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!

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.

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. — Agustino

The more I read the bios of the core Nazi group, the more undecided I am about whether the Third Reich was actually rational. On one level it was, on another level it wasn't. The united German state was still relatively young when the Nazi Party was conceived in the early 1920s, but there were various and sundry institutions which had been operating for a long time -- military, civil, industrial, educational, and religious organizations, administrative systems, etc. All of that stuff was typical, run-of-the-mill, rational.

To the extent that the Nazi Party occupied the previously existing institutions, these old institutions remained rational, if corrupted. 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.

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.

Were the top Gestapo Leaders, for instance, sociopaths, "normal criminals", or merely operatives in a state? Some writers have suggested that authoritarian principles were deeply imbedded in child-rearing and educational / training practices. If so, we shouldn't be surprised by the way the Nazis led and the way the German people followed.

Some of them had to be at least half psychopathic / sociopathic. (Some psychologists suggest that a little psychopathy is very helpful in top administrative personnel.) A psychologically normal person can hate a group of people. 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.

But then, one has to ask themselves, can ANY highly ambitious, aggressive climber -- be it in the military, business, church, politics -- be entirely normal? It gets kind of iffy. Take Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Scott Walker, any of the Bush clan, et al: Can one trust anyone who really wants to run the United States, Russia, China, Brazil--or Panama, for that matter?

Sometimes it seems doubtful.

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.

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.

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.

you must certainly think love is a feeling, whereas I think love is a movement of the will

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.

Rather the problem with infidelity is that it is a DECEPTION

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. 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.

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'm not sure what you mean by my interpretation of the world being technological? There are many types of poetry and in many of them good does not always triumph. I think I have a gallery of competing poetic worldviews (and a few scientific ones). Sometimes they harmonize and stay a while as hybrids, sometimes they clash and I feel an emotional or philosophical drive to try to work it out.

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?

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.

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. — Agustino

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.

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

Agustino is mutilating Spinoza here. Sub specie aeternitas refers to the infinite, that which is eternally true (or rather: that which is true regardless of time). It's "good" is not the ethical good but rather the coherency of the world at any point in time. The "necessary good" is that the world makes sense, not that it is ethical. As such there is no "creative act," no change in the world, which is impossible or makes no sense. The "inherent good" in creation refers to the logical coherency of all existence states.

Even an adultery committing serial killer is "good" sub specie aeternitas, in that it is a logical necessity that state is itself and possible. There isn't a world which can be "protected" from the existence of such a entity. If existence presents an adultery committing serial killer, we are powerless in the demand for the world to be otherwise. No matter how much we might wish existence was otherwise, no matter how much our feelings might insist that such an evil state must be impossible, we are stuck with the adultery committing serial killer. This is a bit similar to "divine authority" in many theistic beliefs, the notion of the inevitable world which "makes sense," just without the delusion it's ethical.

In the context Agustino is talking about, ethics, the world is not necessarily good. Frequently, the "good" sub specie aeternitas is an ethical abhorrence.

Alas, Agustino has not learnt this. He still thinks we can use logic to inoculate the world against evil, that ethical action is necessary for the world to make sense. He cannot accept there is sometimes evil and we can do nothing to stop it. That's why he treats ethics as if it is a question of "paying for" or "resolving" injustice, rather than of acting ethically.

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.

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

No, I wouldn't disagree. And we can have control over him or her by putting them in a maximum security prison. I think torture is a turn-of-the-screw (pun intended) that stems from psychological - not social - needs. Even if we have control of the serial killer, just the fact that he's still there, man, how chilling. Even killing him doesn't quite do the trick. But by torturing him, we (delusionally) feel as though we can transmute the senseless and uncontrollable into the eminently controlled. Just like the hero gets a victorious rush cutting a single head of a hydra.

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

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.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two quotes. How can crushing senseless evil be a re-enactment of the moment of creation if there could be no evil before creation? If the moment of creation was a triumph over something else, which elicited its wrath, then what it triumphed over would have to precede creation. (Idk if you've read Schelling, but if you want some fascinating discussion of the paradoxes of evil and creation, he's your guy.)

The delusion that we can do 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.

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

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 ;)

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.

