[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)
Joe Campbell
philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 19:04:28 PDT 2010
It's there but you've got to look. Joe
On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:20 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
wrote:
> Once again, you seem to be all over the place. I'll try to play along.
>
> "I am not the only one to realize that Donovan is Dale, or Doug, or
> whomever."
>
> Because someone else shares your speculation, it must therefor be
> correct?
>
> "I'm not the only one to notice a sudden difference in style and
> content"
>
> Therefore, the only other person it could be is Courtney?
>
> "There is a lot more proof of this than most of the negative claims
> you've made about me."
>
> Then why is it you can't provide us with any? The only negative
> claim I've ever made about you is that you're an emotional dish rag,
> flapping in the breeze of the topic de jour. This requires no proof
> on my part as its plain to see every time you elect to inject
> yourself into a topic on which I post.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 4:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>
> Coward it is!
>
> Nothing to back it up? I am not the only one to realize that Donovan
> is Dale, or Doug, or whomever. I'm not the only one to notice a
> sudden difference in style and content. There is a lot more proof of
> this than most of the negative claims you've made about me. You're
> standards seem to shift.
>
> And you cherry picked the claims I made. Notice you didn't ask for
> proof that Doug Wilson tried to get two people FIRED for their
> CRITICISM of his pro-slavery book. That letter has been on Tom's
> website for years. One claim I made I can't back up -- because
> victims don't want their cars smeared with feces again! Note also
> that neither you nor Dale DENIED any of the allegations. That is odd.
>
> Best, Joe
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop"
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
>> Or a third thing completely. Spreading malicious rumors of wrong
>> doing with absolutely nothing to back up the accusation than your
>> fevered imagination is contemptible.
>>
>> To speculate as to whether a candidate will re-run for office is
>> the workaday, run of the mill grist for op-ed pages and blogs
>> everywhere with a local example being Vera White and her Inkster
>> coloum in the Daily News. Speculation becomes even more valid when,
>> as Ms. Ringo attested, there were legitimate health issues
>> which are recently and happily, resolved.
>>
>> The first is vicious rumor, stated as fact, that was designed to
>> smear the reputation of a private person or group with no basis in
>> reality whatever.
>>
>> The second is valid speculation, stated as such, about the
>> intentions of a public figure based on real and valid concerns. A
>> couple of prime examples of this would be the sorts of comments
>> that were all too common around 5 years ago concerning Dick Cheney
>> and whether a man with his heart problems would be on the ticket
>> again as GWB's second or, considering McCains bouts with melanoma,
>> could be possibly consider a run as CIC? Was discussion of those
>> concerns fair game or vicious rumor mongering?
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Joe Campbell
>> To: the lockshop
>> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:21 PM
>> Subject: Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>>
>> By the way, you never clarified your own inconsistency. You called
>> me out for not proving my on-line accusations about your "friend"
>> Dale but said NOTHING about his unsupported rumors -- which (unlike
>> mine) turned out to be false. Now I know why you didn't call Dale
>> out -- look what happened to Metzler when he publically questioned
>> Wilson. So I'm not asking for the impossible.
>>
>> But either you agree with Dale that rumor is enough for proof
>> of accusations -- in which case your criticism of me was
>> bogus -- OR you think that spreading unsupported rumors is wrong
>> and thus Dale is as wrong as I was and should appologize. Which is
>> it? Liar or coward?
>>
>> Best, Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop"
>> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Wow, that was perhaps the rudest and most dismissive reply I think
>>> I've ever read on this forum and that's saying quite a bit.
>>>
>>> Bravo!
>>>
>>> I realize perfectly well that my opinion means little to those of
>>> you going back and forth on this topic and that my lack of formal
>>> instruction in seraphic pin prancing leaves me ill prepared for
>>> the rarified realms this topic aspires to, however I do agree with
>>> Mr. Fox that there is a place in the world for a death penalty
>>> even if we would likely disagree with its application. I would
>>> definately not apply such a sentance for larcenous greed
>>> no matter how extreme. I believe a more fitting punishment would
>>> be six months amongst the general population of a maximum
>>> security federal penitentiary followed by a parole which
>>> stipulates prompt and total restitution and payment of burdensome
>>> fine at a vigorous pace. ANY lollygagging in making said
>>> restitution being grounds for reincarceration. I suspect that Mr.
