are permitted to yield to their lust, and that they give up their right to the extent that they are bound to live according to the rule of the divine law. Morality, then, and religion, and absolutely everything related to strength of character, they believe to be burdens, which they hope to put down after death, when they also hope to recieve a reward for their bondage, that is, for their morality and religion. They are induced to live according to the rule of the divine law (as far as their weakness and lack of character allows) not only by this hope, but also, and especially, by the fear that they may be punished horribly after death. If men did not have this hope and fear, but believed instead that minds die with the body, and that the wretched, exhausted with the burden of morality, cannot look forward to a life to come, they would return to their natural disposition, and would prefer to govern all their actions according to lust, and to obey fortune rather than themselves. These opinions seem no less absurd to me than if someone, because he does not believe he can nourish his body with good food to eternity, should prefer to fill himself with poisons and other deadly things, or because he sees that the mind is not eternal, or immortal, should preffer to be mindless, and to live without reason. These [common beliefs] are so absurd they are hardly worth mentioning [...] Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them" - Benedictus de Spinoza

He admits, after his whole magnum opus, that if someone were not convinced by all his arguments, and all the metaphysics and philosophy - they would STILL have no reason, and hence no excuse, for being immoral. Spinoza's conception of freedom is NOT modern - it is pre-modern, and that's what makes it great. Even today, people associate freedom with lust, instead of with real morality. The whole of modern philosophy is a disgrace, and it is the greatest irony that these are the people who want to appropriate Spinoza, who lived a saintly life.

Love is a progress. At the beginning, it is all feeling and emotional rush. Later (months at most, one hopes) the heat cools, and love becomes more sober, more thoughtful. Complexity of feeling, thought, interaction grows. The couple now has a history. The importance of will grows. The two halves of the pair look deeper; overlook; decide to accept, decide to ignore, Eventually, they decide they will not part. Maybe they get married, or just commit. maybe they take out a mortgage (more binding than a marriage contract), get a house and a dog, some furniture, stuff. Time goes on; years pass; they are still together. There is rough sledding, and they remain a couple. Love grows, there are emotions that go with deepened love, but nothing like the first phase.

Maybe there is a crisis of one kind or another. Job loss; job finding in distant cities; unfaithfulness; sickness; accident; all sorts of problems. Will comes into play here, especially, when the partners respectively decide to stay together, not because they have to, but because they want to. Maybe they need each other as well as want each other.

Will won't get love going, but only will can sustain love over the long run. Love and Will are mutually strengthening. — Bitter Crank

Very good - this is a phenomenology of the experience I am critiquing, which is the modern experience of love. Human consciousness has not always experienced love in this way, which is what I'm arguing. The experience that is unavailable to modern consciousness is the experience of the movement of the will, which occurs first, prior to the feeling. Prior to falling in love with someone, one has to decide who to fall in love with - most people are not aware of this happening in the modern age - it doesn't happen on a conscious level. They just find themselves having a feeling, that's the start of their consciousness about it. But notice, that if your will does not take part in this, it is impossible to fall in love or have that feeling. That's why we don't fall in love with teenage girls, etc. except in very rare circumstances. That's why we don't fall in love with relatives, etc. Before first falling in love we must want to fall in love, whether we are conscious of this or not. So yes - will can get love going. I can make myself develop the feeling of love if I want to for example. Not instantly, but over time, for sure. And the frustrations of love is that sometimes this feeling is there, and sometimes it is not - we don't always feel it. Typically in the beginning we feel it, and there are many other moments through out when we feel it, but definitely not all the time.

Sub specie aeternitas refers to the infinite, that which is eternally true (or rather: that which is true regardless of time) — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not only - it refers to the conditions of the world which are prior to, and not affected by, the fall into time.

Even an adultery committing serial killer is "good" sub specie aeternitas, in that it is a logical necessity that state is itself and possible. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Your false philosophy makes you agree with all sorts of statements we know a priori to be nonsensical. The serial killer simply cannot be "good" sub specie aeternitatis. In fact, the serial killer cannot exist sub specie aeternitatis. What exists in the world, does not exist, in the same way, sub specie aeternitatis. What exists sub specie aeternitatis is that which is beyond time.

He still thinks we can use logic to inoculate the world against evil, that ethical action is necessary for the world to make sense. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it's not necessary for the world to be coherent - but it's a demand of our spirit.

He cannot accept there is sometimes evil and we can do nothing to stop it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Except we can do something about it :)

The delusion we can so something which wipes past injustice from the world is the only way he can avoid the glare of the nasty truth: we cannot do anything about injustice; when injustice occurs, the moment is spoiled forever and nothing can fix it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Justice does not mean undoing the wrong. It means giving the wrong-doer what they deserve - that we can do.

No, I wouldn't disagree. And we can have control over him or her by putting them in a maximum security prison. — csalisbury

No, because he accepts being in prison. For him, it's not something bad.

How can crushing senseless evil be a re-enactment of the moment of creation if there could be no evil before creation? — csalisbury

Being has primacy over non-Being as I have stated. Myths of creation imply this primacy of Being over non-Being.

(Idk if you've read Schelling, but if you want some fascinating discussion of the paradoxes of evil and creation, he's your guy.) — csalisbury

I'm reading Schelling's Historical Critical Introduction to Philosophy of Mythology right now actually ;)

You could put the serial killer in maximum security, or kill him if you like. He can't hurt anyone then. What your proposed remorse-yielding torture does, on the other hand, is transubstantiate the limitless 'black hole' of senseless evil into a determined, limited object over which we can exert absolute control. — csalisbury

Yes but would you disagree that your limitless 'black hole' is a threat to society that society must eliminate by assuming control over it?

Well, I think part of love is a feeling. I think love is very complex and made up of all sorts of things - memory, respect, dedication, empathy, trust, frustration, fear etc. Will's a big part of, but I would disagree that love simply is a movement of the will. — csalisbury

I think there often is a feeling associated with love, but in and of itself, love is a free decision of the will. To really love someone you have to first want to love them. That is why "I don't have the same feelings for you... I don't love you anymore... sorry" doesn't work - not having the feelings is not a reason not to love anymore. This isn't to say that it is impossible to stop loving someone - only that not loving anymore bears directly one one's character - it is entirely one's responsibility. It has to be "I have decided not to love you anymore" - thus one is NOT the victim of external happenings which are not in one's power when one stops loving.

There are lots of kinds of deception, but infidelity appears to be particularly irksome for you. So I don't think the deception aspect in-and-of-itself is what gets your goat. — csalisbury

Sure. But loyalty is one of the greatest human values, and hence all forms of deception are serious. Deceptions of love are most serious though, because they involve the whole being, not just a part.

