<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16981" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bravo!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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 10:55
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Another good
argument for the death penalty</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Forget it. I don't have time to read this more carefully. Joe</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Mar 17, 2010, at 1:30 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,</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 dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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"><A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A></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><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 dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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 class=Apple-style-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)"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-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)">Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-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)"></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-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)">
<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 class=Apple-style-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)"><BR></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-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)">Best,
Joe</SPAN></DIV></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=Apple-style-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)"></SPAN><BR>On
Mar 15, 2010, at 11:22 PM, "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com"></A><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><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 class=reference id=cite_ref-0><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 class=reference id=cite_ref-1><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 class=reference id=cite_ref-2><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 dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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><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><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-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage {
FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana
}
</STYLE>
<DIV>
<H1 class=ecxfirstHeading id=ecxfirstHeading>Joseph E. Duncan
III</H1></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
</DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; 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><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><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 class=ecxecxdeck id=ecxecxstory-dek><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><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><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"><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>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG -
www.avg.com <BR>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release
Date: 03/17/10 00:33:00<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>