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. — Agustino

Actually, it does help a large number of victims, both psychologically and practically. So, you're wrong to ignorantly dismiss it or attempt to understate its importance. And what better alternative do you have to offer? Torture the criminal? Are you joking? 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. I wonder why. My advice would be to seek guidance from better sources than ancient literature, or at least adopt a more sensible interpretation. 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.

A life prison sentence, does not do justice to the crimes that such a person has performed. — Agustino

You are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't just. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. If people like you were in charge, the world would be a worse place.

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

It's not about any particular case, it's about what the law should be; and my position is the same, regardless of any historical or hypothetical case you cite; regardless of whether there's a strong feeling that they deserved death or worse.

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? — Agustino

It's not just my alleged misunderstanding. Your allegation applies to every single one of the 159 national governments who became party to the UN Convention Against Torture, and every single subsequent government who has not sought to renege on that commitment.

How is it just? The clue is in the full name, which includes the words "cruel", "inhuman" and "degrading". Like it or not, we live in a civilised society. We don't crucify people or burn them at the stake - no matter how great the "sin".

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.

You are not the sole arbiter of what is and isn't just. — Sapientia

Ok, agreed.

If people like you were in charge, the world would be a worse place. — Sapientia

I don't think so.

It's not just my alleged misunderstanding. Your allegation applies to every single one of the 159 national governments who became party to the UN Convention Against Torture, and every single subsequent government who has not sought to renege on that commitment. — Sapientia

Yes, say this to the government of the US regarding Guantanamo.

How is it just? The clue is in the full name, which includes the words "cruel", "inhuman" and "degrading". Like it or not, we live in a civilised society. We don't crucify people or burn them at the stake - no matter how great the "sin". — Sapientia

We don't. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss what the law is, or that we should disrespect each other for having divergences on what the law should be. I think that the serial killer is "inhuman", "cruel" and "degrading" and thus fully deserves a punishment which includes "cruelty", "inhumanity", and "degradation". It's the results of the seed that he sowed.

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. — Agustino

Well, that just goes to show that if you measure something with a skewed tool, then you'll get skewed results - which may well turn out to be unsatisfactory to some, as in this case.

And if you're implying that your proposed "solution" is somehow an exception to these kind of problems, or is superior, then I think you're mistaken.

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. — Agustino

If you don't think of it as being a way to deal with being the victim of a crime, yet you criticise victim support, then what's your alternative? Or don't you have one? Your criticism doesn't seem constructive. Despite the fact that victim support in the form of counseling is no simple cure, it has been shown to be effective in a number of cases, and it is a good thing that it's there and available to victims of crime.

The whole "eye for an eye" approach to justice is often fairly characterised as overly simple, immature, and vicious. To have progressed so far only to go back to darker days would be to our detriment.

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. — Agustino

Yes, culture has progressed in many ways, and in many ways which are positive. I'm not going to bemoan the trend to frown upon backwards thinking. Here in the UK, for example, we have civil rights, the NHS, the minimum wage, universal sufferage, and we no longer have conscription, corporal punishment, and the death penalty.

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. — Agustino

No, that attitude of respecting the law despite its abhorrent nature is far too lax, in my view. Human rights violations should be taken far more seriously and not be subjected to the same standard as other laws.

And yes, one shouldn't commit a crime in a state where the laws state that the punishment is stoning if they don't want to be stoned; but no, it's not that simple, because the law might be unjust, the crime might be trivial, and the punishment might also be unjust. It would be unwise to do that, but if the crime was, say, adultery, and the punishment was stoning, then that law is unjust and abhorrent, as is any apologism on behalf of the state or religious authorities.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Do you disagree with proportionate punishment? If so, why? — Agustino

I disagree with unconditional proportionality in that regard, and, in the matter at hand, those conditions would of course include those in the UN Convention against Torture. But I also disagree with many other implementations of that form of punishment in other contexts, such as parenting, schooling, and in other social settings on account of it being, as I said, overly simplistic, immature, and viscous, as well as counterproductive.

Also, before you jump up with all sorts of nonsense, you should be aware that this passage is metaphorical. — Agustino

No shit. You don't say?

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. — Agustino

I did not claim that it was, according to the Bible, humans that drowned almost everyone. I was referring just to the act itself. The point was that the moral of the story implies that it was an act of justice.

And you're wrong: there is indeed genocide in the Bible, regardless of your sensibilities; just as there has been, for that matter, genocide in war. (It's classed as a war crime, for your information).