I'd pose that the reason this particular deception is so painful, especially without remorse, is that the person disgracing and dishonoring you is the same one you've grown to trust with your most powerful feelings. — csalisbury

It's more than just this - it's that this deception destroys or assaults your own being in a direct manner that other deceptions generally don't. It's not only that one trusts the other being - it's more sinister. It's as if one whole is broken in half - it's a direct trespass on morality by breaking what is.

I'm not sure what you mean by my interpretation of the world being technological? — csalisbury

The world being a ceaseless generator of violence - you see the world as a machine, purposelessly doing an activity and being unable to stop. This machinistic interpretation of the world forms what I consider a technological worldview - where you necessarily end up seeing yourself as a victim used by an impersonal and blind process which cannot be related to, and which (in this case) is aimed at nothing. It is like you have taken the serial killer and projected him unto Being itself - Being has assumed the form of the serial killer. Then retrospectively, you find the serial killer, and find him to be closest to Being itself. Of course! You have (unconsciously almost) assigned this vision to Being in the first place! In fact - the serial killer may very well be a form of consciousness that is only possible under such a technological view. I'm not sure, but I think the very notion of serial killer is quite modern in origins, same as this technological view of the world.

Creation doesn't strike me as inherently good. I think you'd have to unpack your reasoning a bit. And if, sub specie aeternitas, good always triumphs, then how can there be such a thing as an actual threat to the nature of the whole of existence? — csalisbury

I said we feel (perceive) it as a threat to the nature of the whole of existence, not that it really and actually is. And it is percieved so because it is the closest that one can get to being denuded of Being - to non-Being. Thus crushing the serial killer re-enacts the moment of Creation - the triumph (or primacy) of Being over non-Being, hence the catharsis that is derived from it.

1. Goodness is the standard of itself and of the bad.
: In other words we start from knowing the good, and then, only in comparison, discover the bad.
2. Nothing is bad in itself, but only bad in comparison with the good.
: results from an understanding of (1)
3. Pure Being has no opposite (non-Being doesn't exist)
: results from an understanding of Being and non-Being
4. As nothing is bad in itself, Pure Being cannot be bad in itself.
: from (2) and (3)
: If Pure Being were bad in itself, then there could be no goodness (as everything that exists participates in Being). But if there was no goodness, then there could be no bad, because the bad is known only in comparison with the good. Thus Pure Being cannot be bad. QED.
5. Therefore Pure Being can only be good (that is if it is good and not neither good nor bad at all, I will leave that possibility open for now)

This illustrates that Pure Being (or denuded Being as you say) can only share the structure of goodness.

What seems irrational to me was the way the Nazi Party operated over and above the old institutions, rapidly and severely torquing Germany into a twisted mess. — Bitter Crank

Why does it seem irrational to you? I suppose that their aim was to take over Germany, so of course they infiltrated through all its institutions and changed them.

The Nazis weaseled their way into power by violence, deceit, and terror. A small core group built up a great deal of personal/state power very rapidly (Heydrich, Goering, Himmler, Goebbels, Hitler, etc.) which further twisted Germany. True enough, a lot of Germans tacitly or overtly approved of some of the twisted policy. — Bitter Crank

The thing is though, they did win the election. If they hadn't won the election, they probably could not have expanded their power through the German control apparatus, regardless of the violence, deceit and terror.

Were the top Gestapo Leaders, for instance, sociopaths, "normal criminals", or merely operatives in a state? — Bitter Crank

It's hard to say they are criminals or sociopaths - criminal is largely someone who does something against the state (the law), and sociopath is someone with antisocial behaviour - not exactly the best descriptions. More like immoral operatives in the state.

I don't think a normal person could be in charge of Auschwitz, live there with his family, and be a normal person. Probably his wife couldn't either. The same thing applies down the line. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, I agree here. I think they could have started normal, but I think taking parts in such activities would have, over time, destroyed their souls.

But then, one has to ask themselves, can ANY highly ambitious, aggressive climber -- be it in the military, business, church, politics -- be entirely normal? — Bitter Crank

I wouldn't consider the likes of Ghenghis Khan, Alexander the Great, etc. as abnormal (if by abnormal we mean something negative). They had one quality/virtue, which in my view is highly to be praised - greatness of mind or dignity of character - surmounting great odds, risking their lives for something greater than themselves, courage, disregard for their own lives, enlightened folly to engage in a task of gigantic proportion + be succesful at it, and amazing organisational/leadership capabilities. Would I trust such a person? Obviously not 100%, but I generally don't see why not. I'd be more likely to trust them, than trust a common person for example - probably because I admire Alexander, but I don't admire a common person without getting to know them first.

1. To emphasize that the Nazi regime did not depend on psychopaths. Normal, fully human people operated the Nazi state. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, but as you yourself state, such people can only commit atrocious acts when blessed with the legitimacy of the mob or state. This at least makes us capable of understanding these actions. They are tragic and immoral, but we can nevertheless understand the situation.

2. To emphasize that there is no adequate punishment possible for the worse crimes. — Bitter Crank

Indeed I agree with you in the case of the Nazi regime, or in those cases where the atrocious acts are blessed with the legitimacy of groups. There is no way to undo the damage.

3. Appropriate responses to atrocity — Bitter Crank

In the case of those events I will agree with you. But the serial killer incident is very different. Here someone based on their own authority commit such an act. In this case the person can be punished. In the previous cases where the acts of the individual are blessed with the legitimacy of the group, the responsibility is divided and shared. In the case of the serial killer it's not. He has no excuses. An individual from the group has many excuses which reduce his responsibility.

Had it been up to me, I would not have executed the Nazis after Nuremberg. — Bitter Crank

I probably would. A victorious nation must establish legitimacy over the conquered, and slaying the leaders is one of the manners of doing this. I wouldn't have tortured them though. In their case, the responsibility was shared. Furthermore, not killing them gives them the potential chance of escaping and/or promoting their values - the way Napoleon escaped and came back.

I would have brought them face to face with the atrocities and crimes they committed again, and again. — Bitter Crank

How could you have done this?

Like I said, only genuine, human, and normal people can commit world-class atrocities and crimes against humanity — Bitter Crank

Yes only genuine, human, and normal people can do this SO LONG AS THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF A GROUP. These people are understandable though - we can understand their actions in light of them being given legitimacy by the group.

