<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876"></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Joe, (& Andreas, Sunil),</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To avoid repeating material, here are two comments which I
will refer to by names, below.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Pigtails: </STRONG>A statement of the form "All
X is Y" is refuted by finding a single X that is not Y.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Stones:</STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Knowledge Claims</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. "The Klein-4 group is an Abelian
group."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. "The </FONT><A title="Electric current"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current"><FONT color=#000000
size=2>current</FONT></A><FONT size=2> through a conductor between two points is
directly </FONT><A title="Proportionality (mathematics)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(mathematics)"><FONT
color=#000000 size=2>proportional</FONT></A><FONT size=2> to the </FONT><A
class=mw-redirect title="Potential difference"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_difference"><FONT color=#000000
size=2>potential difference</FONT></A><FONT size=2> or </FONT><A title=Voltage
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage"><FONT color=#000000
size=2>voltage</FONT></A><FONT size=2> across the two points, and inversely
proportional to the </FONT><A title="Electrical resistance"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance"><FONT color=#000000
size=2>resistance</FONT></A><FONT size=2> between them, provided that the
temperature remains constant."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>3. "Sheep reproduce asexually."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>4. "Bartok is the greatest composer
ever."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>5. "You should never kill another human
being."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>6. "Every human being is more valuable than
every other animal."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It is a fact, not a philosophical position, that certain kinds
of knowledge claims <STRONG>are</STRONG> successfully resolved by empirical
methods, notwithstanding the problem of induction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Statements 4., 5., and 6. are commonly called value
statements.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The three that were chosen each illustrate that <STRONG>in our
present state of knowledge</STRONG> there is not a generally accepted method to
establish their truth. It is not a simple matter like the stones example
above. The phrase <STRONG>"in our present state of knowledge"</STRONG> is
included so as to not preclude the discovery of such a method in the
future.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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, <STRONG>in our
present state of Knowledge</STRONG> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>Applications</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Restating the argument against capital punishment given by
Andreas/Joe:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>1. There is no situation where the
judicially-sanctioned murder of an innocent person is
justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>2. Regimes which allow the death penalty
result in the execution of innocent people.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT
size=2>__________________________________________________________________________________<BR>3.
Therefore, the death penalty is never justified.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Obviously, many would find this alleged principle repugnant;
others would agree with the principle. By what <STRONG>generally accepted
method</STRONG> 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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <EM>per
se</EM>. 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <EM>ad nauseam</EM> 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If you have an adventurous/curious/not-easily-shocked mind
venture onto <A href="http://www.collarme.com">www.collarme.com</A>. 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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 <STRONG>today</STRONG> among all professional philosophers of a single
non-metalinguistic ethical principle, or of a system/method to produce
such.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=philosopher.joe@gmail.com href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">Joe
Campbell</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15, 2010 11:05
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about ethics
below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.226562); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.226562)"
class=Apple-style-span><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"
class=Apple-style-span>Best, Joe</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"
class=Apple-style-span></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"
class=Apple-style-span>
<DIV>I won't comment on the death penalty, Art, BUT the argument about ethics
below is a BAD argument. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.) </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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! </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.226562); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.226562)"
class=Apple-style-span><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"
class=Apple-style-span>Best, Joe</SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN
style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469)"
class=Apple-style-span></SPAN><BR>On Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco"
<<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<DIV>Here's why arguments like we are engaged in cannot be resolved given
our current state of knowledge:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In order to refute the statement "There is not a single case where
capital punishment is justified." only a single case need be shown.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I offered Joseph E. Duncan III as a counter-example (<A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III"><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III</A></A>)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>"Joseph Edward Duncan</STRONG> (born February 25, 1963) is an
American convicted <A title="Serial killer"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer">serial killer</A> and <A
title="Sex offender" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_offender">sex
offender</A> who received national attention after being arrested in
connection with the <A title=Kidnapping
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping">kidnapping</A> of Shasta
Groene,<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-0"><SPAN>[</SPAN>1<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
aged 8, and her brother Dylan,<SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-1"><SPAN>[</SPAN>2<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
9, and being featured on <I><A title="America's Most Wanted"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Most_Wanted">America's Most
Wanted</A></I>.<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III#cite_note-2"><SPAN>[</SPAN>3<SPAN>]</SPAN></A></SUP>
He pled guilty in December 2007 to 10 federal counts involving the
kidnapping and <A title=Torture
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture">torture</A> of the children and
the murder of Dylan at a remote campsite west of the <A
title="Rocky Mountain Front"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Mountain_Front">Rocky Mountain
Front</A>, and was <A title="Capital punishment"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment">sentenced to
death</A> under <I>federal</I> 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."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There is a lot more, a horrifyingly graphic, sickening more.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I could have also cited a number of confessed serial murderers or used
those old favorites Hitler and Saddam Hussein.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Until there is a method to establish the truth of general
ethical principles</STRONG> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15, 2010 7:15
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] Another
good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Not even him, and you want to kill for less than
that.<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:10:12 -0700<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 10pt
}
</STYLE>
<DIV>
<H1 id=ecxfirstHeading class=ecxfirstHeading>Joseph E. Duncan
III</H1></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=sunilramalingam@hotmail.com
href="mailto:sunilramalingam@hotmail.com">Sunil Ramalingam</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [Vision2020] Another
good argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>I've never seen a good argument for the death penalty
from you, Wayne. <BR><BR>Sunil<BR><BR>
<HR>
From: <A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></A><BR>To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A></A><BR>Date:
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:15:37 -0700<BR>Subject: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
</STYLE>
<DIV><FONT color=#ff0000 size=4><STRONG>Another good argument for the
death penalty:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<P class=ecxecxpublish-date>Updated March 15, 2010</P>
<H1 id=ecxecxstory-title>Ex-Bank President Arrested for Allegedly Lying
to Get TARP Money</H1>
<P class=ecxecxauthor></P>
<P class=ecxecxsource>AP </P>
<P id=ecxecxstory-dek class=ecxecxdeck><SPAN
class=ecxecxdateline></SPAN></P>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.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class="ecxecxbodytext ecxecxsmalltext">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.<BR>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.<BR>Authorities said
the rip-off targeted the New York State Banking Department, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Troubled Asset Relief
Program.<BR>Antonucci resigned last year as president of The Park Avenue
Bank, which is headquartered in Manhattan with four retail branches in
Manhattan and Brooklyn.<BR>Among other allegations, Antonucci was
accused of using false information to request $11 million from the
federal government's TARP bank bailout program.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>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.<BR>Antonucci's lawyer,
Charles Stillman, said he had just gotten a copy of the charges. He
declined immediate
comment.<BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN><BR><SPAN>List
services made available by First Step Internet, </SPAN><BR><SPAN>serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"><A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A></A></SPAN><BR><SPAN>=======================================================</SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>