Yes, say this to the government of the US regarding Guantanamo. — Agustino

I have done, if I recall rightly. I've signed Amnesty International petitions.

We don't. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss what the law is, or that we should disrespect each other for having divergences on what the law should be. — Agustino

I haven't said otherwise, and I've remained civil enough throughout this discussion - unlike some. But some views, as well as some of the people who espouse them, deserve little-to-no respect. I feel under no obligation, for example, to treat an ardent racist or homophobe as respectfully as I would any other person. But this is a digression.

I think that the serial killer is "inhuman", "cruel" and "degrading" and thus fully deserves a punishment which includes "cruelty", "inhumanity", and "degradation". It's the results of the seed that he sowed. — Agustino

And I think otherwise. I think that that's the easy option, and involves a lack of restraint, and a caving in to savage-like emotions and vice. I think that we ought to be better than that and take a more virtuous path.

There is also no instance of genocide. — Agustino

1 Samuel 15:2,3

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

Hosea 13:16

16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open."

Psalm 137
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!” [referencing the destruction of the Temple)

8 Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
...
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

Actually, God has a habit of ordering the killing of children--all for the greater glory of his sublime divine self.

Psalm 136:10

to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.

Noted in "Gentiles in the Hands of a Genocidal God" (Christianity Today)

Joshua 6:21-27

21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

This, from Christianity Today: Can We Trust the God of Genocide?

But actually, that's the easy part. What's not easy is explaining what appear to be deliberate acts of divine cruelty. God's virulent rage. His hair-trigger vindictiveness. His apoplectic jealousy. Why would God make women and children pay for the sins of despots or the apostasy of priests? God's behavior at times appears to the skeptic, and even to the devout, as mere rancor, raw spite. There are passages in Scripture that make God look like a cosmic bully throwing a colossal tantrum.

In light of this, it's hard to stick to the claim that God is love—unconditional love, love that seeks and serves and suffers and gives until it hurts. It's hard to reconcile the New Covenant God revealed in Jesus Christ, who welcomes little children, eats with sinners, speaks peace to troubled hearts, calls us to love our enemies, and lets adulterers walk away unscathed, with the Old Covenant God, who lays waste to entire cities, lets babies be dashed on rocks, opens the earth to swallow families whole, smites his own priests for just touching holy relics, and encourages parents to stone their own children for acting up.

Here is a fun-scurrilous passage from a Abrahamic-religion-unfriendly blog:

Psalm 139

God is your Facebook stalker, the one who catalogues your every word and gesture, even, apparently if you go to hell. There are some more scary-stalker verses about how god watches us when we sleep, followed by an imprecation to please, please, please kill the wicked.

Well, that just goes to show that if you measure something with a skewed tool, then you'll get skewed results - which may well turn out to be unsatisfactory to some, as in this case. — Sapientia

Surprisingly, this is also what I want to say to you :)

And if you're implying that your proposed "solution" is somehow an exception to these kind of problems, or is superior, then I think you're mistaken. — Sapientia

No, I'm implying my proposed solution does justice.

If you don't think of it as being a way to deal with being the victim of a crime, yet you criticise victim support, then what's your alternative? — Sapientia

My alternative is to do justice, and to show the victims that those who hurt them will be punished as they deserve to be punished, and thus reassure them that the mechanisms of society exist to protect them.

Here in the UK, for example, we have civil rights, the NHS, the minimum wage, universal sufferage, and we no longer have conscription, corporal punishment, and the death penalty. — Sapientia

Right... you have the NHS LOL! :D Have you ever been seriously sick and had to be taken care of by... the NHS? I think you haven't... then you would certainly not be wearing the NHS with pride. Go book yourself in a public hospital in, for ex., Bulgaria, and you will see it's a hundread times more efficient than NHS.

A family friend recently almost died actually in the UK because of the NHS. And other people I know have also had terrible experiences with it.

the law despite its abhorrent nature — Sapientia

There is nothing abhorrent about the law, if it is against something that the citizen can avoid. If the law is against eating - that is abhorrent, because it's not something a citizen can avoid. If the law is against adultery for example, nothing abhorrent, because it is something the citizen can avoid.