>>> Antonucci would be quite diligent in working to keep his tender
>>> backside from having to endure a return to sharing a cell block at
>>> Florence ADX or Tamms.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, I very much agree that Joseph Duncan IS the
>>> perfect justification for the existance of a death penalty.
>>> Heinous crime, unquestioned guilt, total lack of remorse, extreme
>>> likelyhood of being an ongoing danger to other prisoners, gaurds,
>>> and the general public, all combined with a total disregard for
>>> his own life should all combine to make him the modern poster
>>> child for the necessity of capital punishment.
>>>
>>> g
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>> To: Art Deco
>>> Cc: Vision 2020
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:55 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the
>>> death penalty
>>>
>>> Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully. Joe
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe,
>>>>
>>>> Before you waste time commenting on something I didn't say,
>>>> please take the time to read very carefully what I did say.
>>>>
>>>> W.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>> To: Art Deco
>>>> Cc: Vision 2020
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>> penalty
>>>>
>>>> It might be a while before I get to this but until I do I just
>>>> want to point out that putting something in boldface and
>>>> asserting that it is a FACT and not a philosophical point does
>>>> not MAKE it an empirical fact. It might still be a
>>>> philosophical point. In my experience, most people who criticize
>>>> philosophy HAVE a philosophy. What they are really criticizing is
>>>> OTHER philosophies than there own. If you are going to
>>>> dogmatically assert that empiricism is true and that it can be
>>>> SHOWN to be true by empirical methods all I can do is laugh and
>>>> note that you are begging the question.
>>>>
>>>> Consider this. I'm a rationalist, that is, I think that SOME
>>>> claims are established by a priori insight or something like
>>>> that. Others think that some knowledge is gained by faith. I'm
>>>> not trying to convince you of these views. I'm just noting that
>>>> there are views that are contrary to yours. And how do we decide
>>>> which is correct? Obviously if we prejudge that are method is to
>>>> be empiricism, your view will emerge as the victor. But I hope
>>>> you can see that this begs the question. Note that I didn't say
>>>> you couldn't tell a fancy story to support your view I only
>>>> claimed in the end it would beg the question.
>>>>
>>>> Now on the face of it, this looks like a philosophical dispute.
>>>> You claim that all knowledge comes from experience (or
>>>> mathematical proof), I claim some knowledge is a product of
>>>> rational insight, and others that some knowledge is a product of
>>>> faith. And there doesn't appear to be a way of settling the issue
>>>> without begging the question. Which was what I said.
>>>>
>>>> I'll comment on the specifics later.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),
>>>>>
>>>>> I have included Joe's second post below so that I can respond to
>>>>> both posts at the same time. I hope that others not interested
>>>>> in a technical discussion will not be too bored, or if so, they
>>>>> will find other things to do which they will find a more
>>>>> productive use of their time.
>>>>>
>>>>> To avoid repeating material, here are two comments which I will
>>>>> refer to by names, below.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pigtails: A statement of the form "All X is Y" is refuted by
>>>>> finding a single X that is not Y.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example:
>>>>>
>>>>> To refute the statement: "All pigs have curly tails" all that
>>>>> is necessary is a single counterexample like pointing to pig
>>>>> whose tail sticks straight out like a certain part of the
>>>>> anatomy of a certain church elder does at a certain topless/
>>>>> bottomless bar.
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter if there are a billion pigs with curly tails
>>>>> and only one with a straight tail, the exception refutes the
>>>>> truth of the general statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Stones: Dick and Jane are in the middle of a football field.