The Nazi state was not well run from an administrative point of view. The tool of terror didn't prevent government contract waste, fraud, and abuse. Parts of the Nazi regime worked OK, but other parts were sluggish, unresponsive, and inefficient. — Bitter Crank

Of course, but this is not to say Nazi Germany was irrational - it was just inefficient, but it's aims were rational, albeit twisted and evil. In the case of the serial killer it's his AIMS that are irrational.

It seems like what you object to most about the serial killer is (1) he doesn't feel remorse and (2) his atrocities are senseless. I think (2) is scary because it bars us from doing what we normally do in the wake of trauma - tell a story that explains what happened. Explanation yields understanding which yields the sense of control that the trauma suspended. If you understand what happened you feel more able to prevent similar traumatizing irruptions in the future.

But if an adequate explanation of an outburst is impossible, then we can at least find some solace in the source of that outburst being as horrified as we are. His or her horror would signal an impulse to stave off any repetition of what transpired. — csalisbury

Correct.

The serial killer offers neither palliative. He's a mute black hole which is unreachable. (The scariest version of Satan I can imagine is an old man (or young child) in an enclosed chamber, totally still, eyes wide open, transmitting evil into the world, but unreachable through language, almost insentient). He's an ineradicable black hole in those meaning/explanation-generating stories which make us feel safe and in control. Torture isn't about reforming such a person. It's a last resort in a control-crisis, a way of turning that black hole into an object over which we have total power. — csalisbury

Yes and for the most part I never claimed otherwise. Hence the purpose of it is to preserve the sacredness of the Justice system and of society - without it, a severe threat exists, which manifests through the behaviour and actions of the serial killer which threaten the security and stability of our society. Hence why I emphasised that it is almost a transcendental problem - nothing else matters for society BUT destroying such a threat.

The response to infidelity without remorse is similar. It's a panic response to the realization that love is never guaranteed and can always withdraw, no matter how perfectly you strive to deserve it. The desire to punish is an impotent wish to scare love so it will never leave us again. — csalisbury

Here you are wrong and the analysis is very shallow. It's not a panic response to the realisation that love is never guaranteed. You probably have a different conception of love compared to me - you must certainly think love is a feeling, whereas I think love is a movement of the will. But this notwithstanding - even if you were correct and love were a feeling - it does not require infidelity to end a relationship/love. When love disappears, you would tell the other person that you do not desire to be in a relationship with them anymore because you don't have the same feelings, and you would have a divorce (if you were married) and there would be no infidelity involved. Neither would there be anything wrong (apart from the cruelty) in that - it would be an honorable way to end the relationship, even though cruel. So the vulnerability of love is NOT what causes this response to infidelity, because such a response would not exist if one exited the relationship without infidelity. Rather the problem with infidelity is that it is a DECEPTION - it is cheating someone, it is putting them in disrepute, it is disconsidering them as a human being - and when this is followed by lack of remorse, there is a desire to punish it, so as to prevent/discourage such a wrong from happening in the future. As I have illustrated, there is an honorable and dignified way to exit the relationship - and it's not infidelity - which contributes to making infidelity so wrong. Infidelity harms another human being and degrades them, as well as degrading the person who participates in it. The problem with it is not one of insecurity - it is one of it simply being wrong and unjust towards someone else.

The world itself is a ceaseless and remorseless generator of senseless violence. Serial killers, if you like, are 'places' in which being reveals itself utterly denuded. — csalisbury

I disagree with this. You have a very technological interpretation of the world. My interpretation and worldview is poetic, and for me, sub specie aeternitatis, good triumphs. There can be no "senseless violence" without first there BEING something. So the creative act of existence is prior to the evil "senseless violence" that happens always after this fact. That is why, sub specie aeternitatis, and logically speaking, evil can never be primary - rather good always is. And this further exacerbates the problem of the serial killer. We feel it as a threat not only to society, but to the nature of the whole of existence!

I would respond to your other points, but I've been sufficiently shamed and must withdraw to nurse my wounds. — csalisbury

Okay perhaps I went a bit over the top on the adultery, my apologies (although there is a reason why this is a different thread, and I have not advocated for the same punishment with regards to adultery in this thread, which was opened after I thought about the idea in the other thread firstly - it's a bit strange to bring contents from other threads to here but OK, I will answer them). On reflection, it doesn't deserve the same punishment as the psychopath. Although the thing that is problematic in both is that the wrong-doer does not admit to having done wrong. What is further problematic in the case of the psychopath is that he has no reason for doing the wrong he does. At least the adulterer has a reason, even if it is a twisted and morally wrong reason. So yes, I would still advocate for torture in the case of the unrepentent serial killer as it threatens the sacredness and strength of our justice system in a way adultery doesn't, but no torture in the case of the unrepentent adulterer, although I would advocate as Ciceronianus described civil punishments, probably quite severe, of a financial nature, as well as public support of the victim of the adultery and disrespect for the adulterer.

Let me ask you differently: were you opposed to the death sentence that some of the Nazi leaders received during the Nuremberg Trials? Why or why not? And please consider that even the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to the crimes of these serial killers. At least, despite the immorality of everything the Nazi regime did, they had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. They had reasons for what they did, even if those reasons were wrong, misguided and evil. At least it made sense. What a serial killer does is so terrible that it doesn't even make sense!! There simply is NO REASON for the evil that they bring into the world - not even a wrong reason, nothing! — Agustino

Having said that, I retract calling you a liar on that point - my apologies once again. On the other points though, my case rests as it is :) . (as you see, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong, end of story - exactly as I have proven with the track record I mentioned in the post before. I'm one of the few people here who has admitted numerous times to being wrong, so it seems very strange to me that you would pretend it's the opposite - hence why you are lyin' csalisbury)

@Bitter Crank - I will respond soon to your posts! :)

Bernie Madoff stole $65 billion; he wreaked havoc in thousands of people's lives; he destroyed trust, security, and hope; he undermined confidence in the wealth management systems for his victims. He preyed on his own community, in many cases. He corrupted his own family. He lived a luxurious lifestyle on the savings of other people. His sentence was life w/o parole, but Madoff was fairly old already when he went to prison, so his time there will not be terribly long (probably). — Bitter Crank

Okay but the destroyed lives, etc. are the result of his irresponsibility, it's not like he wanted to destroy them for the sake of destroying them - the way a serial killer for example kills people for really no reason... That's what is outrageous about it - that something so terrible is done for no reason.

Torture degrades the culture that plans and carries it out, and does not achieve compensation in exchange for the degradation.

I can not further resolve my rationale for not torturing offenders. — Bitter Crank

This is a fair point. But if torture was introduced in the way I have outlined, you realise it would be used exceedingly rare (probably less than 0.001% of crimes) and even in those cases many would show remorse, even if faked, before it was used. What it would do is that it would prevent them for showing pride and arrogance in court for hideous crimes - it would simply deter that.

