What is Justice?

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

No one has suggested otherwise, even the video I posted "A world without prison's" included prison.

Yep because they will always be needed.

14 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Then why are there so many of them in prison?

I havn't a clue, but logically I would say that it amounts to the seriousness, and whether violence was a part of it. I would also suggest that more have been given the lifelines I have mentioned, then those that are locked up.

17 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm ignoring you, not your anecdotes, when you present actual evidence of evil 'people', I will listen very carefully.

There you go being obtuse and irrational again. I have spoken of Hitler, the animal that raped the little girl, the five that kidnapped, raped tortured and killed a nurse on her way home from work, just to name three I am reasonably familair with, and obviously there are many more. They all are real events, of so called humans, that all commited hideous violent crimes, and all were in the mind of any fair dinkum genuine person,[ not inhibited by some "feel good philosophy"] be thought of as evil.

And of course there are many more that obviously you don't want to talk about.

25 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That assumes that the playing field is level, he can rise above it why can't you.

No it assumes that which you  conveniantly fail to recognise...some are and have been in far worse situations and still risen above their situation, and anyway none of that makes any difference imo anyway, with regards to anyone that commits what could be termed a violent inhumane criminal act, and as in the three familiar situations that I have raised and which you need to sweep under the carpet.

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

You're taking free will, way to literally, even your diet affects the range of freedom you have to make a decision.

I study I heard on the radio said "the gut biome of an anxious rat, was given to a brave rat and it became anxious."

I think you'll find you have a much tighter range of freedom than you think you have. 

Nice anecdotal story,🙄

35 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I'm just asking you for a little more rigor in your thinking about what a fact is.

Facts: [1] There are evil people in the world. [2] Sometimes they commit evil inhumane acts of violence. [3] Many are incorridgible and should be locked away for life. [4] Even those that have commited some inhumane heinous act, should be punished. [5] The real victims in the cases I listed are, the 6 million Jews, the little girl who has likely had her young life ruined, and the nurse who lost her life to five animals.

42 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why is a Lion, "not evil" for brutally murdering and devouring children, but a Human is evil?

Another silly philosophical question, but I'll play your game....A Lion kills generally for food and survival and instinctively. And the obvious one being that a Lion being lower on the evolutionary intelligence scale, is unable to morally judge or even recognise evil. That's there nature, and we humans know and recognise that. 

And while off topic a real nice feel good story I came across this moring about Lions.....https://phys.org/news/2021-09-safrica-lions-prosper-fenceless.html

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Nice anecdotal story,🙄

(sigh) Do I really have to dig up the actual study, to show you the difference?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

Another silly philosophical question, but I'll play your game....A Lion kills generally for food and survival and instinctively.

So, a lion's freewill is limited to it being a lion, not it's intelligence.

An anthill is intelligent, the ant's not so much.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

That's there nature, and we humans know and recognise that. 

Intelligence doesn't divorce us from nature, it just makes us arrogantly assume that we know better.

Do you really think Frankenstein's monster, wanted to be?

Quote

The monster attempts to fit into human society but is shunned, which leads him to seek revenge against Frankenstein.

 

Edited September 4, 2021 by dimreepr

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

And while off topic a real nice feel good story I came across this moring about Lions.....https://phys.org/news/2021-09-safrica-lions-prosper-fenceless.html

It's not off topic, but it is ironic.

 

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's not off topic, but it is ironic.

Of course it is off topic but hey! probably par for the course with the silly nature and philosophical nonsense reflected in your posts.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

(sigh) Do I really have to dig up the actual study, to show you the difference?

Are they as detailed as the study/cases/examples I have given and that you ignore?

I'll leave you to your dreams matey, I believe I have made my point, a valid point held by society in general. I'll rest easy on that fact.

Seeya!!☺️

Edited September 4, 2021 by beecee

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course it is off topic but hey! probably par for the course with the silly nature and philosophical nonsense reflected in your posts.