Human rights violations should be taken far more seriously and not be subjected to the same standard as other laws. — Sapientia

What determines "human rights"? The UN? Pff. No, the laws determine what your rights and obligations are.

no, it's not that simple, because the law might be unjust, the crime might be trivial, and the punishment might also be unjust. — Sapientia

It's not a question of unjust. The law IS just, it may however be too cruel for the crime in question. But not unjust.

It would be unwise to do that, but if the crime was, say, adultery, and the punishment was stoning, then that law is unjust and abhorrent — Sapientia

Why is it unjust and abhorrent? I see absolutely nothing unjust with it. Adultery is something that can be avoided. Adultery is something that harms people. Therefore it deserves to be punished. Stoning may be too harsh of a punishment, agreed. But it does not follow that the law is unjust. It is just, because it punishes what should be punished. It may be cruel, because the punishment is too harsh for the offence, but that's all.

I did not claim that it was, according to the Bible, humans that drowned almost everyone. I was referring just to the act itself. The point was that the moral of the story implies that it was an act of justice. — Sapientia

It WAS an act of Justice. Those people, according to God, who was the supreme authority, and the supreme law, deserved that punishment. Who are you to say otherwise? Have you made thyself in some sort of God capable to judge everything according to standards of your choosing?

And you're wrong: there is indeed genocide in the Bible, regardless of your sensibilities; just as there has been, for that matter, genocide in war. (It's classed as a war crime, for your information). — Sapientia

Nope - war is war, and justice is justice as I will show regarding the examples BC has provided later. "War crimes" - there are no such things. It's a post-fact rationalisation for the winner to justify punishing the loser - "war crimes". NONSENSE! No crimes are possible in war, when the law is suspended. Cruelty is possible. So a group of soldiers should not go in a village and rape and murder all the women there. Not because this is a war crime, but because this is cruel and immoral, and it is inflicting unnecessary suffering. If they did so, I see no grounds to punish them by law - I do see grounds to disconsider them, and look down upon their immorality, chastise it, and even punish it - but such would not be justified by law - it would just be an action I take on behalf of a justice that is greater than the justice that can be provided by the law.

But some views, as well as some of the people who espouse them, deserve little-to-no respect. I feel under no obligation, for example, to treat an ardent racist or homophobe as respectfully as I would any other person. But this is a digression. — Sapientia

No arguments or values that are rationally supported deserve little to no respect. If someone comes here defending racism, you must show them that this is rationally unsupported. You can't disconsider them, because they may have a rationally valid argument. And if you disconsider them, then don't be surprised that the Saudis disconsider you when you go to their country for holding values that are opposite to theirs :) People need to respect each other, and stop with stupid prejudiced judgements.

And I think otherwise. I think that that's the easy option, and involves a lack of restraint, and a caving in to savage-like emotions and vice. I think that we ought to be better than that and take a more virtuous path. — Sapientia

I think that the serial killer is "inhuman", "cruel" and "degrading" and thus fully deserves a punishment which includes "cruelty", "inhumanity", and "degradation". It's the results of the seed that he sowed. — Agustino

Thanks for admitting you think the serial killer is NOT inhuman, cruel and degrading. This makes sense now that you wouldn't want an inhuman, cruel, and degrading punishment for him. Also, there is no "lack of restraint" or caving in to savage-like emotions. The punishment is done by law, not under the control of an emotional reaction.

Right... you have the NHS LOL! :D Have you ever been seriously sick and had to be taken care of by... the NHS? I think you haven't... then you would certainly not be wearing the NHS with pride. — Agustino

As you're appealing to anecdotal evidence I thought I'd butt in to say that several of my friends and family in the UK have been seriously ill, including very serious malignant cancers. They were all treated extremely well by the NHS, with the latest technologies and techniques, and by some of the best doctors in the field, and they got better. My experiences with the NHS have all been good.

As you're appealing to anecdotal evidence I thought I'd butt in to say that several of my friends and family in the UK have been seriously ill, including very serious malignant cancers. They were all treated extremely well by the NHS, with the latest technologies and techniques, and by some of the best doctors in the field, and they got better. — jamalrob

Maybe in terms of cancer treatment they may be effective, that I do not know. But what I do know is that their waiting queues are huge, many of their GPs don't know how to do a simple task such as read an ECG (even I can read and measure an ECG - and I'm not a medical professional - people I know now prefer to send me their ECGs online to read them instead of go to the NHS GP who assigns them to see a cardiologist, who they can see in a few months time - that's if they're lucky and they see the cardiologist and NOT a nurse), hospitals are disorganised and the right hand does not know what the left does - a doctor's personal secretary does not know what the department secretaries know for example, doctors treat patients as words on a computer screen, and instead of listening to the patient, they prefer to dwell on the records that exist in their computer, doctors order tests on the patients as they see fit, without discussing whether a test is necessary or not with patients (and most of the time it actually isn't), doctors have little or no intuitive judgement, and blindly follow procedures, etc.