I follow your judgement, and I can understand why you think that way. I think this possibly combines with you not placing much value on the authority of the state, the sacredness of justice, etc. as I do - you place more value on not doing something degrading. I think it's very important for the state to show that to its people that it can keep them safe, and such criminals cannot undermine its efforts to keep the people safe and preserve justice. Fair enough though - although I would argue if someone like ISIS treats us like animals, and brutally kills, murders, and humiliates our people - then we have a right to do the same to them while defending ourselves, and should not try to treat them humanely, if they do not also treat us humanely.

I've added Gilles Deleuze as a historical philosopher who responds to Spinoza in particular @Pneumenon, and recommended the works ! :) Don't know how I forgot him!

No. Displaying a lack of remorse should be a contributory factor towards a harsher sentence, which it is. But the use of torture as punishment is barbaric and has rightly been prohibited by The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, of which there are 159 parties.

Your reactionary views, as ever, are detestable and misguided. — Sapientia

Your misunderstanding Sapientia is that the harshest punishment you can give is limited. Life in prison. That's it. But the atrocities of the crimes that can be performed is unlimited. How is that fair - how is that just?

But even ignoring that -- if there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion, then what justification is there to claim that torture is effective at reforming them over other methods? — swstephe

A proposed mechanism is the justification. As serial killers have very high pain tolerance, they do not suffer as much as everyone else from the "usual" pains of life. So torture could put in their minds the idea of how much their victims have suffered, and thus make them regret their actions. Do you think such a mechanism doesn't exist or is wrong? Why?

Actually, torturing crazy people sounds a lot like the unfortunate abuse of ECT or "shock therapy" in the 1930's. When it was first introduced, it ended up getting abused by many people as a form of punishment, (think "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest").. Although it apparently has some valid uses as voluntary therapy, when forced on patients found the same thing -- patients simply learned to hide their compulsions, fears and delusions rather than overcome them. (Now think "A Clockwork Orange" -- the ending of the movie is ambiguous, what was he "cured" from?). — swstephe

But this isn't just crazy people... it's more than just crazy people. There is a difference between those in "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest" and serial killers. Do you not think so? I haven't seen "A Clockwork Orange" yet so I can't comment, my apologies.

But thing is, from my perspective at least, someone who has a mental health problem is debilitated - that means they cannot do things that normal people can do. Serial killers on the other hand can function like normal people, except that they perform the most hideous of crimes. To me, they do not suffer of mental illness the way those in "One Flew over a Cuckoo's Nest" do. There is some degree of pure evil in the serial killer that is absent in the mentally ill person. One pities and feels sorry for the mentally ill person, but not for the serial killer.

On the other hand, some of our worst social programs have picked up on other skeins. Over the last century, conservative Christians have fought for and achieved in numerous places, the inclusion in public school science textbooks of divine creation (the 6 day kind) or the more elaborate "intelligent design" version (very much present tense). It is in the most strongly conservative Christian school districts that one will find the most intense opposition to sex education -- and by sex education I am not referencing any sort of pro-transgender, pro-promiscuity, pro-gay, pro-etc. curriculum. These curricula have focused on issues of critical personal relevance to "middle class" newly pubescent, heterosexual youth. They are not "sexual activity promotion" programs.

Slavery, and later harsh racial discrimination has been buttressed by scriptural references. The Ku Klux Klan (something of a precursor of the Nazi) was a pro-Protestant, pro-white, pro-nativist, anti-black, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish, terrorist organization who had a long and disastrous role in American politics. The KKK is pretty much dead now (thanks to the concerted efforts of the capable and sometimes crooked, repressive, sometimes right-wing Federal Bureau of Investigation).

This is part of "the American Experience" -- you may not have experienced anything similar to this. I don't know. But here, combining "Christian" and "Politics" has not always worked out well. — Bitter Crank

Yes, these are internal problems to religion and they must be fought against. And I think it's religious people first and foremost, not atheists, who must do this fighting and ensure that those of the same religion as them have reasonable and moral demands.

Okay, thanks for your input @Ciceronianus the White! It has expanded my knowledge of legal matters from the perspective of a lawyer.

Pain and harm. By legislative act, practically speaking. Legislatures must determine what is or is not criminal conduct. A policy decision must be made--should or should not sexual infidelity be criminalized? Is it desirable to assign to law enforcement, the court system and jails the task of monitoring the sexual activity of those married and, if they are sexually active with those outside the marriage, arrest and prosecute and on conviction incarcerate them or assess a criminal penalty? I would say no.

As to civil remedies, I had in mind the impact on court decisions related to property division and custody. Where breach of promise actions are allowed, it's my understanding that compensatory damages (financial damages for losses incurred and personal damages to reputation and injury to feelings and health) are allowed. — Ciceronianus the White

Well compensatory damages should be allowed because one party may be hurt by the divorce, and it's just not fair to ask them to deal with it, while the other party is free to do as they please with little or no consequence. Justice just has to be done.

In the wake of tragedy we feel all sorts of powerful emotions. It isn't "bad" to have feelings, even feelings of hatred, rage, and such. What is bad is turning those hot feelings into policy (torturing the convicted). — Bitter Crank

I agree in all cases except the cases I have described in this thread. An eye for an eye - the punishment must be adequate for the offence. When someone does such a grave offence, do you think life-prison is adequate as a punishment? :s

Bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people. Life is not only not fair, sometimes it is downright awful. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but in human society we have a duty to prevent the behaviour of our fellow citizens from becoming and being outrageous. That's why there exist all sorts of mechanisms to do this in virtually all societies.

The suffering you would like to inflict will not bring your loved one back. Nothing else will, either. The state is prepared to separate the proven-murderer from society. (Some states are prepared to do more than that, of course--I am also opposed to capital punishment). The friends and family of victims have to go on with their lives as best they can. The convicted and imprisoned will live out a very diminished life. — Bitter Crank

But is this sufficient punishment? Living a diminished life, after they have mocked our justice system, after they have destroyed in the most brutal fashion other lives, and they have caused unimaginable suffering for others? I can't imagine being satisfied about such a punishment if one of my children had been the victim of such a person.

We have had, for a long time, the necessary apparatus in place to imprison, commit, seclude. — Bitter Crank

But how is this proportionate punishment compared with the crime they have committed? Or you don't believe punishment should be proportionate with the crime committed? If so, why not?