>>>>> Jane is a carrying a 100 pound stone. Jane asserts: "If I
>>>>> throw this stone, it will land on the football field." Dick
>>>>> disagrees. What method do you use to determine the truth of the
>>>>> knowledge claim at issue? Obviously, let Jane throw the stone,
>>>>> an empirical method where observation will determine if the
>>>>> knowledge claim is true. Also note that the probability that
>>>>> the stone will land in the football field is
>>>>> infinitesimally close to 1.00.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that neither Joe, Andreas, nor Sunil will be in
>>>>> disagreement with the above. If either are, then the argument
>>>>> can proceed no further.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Knowledge Claims
>>>>>
>>>>> From my perspective statements of the form "X is Y" are
>>>>> generally knowledge claims. There are some instances of such
>>>>> statements in poetry, for example, that are not. However,
>>>>> statements like the following are knowledge claims:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. "The Klein-4 group is an Abelian group."
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. "The current through a conductor between two points is
>>>>> directly proportional to the potential difference or voltage
>>>>> across the two points, and inversely proportional to the
>>>>> resistance between them, provided that the temperature remains
>>>>> constant."
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. "Sheep reproduce asexually."
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. "Bartok is the greatest composer ever."
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. "You should never kill another human being."
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. "Every human being is more valuable than every other
>>>>> animal."
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that statements of the form "X is Y" are knowledge claims,
>>>>> the problem then becomes what agreed upon methods can be
>>>>> successfully used to determine the truth of the various kinds of
>>>>> knowledge claims.
>>>>>
>>>>> Statement 1. above is a statement is an axiomatic system called
>>>>> Group Theory. It's truth is determined by logical/deductive
>>>>> methods. However, the axioms of the system were not chosen
>>>>> blindly, but were chosen to be true of certain aspects of the
>>>>> language that is used to describe the physical world, hence the
>>>>> truth of the axioms is a matter of observation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Logical methods are used to determine the truth of such
>>>>> mathematical statements given the truth of the axioms. This is
>>>>> not an infallible method, however. In the 19th Century, George
>>>>> Boole found an error in the up-to-that-point-thought-infallible
>>>>> system of Aristotelian Logic. The advent in the 19th Century of
>>>>> Non-Euclidean Geometry(s) and the subsequent theories of
>>>>> Einstein (now partially confirmed) showed that at least one of
>>>>> once-worshiped-as-irrevocably-true axioms of Euclidean Geometry
>>>>> were not true of the universe writ in large.
>>>>>
>>>>> Statements 2. and 3. are knowledge claims whose truth or falsity
>>>>> are determined by empirical methods -- combinations of logical
>>>>> and observation methods. Using such methods, humankind has sent
>>>>> persons to the moon and back while transmitting parts of this
>>>>> event in real-time to millions of people. The empirical method
>>>>> succeeds in part because precise definitions are required.
>>>>>
>>>>> Empirical methods are not infallible either. Mistakes can be
>>>>> made -- many of which are self-correcting in
>>>>> time; some problems at present are not completely amenable to
>>>>> empirical methods because of their practical complexity --
>>>>> issues in the social sciences, for example. The best that can
>>>>> be said that knowledge claims that can be tested empirically is
>>>>> that they have truth that is at best probable, not absolute.
>>>>> Some of the probabilities are infinitesimally close to 1.00 such
>>>>> as Ohm's Law, at least in the terrestrial environment, but there
>>>>> is always that possibility of a counterexample being discovered.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is a fact, not a philosophical position, that certain kinds
>>>>> of knowledge claims are successfully resolved by empirical
>>>>> methods, notwithstanding the problem of induction.
>>>>>
>>>>> Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called value statements.