It's single-handedly one of the worst healthcare systems I have ever seen or heard about. It's a total disaster, it may as well be worse than ObamaCare. I pray for all those who must be at the mercy of NHS, and I wish them the best of luck, because they will really need it.

The NHS may have one of the best technologies in the world, but it's of no use when you don't have sufficient doctors, when your doctors do not think - but rather are bureaucrats following procedures, etc.

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. — Agustino

That's a lie, Agustino.

The point about the "good" (sub specie aeternitatis) of the serial killer is that the state expresses an infinite meaning, in the coherency of substance, of infinite (ethically) evil. I was never talking about the serial killer in terms of an existing state, only in the meaning which is regardless of time - an expression of infinite (ethical) evil, which is always true of the serial killer.

Oh, and nothing exists sub specie aeternitatis, as is it is beyond time (finite states, existing states). There on no conditions of the world prior to the prior to time. The world has no "fall into time." Existing states have always been of time. That's what they are distinct from sub specie aeternitatis.

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

No, it's not. It's the demand of those who have not leant to deal with the pain of immorality, who think they are entitled to world in which there is no instance of immorality, who think they can somehow cage freedom such that immorality becomes impossible, who think they can get a perfect world by committing a genocide (I mean this both metaphorically and literally) of anyone who commits immoral behaviour.

It's a false idol. One where someone believes with all there heart in a perfection which is never there and who cannot see perfection when it occurs- they are always "trying for perfection" rather than doing perfection in an imperfect world.

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

Indeed. But you don't fully believe that. All the time you treat justice as if it is compensation to the victims, as if it is enacted to allow them to make sense of what's happened, about returning "honour" to the victim or giving a justification ( e.g. "Ah, now the killing of our daughters make sense. It was all for the torture of their killer ") for the presence of evil. You should know better than that. Evil never has a justification.

No, I'm implying my proposed solution does justice.

My alternative is to do justice, and to show the victims that those who hurt them will be punished as they deserve to be punished, and thus reassure them that the mechanisms of society exist to protect them. — Agustino

No, your alternative is to use torture, which you further assert constitutes justice. But as usual, it seems necessary to remind you that merely asserting that something is the case doesn't make it the case, and that your personal thoughts and feelings on the issue are not enough to support the sort of unqualified claims that you're prone to make.

To be continued, because I'm on a brief lunch break.

The NHS may have one of the best technologies in the world, but it's of no use when you don't have sufficient doctors, when your doctors do not think - but rather are bureaucrats following procedures, etc. — Agustino

Instead of torturing psychopaths, we could just send them to the NHS to be treated for tonsillitis or hemorrhoids--that'd fix em right proper.

All doctors (practically speaking) are stuck in a bureaucratic morass. How long you have to see a patient, what can be done for a patient, what can be prescribed to a patient, etc. is determined by insurance companies, state medicaid programs, medicare, the hospital's resources, [or their national equivalents] and (for a few) their great wealth.

I can't say that all patients get excellent care. Some get too much (too much / too many medications, inappropriately prescribed antibiotics, too many investigative procedures, etc.) and some get too little.

Doctors generally chose medicine because it was (sometimes still is) highly remunerative, it's interesting, some even do it because it helps people. Generalists are eventually swamped with too much information to absorb and utilize, and specialties tend to operate in silos. A brain surgeon might not notice that the patients leg was chopped off at the knee (a rhetorical point).

And in the long run, for most people, what determines health and longevity are things like adequate diet, public health operations (inoculations, clean air, clean water, etc), safe work places and highway safety, not smoking, not drinking excessively, and so on. The average longevity of white women in the US has taken a recent dip because of a big surge in opioid drug use among working class women resulting in fatal overdoses. White men are dying earlier too lately, not for lack of medical care but for the collapse of their former raison d'être (regular work, adequate wages, standing in the community, drugs, alcohol, etc etc) Neither decline (about a year in the aggregate) owes anything to inadequate medical care. (It owes a lot to an inadequate society.)