Are they as detailed as the study/cases/examples I have given and that you ignore?

I'll leave you to your dreams matey, I believe I have made my point, a valid point held by society in general. I'll rest easy on that fact.

Seeya!!☺️

AFAIK Hitler didn't, personally, kill anyone, he persuaded other's to do it for him; by falsely accusing people of being 'evil'.

You may feel justified in doing the same (sleep better etc.), I just hope you're not as persuasive. 

[dimreepr]

Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

That's the purpose of this thread @beecee, in which you think human's are capable of evil, but dogs/animals aren't; putting humans above nature sound's awfully religious, unless you've got a scientific explanation?

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by dimreepr

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Investigating objectively, and arriving at an objectively orientated solution, isn't always possible when saddled with religious baggage. I can't imagine life without science. Any comment?

That's the purpose of this thread @beecee, in which you think human's are capable of evil, but dogs/animals aren't; putting humans above nature sound's awfully religious, unless you've got a scientific explanation?

Of course humans are capable of evil, just as they are ca[able of good. We are also obviously a few pay grades above other animals...mostly anyway, other then the usual despots like Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot,  

 

But of course its also as obvious as dog balls, that you are using this to push your rather unpopular, unrealsitic philosophy about life and what goes with it.

Such condescending philosophical tones with me are like water off a duck's back by the way.

Now a couple of questions for you..why is me questioning your unrealistic political philosophy with facts with regards to justice, evil and such like religion?

And thirdly why quote an opinion of mine from another thread about atheism and science, in this one? Are you that keen in practising your nonsense with me?

On 9/5/2021 at 5:14 PM, dimreepr said:

AFAIK Hitler didn't, personally, kill anyone,

 Not really sure, but really, I mean really!! so fucking what!! If you are of the opinion he is not or was not an evil man, then I pity you and as before, this debate is ended. Your choice.

 

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Of course humans are capable of evil, just as they are ca[able of good. We are also obviously a few pay grades above other animals...mostly anyway, other then the usual despots like Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, 

What is so obvious? The only difference between humanity and our best friend is, very very very occasionally (almost to statistical improbability) we are able to see past our training; unfortunately Hitler et al didn't have the vision, that doesn't make them evil it makes them visually impaired. 

You really need to read "The parable of the madman", but be careful 😉 Hitler just didn't understand and took it the wrong way...

[Intoscience]

24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What is so obvious? The only difference between humanity and our best friend is, very very very occasionally (almost to statistical improbability) we are able to see past our training; unfortunately Hitler et al didn't have the vision, that doesn't make them evil it makes them visually impaired. 

I think the difference is, since we have greater intelligence (debateable with some people) than other animals we have a greater ability to consider and control our choices. So we do (should) have the ability to make a moral judgement before acting. Some animals may well be capable of this also, who knows? some do appear to do so at times. Others act only out of instinct to survive, which is the main goal in evolution. Humans share the same goal but have evolved in a way to be able to consider others before acting, (again this is debateable).

The problem arises when a person has the "uncontrollable" urge to do something that is considered evil. Some of these urges, can be argued, stem back from millions of years and have remained with us through evolution. 

So what is to be done with these people, to protect society and to either "punish" or reform them? 

Priority is to protect society, followed by reform.

Protecting society should take precedent at all times, to achieve this may require different actions, some to start with, some to follow, then maybe some to return to. Seeking justice and punishment come thirdly to protecting society (this as priority), followed by reform thereafter. However punishment and justice may be deemed necessary (at least initially) to achieve the main priority, and may also serve to aid reform.       

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

I think the difference is, since we have greater intelligence (debateable with some people) than other animals we have a greater ability to consider and control our choices.

Greater intelligence doesn't make you more of a dog...

8 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

So what is to be done with these people, to protect society and to either "punish" or reform them? 

Give them glasses and see what they do with them...