>>>>>
>>>>> The three that were chosen each illustrate that in our present
>>>>> state of knowledge there is not a generally accepted method to
>>>>> establish their truth. It is not a simple matter like the
>>>>> stones example above. The phrase "in our present state of
>>>>> knowledge" is included so as to not preclude the discovery of
>>>>> such a method in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Musicians, musicologists, ordinary people argue, so far without
>>>>> resolution, about who is the greatest composer. Even expertly
>>>>> trained musicians who are thoroughly knowledgeable about all
>>>>> factual matters with respect to a composition's structure
>>>>> and live sound, and agree upon such, will still
>>>>> disagree about who is the greatest composer.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are many who assert quite apodictically that it is never
>>>>> justified to kill another human being even in self-defense. The
>>>>> truth of these kind of assertions are not demonstrable by
>>>>> empirical methods like the in stones example. One cannot
>>>>> produce observations that demonstrate the truth of such a
>>>>> knowledge claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not to say that facts or probabilities established by
>>>>> empirical methods are not useful or necessary in resolving
>>>>> certain value or ethical disputes. They are very important; but
>>>>> not completely definitive. Further, many of us reject as
>>>>> fanciful, unsupported speculation the use of alleged
>>>>> supernatural beings and their alleged dicta as relevant in such
>>>>> resolutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> In a nutshell, if we want to establish the truth of a knowledge
>>>>> claim then first we must define the terms of that claim
>>>>> unambiguously; then we must agree upon a method to test its
>>>>> truth. So far, in our present state of Knowledge we have not
>>>>> established a generally agreed upon method to establish the
>>>>> truth of knowledge claims which are value statements of the kind
>>>>> given as examples (4. - 6.) above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Applications
>>>>>
>>>>> Restating the argument against capital punishment given by
>>>>> Andreas/Joe:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There is no situation where the judicially-sanctioned
>>>>> murder of an innocent person is justified.
>>>>> 2. Regimes which allow the death penalty
>>>>> result in the execution of innocent people.
>>>>> __________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> 3. Therefore, the death penalty is never justified.
>>>>>
>>>>> Premise 2. is highly likely true at this time. There probably
>>>>> isn't a regime with the death penalty the result of whose
>>>>> judicial system hasn't caused the execution of an innocent
>>>>> person. This premise is not a value knowledge
>>>>> claim, but a matter that can be determined to be true by
>>>>> empirical methods.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> However, premise 1. is a knowledge claim about values. Notice
>>>>> that it is a "all X is Y" statement. Hence, referring to the
>>>>> pigtails example above, it is only necessary to find one
>>>>> counterexample that at least some observers might cite.
>>>>>
>>>>> During WWI and WWII when very strategic ground battles were to
>>>>> be fought with the expectation of very high casualties and there
>>>>> were the probabilities of massive troop desertions, the
>>>>> following has been alleged: An officer would chose a
>>>>> particularly inept soldier, one whose ineptness threatened harm
>>>>> to the unit, and accuse him of being caught deserting. A
>>>>> summary court-martial would held, the accused though innocent
>>>>> would be convicted, and then executed.
>>>>>
>>>>> The argument of the upper command was this: executing what the
>>>>> other troops saw as a deserter would prevent some of the other
>>>>> potential deserters from deserting and thus increase the
>>>>> probability of a military victory of sorts in the oncoming
>>>>> battle. The argument was that by killing one innocent person,
>>>>> many other lives would be saved in battle, and perhaps the
>>>>> course of the war changed so that millions of
>>>>> lives would be saved.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ethical principle invoked was that saving many lives
>>>>> justified killing one innocent person. Notice the context is a
>>>>> judicial system, albeit a military one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously, many would find this alleged principle repugnant;
>>>>> others would agree with the principle. By what generally
>>>>> accepted method would you resolve this dispute? I do not know
>>>>> of one. Hence, this example certainly seems to raise a
>>>>> legitimate question about the truth of premise 1. above.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If the knowledge claim is that there is not a single case where
>>>>> capital punishment is justified, therefore capital punishment
>>>>> ought be abolished, then referring to the pigtails example
>>>>> above there is another counterexample, as mentioned earlier:
>>>>> The cases where the evidence is overwhelming, a confession is
>>>>> made and is overwhelmingly supported by evidence, and the
>>>>> convicted demands to be executed. The issue of executing an
>>>>> innocent man does not arise here.