Instead of torturing psychopaths, we could just send them to the NHS to be treated for tonsillitis or hemorrhoids--that'd fix em right proper.

All doctors (practically speaking) are stuck in a bureaucratic morass. How long you have to see a patient, what can be done for a patient, what can be prescribed to a patient, etc. is determined by insurance companies, state medicaid programs, medicare, the hospital's resources, [or their national equivalents] and (for a few) their great wealth.

I can't say that all patients get excellent care. Some get too much (too much / too many medications, inappropriately prescribed antibiotics, too many investigative procedures, etc.) and some get too little.

Doctors generally chose medicine because it was (sometimes still is) highly remunerative, it's interesting, some even do it because it helps people. Generalists are eventually swamped with too much information to absorb and utilize, and specialties tend to operate in silos. A brain surgeon might not notice that the patients leg was chopped off at the knee (a rhetorical point).

And in the long run, for most people, what determines health and longevity are things like adequate diet, public health operations (inoculations, clean air, clean water, etc), safe work places and highway safety, not smoking, not drinking excessively, and so on. The average longevity of white women in the US has taken a recent dip because of a big surge in opioid drug use among working class women resulting in fatal overdoses. White men are dying earlier too lately, not for lack of medical care but for the collapse of their former raison d'être (regular work, adequate wages, standing in the community, drugs, alcohol, etc etc) Neither decline (about a year in the aggregate) owes anything to inadequate medical care. (It owes a lot to an inadequate society.) — Bitter Crank

Actually BC, what is known in the medical field as iatrogenesis is one of the leading causes of death in developed countries. We have replaced the priest with the doctor, and the doctor is a much worse healer than the priest in many instances, especially when the patient has as little medical knowledge as people in the Western world have. People can't read their own blood tests - this is unacceptable. Doctors have become some sort of Gods that we have to place our faith in - nobody questions the doctor because they are not capable - they don't have the knowledge to question them. And doctors make a huge number of mistakes, because our systems are flawed - we don't value excellence nowadays, and we reward all sorts of losers. People are not given the skills required to take care of their health - this should be taught, and tested with seriousness in all institutions of learning, just like mathematics is taught. It should be necessary to pass these classes to advance in one's study. Only strong, real leadership can fix the problems of the Western world in healthcare, as everywhere else. We have to be willing to reward real knowledge and skill, and punish laziness, inefficiency and the like. Doctors must be held accountable for their actions - right now, this is impossible. Doctors have formed a thick layer of bureaucracy to protect themselves, and nothing motivates them, no fear, to do a good job. That's why the jobs have become filled by such weak and ineffective people. It's a real shame.

This in fact is one other decadence of the Western world, a manifestation of the same attitude which has caused the moral decline I so often talk about. This progressive attitude has allowed the doctor to become immune to any and all accountability - just like in many places the adulterer has also become immune to accountability - this isn't right. We have to get our societies back in shape, and our people motivated to be excellent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK225187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4340604/

No, you're alternative is to use torture, which you further assert constitutes justice. But as usual, it seems necessary to remind you that merely asserting that something is the case doesn't make it the case, and that your personal thoughts and feelings on the issue are not enough to support the sort of unqualified claims that you're prone to make.

To be continued, because I'm on a brief lunch break. — Sapientia

Are you for real? I assert it constitutes justice? No. I argued it constitutes justice. Justice is giving to each what they deserve (read Plato's Republic). The serial killer deserves "inhumanity" and "cruelty". Thus justice is giving the serial killer what he deserves.

The point about the "good" (sub specie aeternitatis) of the serial killer is that the state expresses an infinite meaning, in the coherency of substance, of infinite (ethically) evil. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree. Sub specie aeternitatis there is no evil - only good. The fall into time (the fall from Paradise) is the beginning of evil.

Oh, and nothing exists sub specie aeternitatis, as is it is beyond time (finite states, existing states). There on no conditions of the world prior to the prior to time. The world has no "fall into time." Existing states have always been of time. That's what they are distinct from sub specie aeternitatis. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What's your argument for these statements?

