<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Coward it is!</div><div><br></div><div>Nothing to back it up? I am not the only one to realize that Donovan is Dale, or Doug, or whomever. I'm not the only one to notice a sudden difference in style and content. There is a lot more proof of this than most of the negative claims you've made about me. You're standards seem to shift. </div><div><br></div><div>And you cherry picked the claims I made. Notice you didn't ask for proof that Doug Wilson tried to get two people FIRED for their CRITICISM of his pro-slavery book. That letter has been on Tom's website for years. One claim I made I can't back up -- because victims don't want their cars smeared with feces again! Note also that neither you nor Dale DENIED any of the allegations. That is odd.</div><div><br></div><div>Best, Joe</div><div><br></div><div> <br><br><br></div><div><br>On Mar 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM, "the lockshop" <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Or a third thing completely. Spreading malicious
rumors of wrong doing with absolutely nothing to back up the accusation than
your fevered imagination is contemptible.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">To speculate as to whether a candidate will re-run
for office is the workaday, run of the mill grist for op-ed pages and blogs
everywhere with a local example being Vera White and her Inkster coloum in the
Daily News. Speculation becomes even more valid when, as Ms. Ringo attested,
there were legitimate health issues which are recently and happily,
resolved.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The first is vicious rumor, stated as fact,
that was designed to smear the reputation of a private person or group with no
basis in reality whatever.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">The second is valid speculation, stated as
such, about the intentions of a public figure based on real and valid
concerns. A couple of prime examples of this would be the sorts of comments that
were all too common around 5 years ago concerning Dick Cheney and
whether a man with his heart problems would be on the ticket again as GWB's
second or, considering McCains bouts with melanoma, could be
possibly consider a run as CIC? Was discussion of those
concerns fair game or vicious rumor mongering?</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="lockshop@pull.twcbc.com" href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">the lockshop</a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Cc:</b> <a title="vision2020@moscow.com" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com>"><<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>></a> </div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:21
PM</div>
<div style="FONT: 10pt arial"><b>Subject:</b> Crabtree dilemma (was...)</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>By the way, you never clarified your own inconsistency. You called me out
for not proving my on-line accusations about your "friend" Dale but said
NOTHING about his unsupported rumors -- which (unlike mine) turned out to be
false. Now I know why you didn't call Dale out -- look what happened to
Metzler when he publically questioned Wilson. So I'm not asking for the
impossible.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>But either you agree with Dale that rumor is enough for proof of
accusations -- in which case your criticism of me was bogus -- OR you think
that spreading unsupported rumors is wrong and thus Dale is as wrong as I was
and should appologize. Which is it? Liar or coward?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Best, Joe <br><br><br></div>
<div><br>On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:32 PM, "the lockshop" <<a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com"><a href="mailto:lockshop@pull.twcbc.com">lockshop@pull.twcbc.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br><br></div>
<div></div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<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"></a><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,</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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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><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>
<p></p>
<hr>
<p></p>=======================================================<br> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net"><a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a></a>
<br> <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><br>=======================================================
<p></p>
<hr>
<p></p><br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com"><a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a></a> <br>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus
Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release Date: 03/17/10
00:33:00<br></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>
<p>
</p><hr>
<p></p><br>No virus found in this incoming message.<br>Checked by AVG -
<a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a> <br>Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2752 - Release
Date: 03/17/10 00:33:00<br></blockquote>
</div></blockquote></body></html>