Imprisonment is punishment. Nobody breaks into prison to enjoy the wonderful life there. — Bitter Crank

I have heard of quite a few people willingly go to prison. For some it's an upgrade compared to the life they were living outside. And that's the problem. Criminals should not enjoy their punishment, especially when their crimes are so serious.

What makes you think people give up their humanity by committing atrocities? The thing that makes life tragic is that it always ourselves who commit atrocities. Fully fledged, deeply human people commit very good and very bad acts. Very, very bad, sometimes. Only a human, possessed of humanity, is capable of achieving profound evil. I don't like it, but that's a feature of life. — Bitter Crank

That is just not true. Normal human beings cannot commit such atrocities as I have described in these posts. I'm not talking of your average murder or rape. I'm talking of the 0.0001% of crimes which are simply outrageous and inhuman. Regular, average crimes are terribly wrong, and must be punished, but they are neither inhuman nor outrageous.

I don't know whether the laughing murderer in the court room represents paychopathy or just plain madness. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe that life prison is sufficient punishment for such a person?

Keep slamming your hand into your face until it drives some sense into your head. — Bitter Crank

Well quite honestly... what does my proposed punishment have to do with Hitler who mass tortured innocent people in the most brutal of fashions, etc.? And if it doesn't have anything - why are you bringing it up? It's quite offending to associate my proposals with the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. I have not proposed the mass killing and torture of innocent people - but rather of only the most hideous crimes, for which there just isn't another means to make the punishment proportionate to the degree of the crime. Do you disagree that those crimes I have been talking about are the most hideous possible?

Let me return the favor; this is a piece of a skit I heard on the radio a long time ago, probably before you were born. The end of times have arrived and God is busy sorting out the wheat from the chaff. Various groups are called forward and sent either to the left (chaff) or the right (wheat). "Moslems -- yes, both kinds. You go the left. Jews. You go to the right; welcome. Zoroastrians, you can go to the right too. Christians, to the left. Sorry, you were mistaken." — Bitter Crank

I don't think any religions are wrong. I think atheism is wrong, I think forms of theism and polytheism, etc. are attempts to relate to the divine, so although some could be perfected, none are completely wrong. It's not black and white, the right answer :) I expect the good Christians, good Muslims, good Hindus, good Buddhists, etc. all of them to be in Heaven, and I certainly hope I will meet all of them in Heaven. Even good agnostics/atheists may possibly be in Heaven. And by the way, this is consistent with Christian doctrine - read Catholic Karl Rahner and his notions of "Anonymous Christianity" :D . As Jesus said, it's softness of heart and sensibility that saves one from the one and only sin which can never be forgiven - hardness of heart. In the same sense, because of the hardness of their hearts, the rapacious criminals described in my post deserve the worst of punishments.

I'm beginning to think arguing with Agustino is a fool's errand. I don't think I've ever seen him change his stance based on input from others on a forum (a change of opinion has to be sanctified by a genius like Spinoza or Wittgenstein). — csalisbury

As the Donald called Ted Cruz, I will call you: lyin' csalisbury - what the fuck is this then, please explain to us and don't run away like a coward:

Not exactly, but in discourse we treat each other's affirmations ("There is a cup") as if they were "The other person think there is a cup". Of course we treat our own affirmations as if they were really true (at least most people do). I would advise on some caution though. When someone claims I remembered something incorrectly, or I didn't see something right, I agree very easily with them and admit that I may be wrong - I doubt my perceptions quite quickly - perhaps too quickly.

I think the difference is not something that can be said as Wittgenstein put it. It can only be shown. For example, you walk in the room and tell me: "there is a cup on your nightstand". I will not take it to mean "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" - I will take it to mean "there is a cup on my nightstand". But if you walk in the room, and you say "there is a cup on your nightstand" and Emily at that point looks up and says "no there isn't a cup there" - then I will treat it as "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" and associate it with "There may be a cup on the nightstand". Meaning is use, and it depends on context, and the unspoken "rules" of interpretation.

Regardless, my affirmation still stands if we remove the "I think" from both meanings.

"I agree that there is a cup" = Meaning 1 + Meaning 2
Meaning 1: There is a cup
Meaning 2: Me and someone else think the same thing

"There is a cup" = Meaning 1
Meaning 1: There is a cup — Agustino

Here Michael's criticism makes me deny what I previously said, and change my opinion.

↪Bitter Crank Thanks BC, these facts are very interesting. Was not previously aware of many of these before! Also, I stand corrected regarding the 50%. — Agustino

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/8087#Post_8087

↪TheWillowOfDarkness I agree, your criticism is correct. I stand corrected. — Agustino

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/5633#Post_5633

I have always changed my views if there was rational criticism. You have no rational criticism except that you don't think it sensible to punish the worst criminals with torture. Why not? And it's a sensible question to ask, so please don't give me some stupid rhetoric about Hitler torturing Jews, etc. - these were fucking innocent people and they don't compare with the crimes I have described. LIAR

There's a barely restrained sadistic anger coupled with omnipotent fantasies of brilliance (he said somewhere he felt 180 proof was almost at his level.) — csalisbury

No my friend, there is no anger - it's just rationality which you have done nothing to combat or disprove. All you are doing, like in this post, is pointing fingers at something you don't like, which really is shameful. If you consider my posts reflect sadistic anger, I think you should book yourself to see a psychologist, show him my posts, and ask him whether it's a case of sadistic anger, or your mind has just lost the plot.

he said somewhere he felt 180 proof was almost at his level — csalisbury

Yes, because he has quite often changed my views regarding different things. He was, unlike you, rational. Even when we disagreed he was rational. In fact most of the time we disagreed - but he is someone I respect nevertheless, because he was devoted to the pursuit of rationality and most often we disagreed at those points where evidence spoke both ways, and it as only a difference of the heart that produced disagreement - not of reason.

He says women who cheat shouldn't be surprised when they get their heads bashed in. — csalisbury

Yes, just the same way one shouldn't be surprised that they get beaten up if they start swearing at random people on the street. This isn't to say that this SHOULD happen to them. I have never claimed that. So stop lying, and adding connotations which were never there.

I'm calling narcissistic personality disorder (of which there is a common religious/moral variant) with psychopathic tendencies (everyone knows the stereotype of the serial killer obsessed with punishing the sinful wanton woman. It's worth noting the occasion for this thread was his comparison of adulterative unrepentant women to unrepentant murderers over on the LBGT thread. "Do you understand what you did was wrong now!?") — csalisbury

Yes Doctor csalisbury, you are so right; that stereotype by the way is wrong - serial killers do not have a notion of sin or morality generally.