>>>>>
>>>>> I chose statement 6. ("Every human being is more valuable than
>>>>> every other animal.") above for a purpose. I have a good friend
>>>>> who is vehemently against capital punishment when we discuss it
>>>>> as a subject per se. However, when we discuss people who poison
>>>>> pets or off-roaders who chase/harass wildlife, this friend
>>>>> asserts that they would have no hesitation in shooting these
>>>>> offenders, dead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe argues that convictions are only probabilities. Almost all
>>>>> knowledge claims are only probabilities, even
>>>>> Ohm's Law, for example. It is the strength of the probability
>>>>> that counts. The very, very high probability of the guilt and
>>>>> the enormity of the crime of Joseph Duncan justify his execution
>>>>> for me; obviously it does not for Sunil, Andreas, and Joe. I am
>>>>> always open to advances in methods of
>>>>> determining the truth of value knowledge claims and open to
>>>>> hearing persuasive arguments on ethical matters. At one time I
>>>>> too was against the death penalty. But facts learned and very
>>>>> serious consideration changed my mind, as it has, and continues
>>>>> to do on an assortment of ethical issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> This whole dispute is about determining the truth of knowledge
>>>>> claims. If there is a generally accepted method of determining
>>>>> the truth of knowledge claims about values with the same degree
>>>>> of certainty in the stones example above, it has escaped the
>>>>> notice of most of the world's population so far. If either Joe
>>>>> or Andreas is claiming that there is such a method, perhaps they
>>>>> could submit persuasive evidence of such. The problem as has
>>>>> been discussed ad nauseam by philosophers is that value
>>>>> knowledge claims include an emotive element which depends on an
>>>>> individual's inner mental/physical sate, not just on exterior
>>>>> reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is hardly an ethical principle that is agreed upon
>>>>> universally. If there were presently such a method of
>>>>> determining the truth of value knowledge claims, one would
>>>>> expect substantial agreement on many such principles.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joe claims that he knows that slavery is always wrong. Some
>>>>> people disagree. For example, they cite the results of some
>>>>> slave efforts to justify the slavery that produced them -- the
>>>>> seven wonders of the world, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the early to middle part of the 20th century in some areas of
>>>>> the west able-bodied men were forced at gunpoint, threat of
>>>>> great bodily harm, or imprisonment to help fight a flood or
>>>>> forest fire threatening a town. This was involuntary servitude
>>>>> or slavery. The authorities invoked the principle that the
>>>>> short sentence of slavery (they called it helping your
>>>>> neighbors) was justified by the circumstances -- saving the
>>>>> town. What generally accepted method is there to resolve the
>>>>> truth of the value knowledge claims here?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have an adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind
>>>>> venture onto www.collarme.com. You will find that slavery is
>>>>> alive and well today, even in Idaho, and that there are slaves
>>>>> that appear to thrive in that environment, and are at least as
>>>>> happy or happier in that environment as any other.
>>>>>
>>>>> As Joe is a professional philosopher who has studied ethics and
>>>>> probably taught it, he knows in his heart-of-hearts that there
>>>>> is no agreement today among all professional philosophers of
>>>>> a single non-metalinguistic ethical principle,
>>>>> or of a system/method to produce such.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Some may rue this situation. It would be nice to have ethical
>>>>> principles clearly and irrevocably established whose truth could
>>>>> be demonstrated in a manner like in the stones example above.