[mistermack]

I don't believe that attempts to "reform" prisoners are worth the time and effort and money. The evidence for success is purely anecdotal, and produced by the people who have a vested interest in the prisoner reform program. 
It's like osteopathy or chiropractic. You try various techniques, and claim credit for the "sucesses" and take no blame for the failures. And of course, just like aches and pains, criminal behaviour goes away of it's own accord with a lot of people, as they grow older, and wiser, and tire of prison life. In other words, there is a whole industry of experts, treating offenders, who are probably achieving nothing at all. 

The worst offenders never reform, and go on to offend over and over. If they get better at crime, and stop getting caught, they can actually be claimed as a success story by the reformers and probation service. 

If you scrapped the entire body of parole, probation, psychologists and psychiatrists, and simply enforced the sentences passed by the courts, I'm betting that the overall effect would be zero, or improved crime figures.  

[TheVat]

A lot of reform attempts are undermined simply due to the fact of being in prison,  a fairly corrupting and brutalizing ambience.  IMO,  more actual reform happens in community reentry programs,  halfway houses, etc where some kind of positive connections can take place and give some ex-felons a quasi-familial structure. 

Similarly, pretrial diversion programs,  which can get nonviolent persons (often first-time offenders) into a supportive community rather than prison,  make a difference and are documented successes.   They can help young people who made one bad choice not get locked into a crime lifestyle and not have a criminal record that severely harms job prospects.   They also save taxpayers a small fortune.  

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Hitler et al didn't have the vision, that doesn't make them evil it makes them visually impaired. 

Hitler just didn't understand and took it the wrong way...

No, he was evil along with others, some I have mentioned. You are the one [obviously again] that has put yourself isolated, out on a limb.

 

6 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So what is to be done with these people, to protect society and to either "punish" or reform them?      

 I have given a few real life examples, one particularly gruesome one, with regards to a man out on bail for sexual assualt, then raping a poor little girl in a toilet block. He obviously is beyond reform, and incidently, beyond even caring or worrying about. All monies available should be spent on rehabilitating and looking after that little girl for as long as she needs and locking him up and throwing away the keys.

Edited November 9, 2021 by beecee

[Intoscience]

12 hours ago, beecee said:

I have given a few real life examples, one particularly gruesome one, with regards to a man out on bail for sexual assualt, then raping a poor little girl in a toilet block. He obviously is beyond reform, and incidently, beyond even caring or worrying about. All monies available should be spent on rehabilitating and looking after that little girl for as long as she needs and locking him up and throwing away the keys.

Yes, and this example is what I'm alluding to and have advocated in this thread. Some people with all the will in the world are just not fixable.   

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

No, he was evil along with others, some I have mentioned. You are the one [obviously again] that has put yourself isolated, out on a limb.

I am the madman that comes too early, and you are the athiest taking the piss; just because I'm a lone voice doesn't make me wrong.

You've yet to explain, along with most of my questions, why a human can be evil but a dog can't. 

The video I posted "a world without prisons", a couple of time's, (which you ignored) was made by a criminologist, not some irrelevant philosophical "nut job"; at least listen to your own side.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Yes, and this example is what I'm alluding to and have advocated in this thread. Some people with all the will in the world are just not fixable.   

No one's denying that, but justice demand's that we're all given a chance.

@beecee evil is a label (a blinker) an excuse to seek revenge, every human deserves to be given glasses before we label them blind.

[Intoscience]

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

why a human can be evil but a dog can't. 

Depends on your definition of evil to begin with?

As humans we have developed the intelligence to make better more informed decisions, which includes moral ones. A dog maybe (I suggest most likely) acting out of instinct, fear or just a pure inability to understand and reason, rather than malice.  A human has more choices, and has the ability to consider the moral implications to a far greater level than most, if not all, other animals which (I suggest most)are/or maybe completely incapable of doing so. 

This is one of the things that sets us aside, we have a moral responsibility born from our intelligence to act in a certain way. 

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I am the madman that comes too early, and you are the athiest taking the piss; just because I'm a lone voice doesn't make me wrong.