It's worth noting the occasion for this thread was his comparison of adulterative unrepentant women to unrepentant murderers over on the LBGT thread. — csalisbury

Yes because there is something highly aggravating about doing a wrong and then not admitting it. But I have proposed torture in this thread for the worst crimes (probably 0.0001% of all crimes) - NOT for adultery for that matter. So again, you are a LIAR.

I recommend preemptive torture as a curative. (Or at least a safe and consensual S&M partnership to redirect and release.) — csalisbury

You have a diseased mind to recommend torture for a man who simply thinks that the worst crimes should be punished by torture - this must be that totalitarian mechanism of discipline that you want applied to everyone who rationally disagrees with you. Shame on you. Shame on you for the personal attacks as well. You ought to be embarrassed for being such a liar, especially on a philosophy forum, where matters have to be discussed rationally and honestly, without ad hominem attacks. I think Jack Nicholson's quote fits you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

EDIT: And by the way, I have responded to your points. If you think I am wrong please go find my previous post addressed to you and respond rationally. Stop hiding behind these ad homs. Also - before you embarass yourself even more, please, I beg you, do some reading about serial killers. You have no knowledge. All you have is disgusting prejudice. Like serial killers had bad childhoods - quite many of them didn't actually (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-superhuman-mind/201212/the-making-serial-killer). So please...

No sympathy for the victim's family?! False. Society abandons them?! False. Life imprisonment for the criminal and support for the victims isn't abandonment. — Sapientia

That is why many of the victims feel scared and afraid of the world, and all that society gives them is counselling, which really doesn't help them practically speaking. They just want to see justice done, or the punishment of the criminal correspond to the gravity of his offence. A life prison sentence, does not do justice to the crimes that such a person has performed. Let me ask you differently: were you opposed to the death sentence that some of the Nazi leaders received during the Nuremberg Trials? Why or why not? And please consider that even the crimes of Nazi Germany pale in comparison to the crimes of these serial killers. At least, despite the immorality of everything the Nazi regime did, they had the legitimacy of a state, of a legal system, of a people. They had reasons for what they did, even if those reasons were wrong, misguided and evil. At least it made sense. What a serial killer does is so terrible that it doesn't even make sense!! There simply is NO REASON for the evil that they bring into the world - not even a wrong reason, nothing!

For your own psychological good, extirpate from your mind this desire to torture. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think it is bad to want to punish such heinous crimes? Don't you find it outrageous that such things can happen? And don't you think that those who commit them deserve to suffer for it? What would you do if this happened to one of your loved ones? If someone did this to them? Would you not want to see them punished? Will you not be happier if they are punished?

Also I do not have a desire for torture - as I have repeatedly said, I find it highly immoral to torture anyone (for example the State torturing someone for information - i find that immoral), EXCEPT in the case of the most heinous crimes. So I don't see how I have a desire for torture. I just have a desire for justice, because I want torture to be used for the purposes of justice. Do you think justice can be done in such cases without torture? If so, how?

Revelations 21:8... But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” [You said this you especially liked this book; do you suppose you will be put in charge of the burning sulfurous pits?] — Bitter Crank

Do you think there will not be joy in Heaven when Satan is destroyed and Justice is done by God at the Final Judgement? I think there will. And no, I didn't say I especially liked that book, I said I read that book first, and found it essential to see the whole character of Jesus. It's not one of my favorite books from the Bible though.

You have now publicly stated your desire to see such practices resumed. — Bitter Crank

*Facepalm*
I fail to see what the examples you have offered me have to do with me. Does it sound to you like I'm advocating for any of those? Seriously now... this is the biggest strawman I have ever seen. I'd agree with the actions from exactly ZERO of the examples you have provided, and I find all of them morally reprehensible to a high degree.

As for "Vengence is mine saith the Lord!" Let me tell you a joke :D ... There was a priest in a small town, he dedicated his whole life to God, praying, growing the numbers of his Church, saving others from sin, etc. One day, a big flood happens. Just the first level of the Church gets flooded, and the priest climbs to the second level and starts praying. A boat comes "Come with us Father, we're here to rescue you!" "No, no, the Lord will deliver me!". So they leave, and the rain continues, and now the second level of the Church gets flooded as well. The priest climbs to the third, and even more fervently prays for his salvation. Another boat comes "Father, Father! Come with us, we have come to rescue you!" "No, no, I don't need human rescuing, the Lord will deliver me". The rain doesn't stop, the third floor gets flooded, and the priest finally climbs to the top of the bell-tower, where he keeps praying even more fervently. A helicopter comes: "Father, Father, the water will soon reach up to you and you will die! Let us rescue you!" "No... the Lord will deliver me, I have Faith!". So they leave, the water comes, takes the priest away, and he dies. He goes to Heaven, finally meets the Lord, and very puzzled he asks: "Lord Lord, why hast thou forsaken me?" And the Lord answers: "Forsaken you?! I have sent two boats and a helicopter after you!" ;)

Same thing with justice in these cases - God acts through human beings, on Earth at least! :)

And to clarify - I propose torture to apply as a possible punishment to heinous crimes which don't include your average day rape, murder, etc. They include those few cases of murder and rape which are such moral abominations that the mind recoils even at the thought of how much the victim must have suffered. And no, such crimes where torture would apply would be CLEAR cases. The person responsible would simply HAVE TO admit to the crime in some way and make a mockery of the court and of their victim (or their families) for this to happen. It would only be reserved to some serial killers and the like. I can't understand how you can have sympathy for such a criminal and have NO SYMPATHY for the poor victim's family which must suffer such an unjust fate... This to me is a moral atrocity. How can society abandon people who have been hurt so much by such a terrible crime?

Psychopaths can lie. — darthbarracuda

Yes, if I lie in this way, no torture for me, just prison.

It's not really about how we can possibly be wrong in these kinds of situation. It's that the law is not written in a case-by-case basis. We don't get to say that one person is obviously guilty while someone else is obviously innocent. Executing an innocent person cannot be excused. The desire for vengeance does not excuse an innocent's execution. We may be confident that x is guilty of death, and in fact x is indeed guilty, but executing x leads to the slippery slope of executing y, who is innocent. No executions, period. — darthbarracuda

I disagree that this is necessarily the case. Torture should be kept for those cases which are crystal clear only.

What if you're actually innocent? Wouldn't you be coerced to admit to a crime you didn't commit? — darthbarracuda

Impossible given the descriptions I have given because if I am actually innocent I would not be mocking the victim's family, defying justice, etc. I would simply state that I feel very sorry and concerned for the family, but I really am not the criminal.

By killing someone you extinguish all potential for redemption. By executing someone, you are giving up on them. "It's time to die, because we hate you and can't/don't want to see you redeemed." — darthbarracuda

What makes you think everyone can be redeemed based only on external forces?