>>>>> Such is not the case. If, or until such a method is discovered,
>>>>> we will have inevitable conflict like we have had since the
>>>>> beginning of humankind over these matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> W.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>>> To: Art Deco
>>>>> Cc: Vision 2020
>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 11:05 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>>> penalty
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument
>>>>> about ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through
>>>>> empirical test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should
>>>>> be just as unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The
>>>>> view is self-refuting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as
>>>>> empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am
>>>>> that my hand exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery
>>>>> is wrong but it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong"
>>>>> is unknowable. It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis
>>>>> that ANY evidence can be rejected if one is willing to accept
>>>>> the consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you
>>>>> think that dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to show
>>>>> that no one knows anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>>>>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>>>>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe
>>>>> it (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical
>>>>> claims. Or so I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your
>>>>> argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But
>>>>> this won't even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once
>>>>> you show me why it is that you are entitled to believe that you
>>>>> have a hand, I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for
>>>>> at least one moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are
>>>>> holding, skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
>>>>> longer unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
>>>>> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
>>>>> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent
>>>>> persons. They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what
>>>>> is a person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the
>>>>> point.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are
>>>>> irresolveable and, for that reason there will always be
>>>>> disagreement about abortion. But you should be careful about
>>>>> drawing similar conclusions about ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>>>>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>>>>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>>>>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn
>>>>> from this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument
>>>>> about ethics below is a BAD argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the view that knowledge is possible only through
>>>>> empirical test is itself a philosophical view. Thus, it should
>>>>> be just as unprovable as you claim ethical principles to be. The
>>>>> view is self-refuting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, some ethical principles are just as knowable as
>>>>> empirical claims. I am as certain that slavery is wrong as I am
>>>>> that my hand exists. Certainly people might dispute that slavery
>>>>> is wrong but it can't follow from that that "slavery is wrong"
>>>>> is unknowable. It is a consequence of the Duheim-Quine thesis
>>>>> that ANY evidence can be rejected if one is willing to accept
>>>>> the consequences and revise enough of their beliefs. If you
>>>>> think that dispute means lack of knowledge it is easy to show
>>>>> that no one knows anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Third, and related to the above, you can't give a non-question
>>>>> begging proof of the existence of anything, even your hand. What
>>>>> you can do is show that our actions convey that we all believe
>>>>> it (given it is true). But the same can be shown about ethical
>>>>> claims. Or so I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously this is controversial but the point is that your
>>>>> argument asumes all knowledge is gained by empirical proof. But
>>>>> this won't even work for your belief that you have a hand. Once
>>>>> you show me why it is that you are entitled to believe that you
>>>>> have a hand, I'm pretty confident I can duplicate the story for
>>>>> at least one moral claim. Again, if you push the view you are
>>>>> holding, skepticism follows. But then ethical principles are no
>>>>> longer unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lastly, often what seems to be an ethical disagreement is really
>>>>> something else, say, a metaphysical dispute. Take the abortion
>>>>> issue. Both sides AGREE that it is wrong to kill innocent
>>>>> persons. They disagree about the metaphysical issue, e.g., what
>>>>> is a person? (This is a simplification but hopefully you get the
>>>>> point.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Now it might turn out that metaphysically issues are
>>>>> irresolveable and, for that reason there will always be
>>>>> disagreement about abortion. But you should be careful about
>>>>> drawing similar conclusions about ethics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dispute is part of the human condition. It is more common in
>>>>> philosophy and ethics but it exists even in math (think about
>>>>> Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). Absolutely NO broad
>>>>> conclusions about the impossibility of resolution can be drawn
>>>>> from this fact. So please keep talking about ethics!
>>>>>
>>>>> Best, Joe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved
>>>>>> given our current state of knowledge:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ethical principles are not completely amenable to resolution by
>>>>>> evidence or testing. If they were, we wouldn't have such a
>>>>>> wide diversity of opinion on ethical matters held by decent,
>>>>>> reasonable people. It's not like establishing Ohm's law or the
>>>>>> Theory of Conditioned Reflexes. Facts count, but even when
>>>>>> people agree on the facts, they may not agree on an underlying
>>>>>> ethical principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It appears you are arguing for the principle that capital is
>>>>>> never justified, or equivalently there is not a single case
>>>>>> where capital punishment is justified.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How would you empirically establish the truth of such a broad
>>>>>> statement? What observations would render the probability of
>>>>>> such a statement being 1.00?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best we can do in our current state of knowledge (the
>>>>>> absence of an agreed method to establish ethical principles
>>>>>> without doubt) is to attempt to persuade others by citing facts
>>>>>> or other ethical principles which they may agree upon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case
>>>>>> where capital punishment is justified." only a
>>>>>> single case need be shown.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joseph Edward Duncan (born February 25, 1963) is an American
>>>>>> convicted serial killer and sex offender who received national
>>>>>> attention after being arrested in connection with the
>>>>>> kidnapping of Shasta Groene,[1] aged 8, and her brother Dylan,
>>>>>> [2] 9, and being featured on America's Most Wanted.[3] He pled
>>>>>> guilty in December 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the
>>>>>> kidnapping and torture of the children and the murder of Dylan
>>>>>> at a remote campsite west of the Rocky Mountain Front, and was
>>>>>> sentenced to death under federal laws for kidnapping resulting
>>>>>> in death (he had already pleaded guilty in state court) on
>>>>>> August 27, 2008. As of October 27, 2009, Duncan was being tried
>>>>>> in Riverside County, California for the 1997 murder of Anthony
>>>>>> Michael Martinez."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers
>>>>>> or used those old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given your belief in the statement "There is not a single case
>>>>>> where capital punishment is justified." such counterexamples
>>>>>> would not be persuasive to you. You would still hold the above
>>>>>> ethical principle to be true despite the lack of a method to
>>>>>> demonstrate it's truth. However, some people might be
>>>>>> persuaded that Duncan should be executed and make his case an
>>>>>> exception to their general opposition to capital punishment.