You've yet to explain, along with most of my questions, why a human can be evil but a dog can't. 

The video I posted "a world without prisons", a couple of time's, (which you ignored) was made by a criminologist, not some irrelevant philosophical "nut job"; at least listen to your own side.

No one's denying that, but justice demand's that we're all given a chance.

@beecee evil is a label (a blinker) an excuse to seek revenge, every human deserves to be given glasses before we label them blind.

Though I don't disagree with the premise of second chances for all, I still believe those chances should be earned not freely given. 

The possible ramification of offering second chances willy nilly is that someone may suffer the consequences, then where is their second chance? 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

Depends on your definition of evil to begin with?

As humans we have developed the intelligence to make better more informed decisions, which includes moral ones. A dog maybe (I suggest most likely) acting out of instinct, fear or just a pure inability to understand and reason, rather than malice.  A human has more choices, and has the ability to consider the moral implications to a far greater level than most, if not all, other animals which (I suggest most)are/or maybe completely incapable of doing so. 

This is one of the things that sets us aside, we have a moral responsibility born from our intelligence to act in a certain way. 

That assumes intelligence gives us unlimited free will, to be a different human than the one we're trained to be; evil suggests they decided to be that human.

Intelligence, and natural philosophy, just gives us a chance to understand the limitations of being a human.

 

[Intoscience]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That assumes intelligence gives us unlimited free will, to be a different human than the one we're trained to be; evil suggests they decided to be that human.

I don't think it assumes unlimited free will, it assumes more options of choices to make. Even with those extra choices and greater intelligence, humans still often follow instinctual urges, many of which are traits that go back millennia. A human however has a greater, though not infallible, ability to control those urges. Hence why there can be often a clear distinction between a human acting malicious and a dog acting instinctively.  

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Hence why there can be often a clear distinction between a human acting malicious and a dog acting instinctively.  

Which is?

I've had dog's all my life and believe me they can act out of jealousy, is that act malicious or instinctive?

[Intoscience]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which is?

I've had dog's all my life and believe me they can act out of jealousy, is that act malicious or instinctive?

I never said a dog hasn't the capability, I'm saying it's less likely since its choices are more limited. 

Why does a dog get jealous? What drives that jealousy? Is our interpretation of a dog being "jealous" correct?   

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

I never said a dog hasn't the capability, I'm saying it's less likely since its choices are more limited.   

And I'm saying your choices are more limited than you think...

3 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Why does a dog get jealous? What drives that jealousy? Is our interpretation of a dog being "jealous" correct? 

I don't know, ask them...

Only a dog gets to be a dog. 😉

[Intoscience]

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And I'm saying your choices are more limited than you think...

I don't know, ask them...

Only a dog gets to be a dog. 😉

But higher than any other species on the planet, and even maybe the galaxy/universe.

 

I'm not the one suggesting dogs and humans all act the same and for all the same reasons. You suggested that dogs get jealous? I have had and still have dogs myself and witnessed many emotional similarities between them and humans. But are those similarities projections from us or if they are the same emotions, what drives them in a dog? 

Maybe we should ask Doctor Doolittle 😝

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, Intoscience said:

But higher than any other species on the planet, and even maybe the galaxy/universe.

Are you a witch?

Can I burn you?

 

[Intoscience]

29 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Are you a witch?

Can I burn you?

 

At first I found many of your posts annoying. But now I find them amusing, in other words I've started to learn to not take them too seriously. 

Humans have greater choice, even though limited, even though we know we are limited we know not to what extent. What we do know however, is that we have more now than we ever did.  

Edited November 10, 2021 by Intoscience

[dimreepr]

33 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

At first I found many of your posts annoying. But now I find them amusing, in other words I've started to learn to not take them too seriously. 

Humans have greater choice, even though limited, even though we know we are limited we know not to what extent. What we do know however, is that we have more now than we ever did.  

More trees???