In fact, @darthbarracuda, why would you, or anyone else, feel remorse and guilt for killing such a criminal? Do you think he somehow doesn't deserve that kind of punishment?

The murderer wouldn't go unpunished. But they wouldn't be killed or tortured, either. Sooner or later you are going to end up torturing or killing an innocent person. It's happened before and it will happen again if we continue to allow it to. — darthbarracuda

Again - if they admit to the crime, and laugh at the justice, and mock the family... how can we possibly be wrong?

Our inability to make peace with others and swallow our desire for justice and vengeance creates even more conflict. — darthbarracuda

In some cases - in other cases, not fighting for justice is seen as weakly and cowardly, or even worse, immoral.

How do you determine when someone is able to be rehabilitated vs when they ought to be slaughtered like the dogs they are? Your gut feeling? Your (biased) desire for justice? — darthbarracuda

Simple. If they show remorse during the torture, then they will be put in prison and will undergo the usual punishment. If they don't, then they will be killed.

There are ample stories of functionally normal people in guard positions in prison who executed those on death row and later live lives of severe depression and guilt, or guards who just couldn't do it and were replaced by those who apparently could. — darthbarracuda

Yes - many times because the guards were not aware who they killed, or because they were forced to kill innocent people, and such reasons. But there are also many stories from war, with people who have killed hundreds of other people, who feel little or no remorse, especially when they knew they were fighting for a just cause.

So, I think it's likely the threat of torture would merely compel the convicted to "repent" whether they were remorseful or not, and I doubt that is something you'd find satisfactory. — Ciceronianus the White

I do find that satisfactory, at least they won't mock the family, and humiliate them even more, and mock the entirety of the justice system as well - that alone, in that is preserves the sacredness of justice, and the dignity of the victim's family is enough. Even if they fake their repentance - that's still much better than the abomination of defying the justice, and maintaining in words that there's nothing wrong with what they've done. Also, if they avoid torture, it doesn't mean that they will avoid the prison sentence that happens anyway.

You don't usually kill someone for mocking your family. — darthbarracuda

If somebody mocks your family by raping and brutally murdering someone from your family after having subjected them to the worst kinds of suffering imaginable, and then feeling proud of it, then you sure as hell kill them, even if the law were absurdly to refuse to punish them. This question is of a transcendental nature now, regardless of the earthly law. Why do you think that many people, when done grave injustices, resort to taking matters into their own hands, and some of them are even willing to go to the end of the earth and to sacrifice their own lives to ensure that justice is done? There is something in the human spirit which pushes them to do this - it's apparent in much of our literature, where such cases are best exemplified.

We certainly can't allow this behavior to continue. But we shouldn't stoop to their level and execute or torture them. This doesn't do anything but provide a catharsis. The psychopath isn't going to learn by torture, and she can't repent after she's dead. — darthbarracuda

I provided a mechanism via which they could learn from the torture. Do you disagree, and if so why? Second of all, in the case that they just refuse to repent, killing them in a brutal way will provide, as you say, the catharsis necessary for our social institutions, for our justice, for our safety, etc. to maintain their value and sacredness in our eyes - a thing which is required for us to have a society at all.

Interestingly enough, it is easy to condemn someone to death, but far more difficult to actually do it. You either have to be a psychopath yourself to enjoy torturing or killing the guilty, or you end up with a lot of guilt, remorse, and suicidal thoughts. — darthbarracuda

This is false. I think many people would enjoy torturing such a person. I for one would. Do you think I'm a psychopath? I think there is ample evidence that human beings have a sense of justice, which they are willing to go to their own death to ensure that it is not violated. I wouldn't enjoy harming or torturing or anything even close to that a normal, regular criminal. In fact, punishment for such criminals should not really be or be called punishment, it should be rehabilitation. But when it is one of those extreme and hideous crimes, that's an entirely different story.

Just knowing that a person "got away" pisses us off. It's not fair. It's not how we want things to be. But I wonder if you would be willing to kill someone yourself to restore order. You might walk away from the kill wondering if you just made things worse. — darthbarracuda

I would do it... I would feel glad and proud for helping maintain the order and stability of my society, and doing justice to the poor victims who have unlawfully suffered such a tragic fate. I could at least ensure them that the person who did this to them has received what they deserved, even though I cannot bring back their loved one, or undo what they've had to go through.

"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And by the way - I doubt that MA was referring to this kind of inhumanity. This is almost beyond inhuman. It's inhuman to slaughter undefended children in war. That's an inhuman action. It's inhuman to slaughter them while making a game out of it in war, yes. But to do so in society and not even admit that it is a wrong?? That is - no words for it...

Do you suppose people pop out of the womb with identical clean slates, and that somehow some mystical metaphysical soul has the capability of choosing without constraint from causality? — darthbarracuda

I'm unsure what exactly you are asking by this, but I will tentatively answer no.

I would argue that by doing so we are simply reassuring ourselves that we live in a rational, just world when we in reality do not. — darthbarracuda

Yes but we must do this in order to uphold our social standards and the integrity/legitimacy of our societies. Some values are sacred - like justice - they cannot be mocked.

A psychopath laughing about killing people for fun threatens the very foundation of our society. It shakes us to the core, and is therefore a prime target for the media. We feel inexplicably drawn to this menace in order to try to figure out why the psychopath is laughing and how this can fit in our view about a rational, coherent world. — darthbarracuda

Exactly! This is exactly why we must step down on it in the harshest way imaginable.

By punishing someone you are trying to get them to repent and assimilate back into society, back into the submerged group-think. — darthbarracuda

No I don't want to assimilate them back necessarily. I want to ensure that society as a whole survives - and to survive it must either crush them or assimilate them back.

More pragmatically, though, I am against torture and death penalties because we might be wrong in our judgement. — darthbarracuda

So if the guy mocks the family and laughs about his actions we can be wrong? -_-

For me it's a matter of logical consistency, of hypocrisy. Treating the inhumane as they treat others makes one inhumane also. That much is clear to me. Second, I would feel no satisfaction seeing a broken human being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. I'm not sure that constitutes justice. Civilised nations have long given up on barbarism in pursuit of better ideals, and I don't find your arguments convincing enough to regress. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Why? You treat others humanely because they are human. If they give up their humanity by committing such atrocities, why treat them humanly?

