<!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,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Before you waste time commenting on something I didn't say,
please take the time to read very carefully what I did say.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>W.</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> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'll comment on the specifics later. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Thanks! Joe <BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:47 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>> wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<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"><A
href="http://www.collarme.com">www.collarme.com</A></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"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></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><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><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><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><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><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"><A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A></A>
</SPAN><BR><SPAN> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"></A><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></DIV>
<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>