No, it's not. It's the demand of those who have not leant to deal with the pain of immorality, who think they are entitled to world in which there is no instance of immorality — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it's simply the demand of someone who has identified that immorality is NOT right, and hence must be remedied.

who think they can somehow cage freedom such that immorality becomes impossible — TheWillowOfDarkness

No - as I have stated, if freedom is removed, then moral excellence becomes impossible. Hence freedom must be maintained - it's a supreme value, because it's a condition for the possibility of the other values.

who think they can get a perfect world by committing a genocide (I mean this both metaphorically and literally) of anyone who commits immoral behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No this is again false. The punishment of the serial killer does justice, it doesn't ensure that no immoral behaviour will ever happen again. That's not it's purpose.

One where someone believes with all there heart in a perfection which is never there and who cannot see perfection when it occurs- they are always "trying for perfection" rather than doing perfection in an imperfect world. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Except the perfection is there. We are always pulled towards perfection, sometimes we reach, sometimes we fall short - but what matters is that one CARES about reaching, and one is INTERESTED about reaching. What is happening in the modern world is that they don't give a shit about it anymore. You have the adultery committing husband, the murderer, etc. who do not CARE that they are falling short - so many young people in the Western world do not care - they just care about "fun" - as if fun ever had anything to do with perfection, morality, nobility or all the sentiments that represent the soul of men. This moral apathy is the problem.

Indeed. But you don't fully believe that. All the time you treat justice as if it is compensation to the victims, as if it is enacted to allow them to make sense of what's happened, about returning "honour" to the victim or giving a justification ( e.g. "Ah, now the killing of our daughters make sense. It was all for the torture of their killer ") for the presence of evil. You should know better than that. Evil never has a justification. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Evil never has a justification - the purpose of justice is not to provide evil with a justification. It's simply to give evil the rewards that it deserves.

Actually BC, what is known in the medical field as iatrogenesis is one of the leading causes of death in developed countries. — Agustino

Unfortunately, this is true--something like 100,000 deaths per year in the US are the result of medical errors. The current epidemic of opioid abuse, which is resulting in an epidemic of OD deaths is a consequence of incompetence. Doctors shouldn't be writing Rx's for strong drugs (like oxycontin) WITHOUT regular face-to-face follow ups. If the condition is bad enough to need many pain pills, then it is bad enough to see the doctor before you get your next Rx for painkillers. If pain isn't improving, maybe a different approach is needed.

Why so many?

I tend to chalk up both good and not good performance in many fields to the system in which a job is embedded. That isn't to say that individuals don't vary; some are incompetent and some are excellent. But IF the system allows incompetence, then... you'll get a lot more doctor error, regardless of competence.

Sure, I've been in doctors offices a few times and wondered about the guy's qualifications. But even good doctors make mistakes. And the patient isn't necessarily able to evaluate a doctor at first glance.

I do agree very much that people need much more practical medical literacy, and they should start building up this skill early on.

I do agree very much that people need much more practical medical literacy, and they should start building up this skill early on. — Bitter Crank

Yep - this would, according to me, need to be part and parcel of the education we offer children in our schools. But it would imply introducing the idea of discipline into people's lives. Children will need to be taught that they need to be disciplined and responsible - and we need to create an environment where doctors can be more easily approached, and be more willing to discuss, rather than decide all by themselves for people.

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

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, if you're right, and being has primacy over non-being, then the torture of a serial killer doesn't make any sense at all as a 're-enactment of creation'. The serial killer's evil acts are what solicit retribution. To attribute this kind of retributive triumph to 'creation' is to imagine creation as a response to an evil which it overcomes. If this is what creation is like, than evil would necessarily precede (or, at the very least, be coeval with) good, which you have clearly stated is not the case.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is, if you're right, and being has primacy over non-being, then the torture of a serial killer doesn't make any sense at all as a 're-enactment of creation'. The serial killer's evil acts are what solicit retribution. To attribute this kind of retributive triumph to 'creation' is to imagine creation as a response to an evil which it overcomes. If this is what creation is like, than evil would necessarily precede (or, at the very least, be coeval with) good, which you have clearly stated is not the case. — csalisbury

It's an allegorical or metaphorical re-enactment - not a literal one. Metaphorical it illustrates the primacy of Being over non-Being. Of course literarily this can't be illustrated, because it would mean to give at least equal primacy to non-Being which is impossible.