So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? If I license such behavior, then we will have no more laws. — Agustino
The same as finding all sorts of ways to license immoral behavior, because the consequences of not licensing it are too harsh. This is nonsense. It's not practical, and it removes the legitimacy and power of the law.
Agreed.So long as the penalty produces the desired deterrence effect, there is no need to increase its severity further than that, except maybe as a means for the legislator to obtain political gain through demagoguery. — Pierre-Normand
What use is a nice, tall building if the foundation is corrupt? This must be an example to all that the law must be followed.Deporting families that have been long established and that may have contributed positively to society may be a penalty that is unnecessarily draconian and that harms society more than the marginal gain from the enhanced deterrence effect would justify. — Pierre-Normand
I can see this working for some issues and not working for others.You are suggesting that it's not practical for there to be prescription periods for some forms of offence. — Pierre-Normand
This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. If that country had said for example, that it's willing to accept refugees, etc. it's a different story.It's also quite unclear that illegal immigration qualifies as immoral — Pierre-Normand
So you're telling me that I should license the breaking of the law for people who are smart enough to commit to actions, under cover, which makes them very difficult to remove from society, such as illegal immigrants getting married, and having children on American soil? — Agustino
This is not legislating morality, but rather following the laws of a country. Illegal immigration is harmful because 1. it breaks the laws of the country, 2. it disrespects the country and the authority of the law, 3. it promotes disobedience. Therefore, illegal immigration is always wrong - even if you're running away from North Korea it's wrong so long as the country you're running to doesn't want to accept you legally. — Agustino
Okay, agreed, I see your point.Suppose there would be a 20 years prescription period (maybe assorted with some other restrictions, such as the lack of a criminal record, say). It seems unlikely to me that a prospective illegal immigrant would chose to move to the USA with the hope not to get caught during the next 20 years, but would cancel her plan if there were no prescription period. Maybe there will be a precious few that would be thus influenced, but likely not enough of them to justify the harm caused to society by the forced deportation of scores of long established individuals and families. — Pierre-Normand
Indeed, I mean it is wrong only in-so-far as they are breaking the law. Of course people have a right to take sensible and reasonable actions to sustain their own lives and well-being. Such a sensible action, may be seeking to escape an oppressive country which will, sooner or later, kill you anyway. But the country you are running to, has a right to refuse you - they don't have to refuse you, and mercy should be shown, but nevertheless, you have to understand that you don't have a right to be accepted by that country - it would be a privilege, not a right. With the recent refugee crisis, etc. etc. too many people seem to think they are entitled to be accepted. For example, refugees come to the borders of European soil, and literarily demand to be accepted. That's not right. They can ask to be accepted, but they cannot kill themselves on our borders, starve themselves to death and so forth in an effort to force us to accept them. That is wrong. It's like me going to the Saudi Arabian borders, and demanding that I be let in, lest I shall starve myself on their borders and show the whole world how inhuman they are for not accepting me. Emotional blackmail is wrong.This seems to imply that, on your view, some people's choice not to suffer and die miserably is wrong because their only means to avoiding an undeserved death constitutes a misdemeanor and is disrespectful of the law. Or maybe you just mean "wrong" pro tanto. — Pierre-Normand
And I mean, what would you do in that situation if you were Carson? I would have a similar cautious stand on the issue. One cannot start blaming the policeman who shot the person prior to the investigation. — Agustino
I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven.You once again mention justification when there is no disagreement about justification. You also mention Mahatma Gandhi, who Russell Brand himself mentions in the video as someone with whom he shares similar views on violence. I can't speak for Russell Brand, but I'm guessing that he thought that it was understandable given human nature, which is far from perfect and sage-like. Those affected by the shooting were understandably angry and outraged and no doubt felt a sense of overwhelming injustice which compelled them to take the actions that they took. If you don't think that that's understandable, then you're too far removed from human nature. It's important to remember that ideals are just that: ideals. — Sapientia
When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no?His caution is selective. He wasn't cautious in his choice of comparison between homosexuality and beastiality, nor with his choice of analogy between a basic mathematical summation and a controversial social issue. — Sapientia
I agree with it in this sense. I don't agree with understandable in the sense of saying that they should be forgiven. — Agustino
When talking about moral matters and teaching a moral lesson, it is different than when having to take a stand on an issue that is still being played out in the world no? — Agustino
Yes, forgiven after they face the consequences that the law requires them to face for committing acts of violence etc. Not forgiven in the sense of not being punished for what they've done.That seems like a hasty and ill-considered judgement. Forgiveness should be conditional, and they should be granted at least that much. But even if they are unrepentant, their actions should be judged in light of the circumstances and context. They would certainly pale in comparison to the alleged long-term endemic and institutional racial injustice, as well as it's dire consequences, which seems to be being wilfully overlooked or dealt with softly by those in power. — Sapientia
Agreed. Do you think illegal immigrants should be allowed to freely come in whenever they want?Unless you subscribe to some totalitarian pseudo-morality, Agustino, laws are not necessarily good or right, and the most interesting political debates are about how the law should be changed. — jamalrob
was twenty-five years ago that America defeated communism and any ideas of socialism with it. Yet, here we are today with a serious Democratic candidate arguing, successfully, for socialism in America. Isn't that rather amazing? — Question
I see the emergence of Bernie and Donald not to be a sign of the remarkable human spirit, but as evidence of the law of entropy in action. Why you can only see the left side of the ledger and not the right seems like selective analysis. — Hanover
First we had G.W. and that resulted in Obama and now we're getting Trump. I just see the pendulum that used to swing slightly left then slightly right swinging a bit more wildly. — Hanover
Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question
Ending two disastrous wars in an even more disastrous way that has left the Middle East in tatters and gave rise to ISIS...Ending two wars isn't an achievement? — Question
ObamaCare has done absolutely terrible for people, and has greatly diminished the quality of services.Introducing comprehensive healthcare reform? — Question
I don't recall such reactions even from the left against Bush. — Question
Obama has been a great US president. There is no doubt about that in my mind. The favorability of congress amongst the American public as of recently speaks for itself. — Question
But, I have to ask, as you sound Hegelian in these posts. Do you really think that Trump and Sanders are a reaction to Obama or rather the inherent conservatism, as you've pointed out, built into the U.S.' political system? — Question
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.