>>>>>> In fact, I know of at least one such person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until there is a method to establish the truth of general
>>>>>> ethical principles differences of opinion like ours are not
>>>>>> likely to be resolved. We may persuade each other about
>>>>>> certain cases or classes of cases (like those where guilt is
>>>>>> questionable), but in general we have no way to come to
>>>>>> agreement like we might if we were arguing about the cause of
>>>>>> diabetes or whether syphilis is caused by urinating in the
>>>>>> moonlight.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> W.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15 PM
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>>>> penalty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not even him, and you want to kill for less than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>>>> penalty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joseph E. Duncan III
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>> To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death
>>>>>> penalty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty from you,
>>>>>> Wayne.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: deco at moscow.com
>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700
>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Another good argument for the death penalty
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another good argument for the death penalty:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Updated March 15, 2010
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ex-Bank President Arrested for
>>>>>> Allegedly Lying to Get TARP Money
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AP
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The former president of a small community bank was arrested on
>>>>>> charges that he lied to the federal government to get a piece
>>>>>> of the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>>>>> NEW YORK -- The former president of a small community bank was
>>>>>> arrested on charges that he lied to the federal government to
>>>>>> get a piece of the bailout program, authorities said Monday.
>>>>>> Charles Antonucci Sr. was charged in a criminal complaint filed
>>>>>> in U.S. District Court in Manhattan
>>>>>> with self-dealing, bank bribery, embezzlement and fraud.
>>>>>> Authorities said the rip-off targeted the New York State
>>>>>> Banking Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the
>>>>>> Troubled Asset Relief Program.
>>>>>> Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue
>>>>>> Bank, which is headquartered in Manhattan with four retail
>>>>>> branches in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
>>>>>> Among other allegations, Antonucci was accused of using false
>>>>>> information to request $11 million from the federal
>>>>>> government's TARP bank bailout program.
>>>>>> The complaint accused him of lying to banking authorities in
>>>>>> late 2008 and early 2009 to make them believe he had invested
>>>>>> $6.5 million of his own money in the bank when the money
>>>>>> actually belonged to the bank.
>>>>>> After the application for TARP money was rejected, Antonucci
>>>>>> did a media interview in which he said the bank withdrew its
>>>>>> application because of "issues" with the TARP program and a
>>>>>> desire to avoid "market perception" that bad banks take TARP
>>>>>> money, the complaint said.
>>>>>> Federal authorities say Antonucci actually wanted to obtain
>>>>>> millions of dollars for his own use, in part so he could obtain
>>>>>> a controlling interest in the bank.
>>>>>> They said he also permitted a former administrative assistant
>>>>>> to obtain $400,000 of loans the assistant was not qualified
>>>>>> for. The complaint said the former assistant is now cooperating.
>>>>>> The complaint alleged that Antonucci later used the former bank
>>>>>> employee's private plane on 10 or more occasions, including
>>>>>> trips to Phoenix to attend the Super Bowl, to Augusta, Ga., to
>>>>>> watch the Master's golf tournament, a flight to Florida to
>>>>>> visit a relative and a flight to Panama.
>>>>>> Antonucci's lawyer, Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a
>>>>>> copy of the charges. He declined immediate
>>>>>> comment.
>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
>>> 03/17/10 00:33:00
>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
>> 03/17/10 00:33:00
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date:
> 03/17/10 00:33:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100317/0ad9025b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list