I think it's not past a criminals capacity to lie to save their own skin (perhaps literally in your justice system), or for the kind of psychopaths we are talking about to feign sorrow and regret convincingly. — WhiskeyWhiskers

If they feign it, they will still get the normal punishment not the torture. The torture still fulfills its role, even if they feign remorse to escape it. The thing is the mockery of justice that they make otherwise, and the mockery of the victim's family, and humiliation they subject them to - that is all prevent, and the law is uphold!

"When men are inhuman, take care not to feel towards them as they do towards other humans." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations VII, 65.

No doubt he would say the same about acting towards them. Sound advice from The Man. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Why would you think so? Also what do you think about the argument I have put forth?

So whether the criminal feels sorry or not for the actions he has done, and apologises or doesn't for them - you think that plays no role?

Sure, and if they repent immediately, set them loose immediately. It's just the stubborn ones we need to beat. — Hanover

I didn't say set them loose - just regular punishment if they repent. If they repent after the torture, you end the torture, and send them to prison.

From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury

This is actually not true. Most people who have awful and painful childhoods (in most cases these are intense emotional pains, not physical as well - rejection and the like) do not turn into serial killers or sociopaths. A large percentage of serial killers (close to 50%) have also had normal childhoods by all standards, and seem to be your average Joe. They generally display higher than normal intelligence, high tolerance to pain, lack of empathy, arrogance and pride (even if masked), repeatedly killing or beating animals, and are unwilling to recognise or admit to mistakes or wrong-doing <- this later one is key.

Also, as almost anecdotal evidence - the survivors of Awschwitz don't generally end up as psychopaths, serial killers or the like. Many actually have an acutely developed sense of morality and compassion for their fellow human beings.

Have you been in intense pain before, Agustino? — csalisbury

My worst suffering was a very serious intestinal infection which lasted me about 2 weeks and I had fever every night, the pain was continuous, and I couldn't even sleep because of the pain. I remember falling asleep and waking up with the pain - it was so bad at one point that I could barely keep my eyes open, but I still couldn't fall asleep because of the pain. It was a hellish experience while I was experiencing it. Looking back, it's of course not as bad as it felt while I lived it.

Do you think it would also be just for the perpetrators to be raped, as they themselves raped? — csalisbury

No, because that is just disgusting and inhuman for the one who has to do it - the punishment giver. Tortured, again depending on the gravity of the offence. If he raped someone, but he is very sorry about it, cries, etc. then I would say normal punishment, no torture.

From my understanding, a lot of serial killers and sociopath had really awful painful childhoods. — csalisbury

Also this is a very "Western" view, and recent evidence is actually starting to question this a lot. Also, physical violence generally plays an important role in the growth and development of children. For example, when children fight amongst each other, they learn out of that experience - they learn what it means to suffer, how they can make others suffer, how others can make them suffer, and so forth. Out of this they learn morality. They learn to respect others, not be exceedingly harsh, be courageous, value justice, etc.

Of course this is different than the type of violence coming from an adult towards a child (or for that matter the type of violence coming from a bully to a child) - because in that situation, the child simply is defenceless, and can do nothing but feel his own impotence. Especially if this violence is unjust and the child cannot perceive any reason for it, then he will be profoundly hurt by it, and this would be highly highly immoral. This is again the type of acts that may deserve torture as a punishment.

So whenever we say "there is a cup" we mean "I think there is a cup"? Then how can we ever (correctly) claim that "there is a cup" is a factual statement that is independent of what we think? Because in making this claim we're claiming that "I think there is a cup" is a factual statement that is independent of what we think. — Michael

Not exactly, but in discourse we treat each other's affirmations ("There is a cup") as if they were "The other person think there is a cup". Of course we treat our own affirmations as if they were really true (at least most people do). I would advise on some caution though. When someone claims I remembered something incorrectly, or I didn't see something right, I agree very easily with them and admit that I may be wrong - I doubt my perceptions quite quickly - perhaps too quickly.

I think the difference is not something that can be said as Wittgenstein put it. It can only be shown. For example, you walk in the room and tell me: "there is a cup on your nightstand". I will not take it to mean "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" - I will take it to mean "there is a cup on my nightstand". But if you walk in the room, and you say "there is a cup on your nightstand" and Emily at that point looks up and says "no there isn't a cup there" - then I will treat it as "Michael thinks there is a cup on my nightstand" and associate it with "There may be a cup on the nightstand". Meaning is use, and it depends on context, and the unspoken "rules" of interpretation.

Regardless, my affirmation still stands if we remove the "I think" from both meanings.

"I agree that there is a cup" = Meaning 1 + Meaning 2
Meaning 1: There is a cup
Meaning 2: Me and someone else think the same thing

"There is a cup" = Meaning 1
Meaning 1: There is a cup

Torture won't make most people feel genuine remorse, just an urgent need to stop the pain — csalisbury

Unless they are able to identify what they have done as wrong, agreed. But to identify an action as wrong merely requires the association of pain to someone else - or suffering, combined with the idea of them undergoing the respective action. I identify putting fire on a child's lap as wrong because I associate pain and suffering with the idea of putting fire on their lap, and I associate their pain and suffering with my own. It's a mixture of Hume's theory of ideas and Schopenhauer's compassion (fellow-feeling) as the basis of morality.

But since serial killers aren't like most people, and don't feel remorse for satisfying their heinous desires and easing their torturous pain, then.....maybe, unlike other people, under torture they'll feel genuine remorse instead of merely wanting to stop the pain? — csalisbury

I think many of them do not understand and cannot associate the suffering of others with their own suffering - hence no empathy. Also, many of them have remarkably high pain tolerance. So - if they could be hurt so much, they could begin to understand what others feel and how others suffer, and since they don't like their own suffering, especially to such high intensity, they could begin to form the idea that just like they are suffering in those moments, so too have their victims suffered - and just like they don't like it, neither do their victims like it. Hence they would repent.

So "there is a cup" and "I think there is a cup" mean the same thing? Then there is a cup iff I think there is a cup. — Michael

When you make that statement "there is a cup" it means "I think there is a cup". The statement "there is a cup" itself is purely factual and independent of what you think, but obviously that isn't the case when you make it - it doesn't have that meaning. I mean there are difficulties because you could be for example hallucinating a cup, etc.

I'm really not sure how to understand that. If "I agree that there is a cup" and "there is a cup" mean different things then the negation of the latter ("there isn't a cup") doesn't contradict the former. — Michael

Read my correction. "I agree that there is a cup" means what "there is a cup" means. It also means something more than just that. Do you not understand this?

"I agree that there is a cup" = Meaning 1 + Meaning 2
Meaning 1: I think there is a cup
Meaning 2: Me and someone else think the same thing

"There is a cup" = Meaning 1
Meaning 1: I think there is a cup.