This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
The specific numbers provide support, but not the only support, for the obvious point that human justice is fallible. those who support the DP must contend that it is such a great good that it outweighs the inevitable execution of an innocent.
I'm pretty sure I've already explained the error of your (of both of you) pseudo-opposition to the death penalty -- and which explanation includes the rationale for my use of "pseudo-" here -- but, of course, you paid no attention to it, much less gave thought to correcting the errors of your position.And I'm pretty sure that no one whom you want to demonize actually supports the death penalty. Rather, we support justice and oppose injustice ... which means that we cannot follow your example in mindless blanket opposition to a just death penalty (except, of course, for those unprincipled "special circumstances" in which your sort approves it).
I'm absolutely sure that you've never explained anything, in your entire life.
Why argue when you can just accuse the other guy of intellectual dishonesty?
Why argue -- and, more importantly, why attend to arguments which show what you do not want to knw -- when you can just *be* intellectually dishonest and then whinge when it's pointed out to you?If you want me to stop pointing out that you are being intellectually dishonest, then simply stop behaving that way.
I am still horribly unclear with respect to what the charge of intellectual dishonesty amounts to. What is intellectual honesty? Until we clarify our terms, the charge of intellectual dishonesty is mere name-calling. We need to prove that the idea of intellectual honesty can be clearly defined, and that it is a virtue.
Gordon is right as usual.
BDK: "Gordon is right as usual."Actually, he's not.GK: "The specific numbers provide support, but not the only support, for the obvious point that human justice is fallible."This is right ... and all-but trivial. As though we need "studies" to tell us that human fallibility affects everything we do.Or, to be more precise, this is *almost* right, for this sort of phrasology is frequently used by the sort who vociferously deny that there is some innate moral flaw in all human beings, who vociferously assert that such errors or problems are to be laid at the feet of "society."GK: "those who support the DP must contend that it is such a great good that it outweighs the inevitable execution of an innocent."This is *not* true. And it *may* be an example of intellectual dishonesty. On multiple levels.
VR: "I am still horribly unclear with respect to what the charge of intellectual dishonesty amounts to. ..."Really? I'd have thought that someone in your line of work ought to be quite familiar with the concept and be able to recognize examples. And know to avoid it.Also ... oddly ... I didn't actually use the phrase "intellectual dishonesty." Rather, I described an instance of it (potentially two, in fact) and you appear to have recognized that description and supplied yourself the term denoting it.VR: "What is intellectual honesty? Until we clarify our terms, the charge of intellectual dishonesty is mere name-calling. We need to prove that the idea of intellectual honesty can be clearly defined, and that it is a virtue."As an example and quite depending on what you're attempting, the above may well be an example of intellectual dishonesty.Even if one indeed doesn't know what the terms "intellectual honesty" and "intellectual dishonesty" mean, how can one honestly question, much less deny, the general moral obligation to be honest? Does not the very act involve a certain contradiction in terms? --- "Honestly, I think dishonesty is the best policy!"
After all, the word "intellectual" in the terms "intellectual honesty" and "intellectual dishonesty" is merely the modifier: it tells us what specific sort of honesty or dishonesty is afoot.
Okay Ilion, I will play:I have to reconstruct your argument, but if I understand it correctly you claim: Since human decisions are fallible in general, there is no reason to use such fallibility as a reason to restrict the authority of the state w/respect to the death penalty (after all, all punishments are subject to the same fallibility)Response: other punishments do not have the finality of the DP. You can let someone out of jail, but you can't let them out of the grave.You don't explain why you support the DP in general, but I am guessing it has something to do with a retributive theory of justice. Query: is this "eye for an eye" thing supposed to apply univesally? would you torture tortuers? what is the appropriate punishment for prostitution (assuming you think it should be a crime) on this theory of justice. how about people who kill multiple times? Whether these considerations are sound are not, they hardly justify the ad hominem of "intellectual dishonesty'
Post a Comment