[Vision2020] Crabtree dilemma (was...)

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Wed Mar 17 19:09:45 PDT 2010


You are pathetic. By your standards I get to implicate you and Doug  
etc. should anything happen to me or my home!?! I'll remember that. Joe


On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:29 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>  
wrote:

> You are confusing two different incidents and vastly different  
> circumstances. I believe that in answer to a question by local law  
> enforcement of "can you think of anyone who has anything aginst you"  
> during an investigation of some petty vandalism at his home,  
> Hanson's name came up along with several others. All of which had a  
> demonstrated animosity for team Wilson. What is it you would have me  
> condemn? Was he incorrect in his apprasial of Hanson's outlook? If  
> so, how?
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Crabtree dilemma (was...)
>
> I'll give you another chance. Your criticism of me applies equally  
> well to Wilson, who included names of Tom and others on a POLICE  
> report after "Hitler youth" was written in chalk near NSA. So here's  
> another chance to be consistent and condemn the Master. Can you do it?
>
> 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/f1f42db4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list