The two buttons

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I would say the problem with revenge is that it may or may not be just. It might not be proportional, for example.That's why revenge and justice are distinct.

How does justice play out on this case when you press the square button though? Do you think it is just and if so why?

Did I say that justice "plays out?" I don't believe I did.

And in fact, it is a sad truth that very often justice -- no matter how desirable we may think it -- is simply unlikely. Life is, sadly, neither just nor fair: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This, however, only increases our obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

And that, in the end, is just about as good as it gets.

 

[Koldo]

Did I say that justice "plays out?" I don't believe I did.

Not at all. I was just asking you.

And in fact, it is a sad truth that very often justice -- no matter how desirable we may think it -- is simply unlikely. Life is, sadly, neither just nor fair: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This, however, only increases our obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

But that, in the end, is just about as good as it gets.

If we have an obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, how would you be just and fair by pressing the square button though?

 

[Koldo]

The most evil criminal in the world, in my perspective, is me. And I will GRUDGINGLY press the square button. I said "grudgingly" because I have no desire to live in this world in such a painful state of mind and spirit.

Why do I prefer the square button over the triangle? Because, by doing so, I am setting the wheels in motion for the creation of an entity that can only do good because of it's inability to do bad. What I'll do will lead to a formation of entity that'll only add positive value to the world, and will only breed all that is constructive and beneficial. It's more beneficial than to destroy it for sins that happened in the past which have absolutely no bearing on the future.

And God can undo the evils this criminal has done through His Infinite Power and Might. God have Power over all things, including his sins and his sinful pasts. God can give justice to his victims through His Might and/or punish him in afterlife and/or just outright erase what he did through His Power.

Wouldn't you be merely acting out of self-interest though?

Why would God choose justice when you have not?

 

[danieldemol]

This sounds like an utilitarian point of view.
Do you see value in justice itself? If yes, how do you weight against other things? Do you think that pressing the square button is also more just?

I see value in justice, but not in revenge which I do not necessarily equate with justice.

I don't understand your wording.
What if someone has something unrepairably wrong with their minds? Does that make them more responsible for their actions?

Nope, if it is due to a defect I see the defect as responsible, not the individual.

If you had a car with a faulty steering assembly you need not discard the entire car to replace the steering assembly with a functional assembly.

Of course this is not always possible in humans, but in the example you gave it was implied that the defect could be rectified by pressing a button.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If we have an obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, how would you be just and fair by pressing the square button though?

I was given only two choices: the triangular or the square button. I must make one of those choices for the sake of this particular discussion.

And that is what I was talking about, the requirement (that I set for myself) to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

In my view, that can simply never take the form of doing unnecessary harm.

 

[Koldo]

I see value in justice, but not in revenge which I do not necessarily equate with justice.

Do you think it would not be just to press the triangle button? If so, why?

I take it you see better value on the other button. But would you go as far as say that the square button is just whilst the triangle button is not?

Nope, if it is due to a defect I see the defect as responsible, not the individual.

If you had a car with a faulty steering assembly you need not discard the entire car to replace the steering assembly with a functional assembly.

Of course this is not always possible in humans, but in the example you gave it was implied that the defect could be rectified by pressing a button.

Okay. I thought so, but I was confused.
Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Koldo]

I was given only two choices: the triangular or the square button. I must make one of those choices for the sake of this particular discussion.

And that is what I was talking about, the requirement (that I set for myself) to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

In my view, that can simply never take the form of doing unnecessary harm.

Ok.
What qualifies as (un)necessary harm?

 

[danieldemol]

Do you think it would not be just to press the triangle button? If so, why?

Because people don't choose the defects they are dealt by the universe.

Would you blame a car for having a faulty component or would you blame the assembler?

In this case (of defect) the blind assembler known as the universe is to blame

I take it you see better value on the other button. But would you go as far as say that the square button is just whilst the triangle button is not?

I would rather say the triangle button is less just because the square button lays the blame at the foot (figuratively speaking) of the blind assembler where it belongs.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Ok.
What qualifies as (un)necessary harm?

Really, you should be able to work this through yourself. But let's try a few examples:

It would be a very bad surgeon, I think, who would remove a whole leg when what he was trying to treat was a gangrenous toe, if the gangrene had not yet spread. Yes, the toe has to go, and that is harmful, yet necessary to save the live of the patient. Agreed?

Well, okay, let's suppose that we absolutely must -- for some reason I don't know, but we're just supposing -- kill somebody for something that they did. Now, in doing so, would it be best to simply kill them, quickly, with as little pain as possible (see Dr. Guillotine)? Or should we begin first by castrating them, then hanging, cutting down while still alive and conscious, disembowelling -- and so on as the English liked to do for traitors? You know, to make the whole thing last a good long while, so that the victim suffers maximally but the nation gets the proper message: don't mess with the Monarch!?

Now, we can also ask the question, "is rehabilitation possible?" If it is -- or even might be -- would be not be more just to seek that? Well, obviously, that is my view, but I admit that I may be wrong. Certainly, a lot of supporters of capital punishment think that I am.

So finally, we come to the two buttons. If the square button can completely rehabilitate the fellow in question, then the triangular button -- while it may satisfy something in yourself -- is completely UNNECESSARY. In both cases, the public is spared from further harm by the culprit. But only in one does there have to be additional -- needless -- suffering.

 

[osgart]

Simultaneous square, triangle. You need both!

Seriously though repentance outweighs death as the heavy favorite.

Perhaps if the triangle was punishment and not death then I'd go simultaneous.

I don't think anybody repents easy and free.

 

[Koldo]

Because people don't choose the defects they are dealt by the universe.

Would you blame a car for having a faulty component or would you blame the assembler?

In this case (of defect) the blind assembler known as the universe is to blame


I would rather say the triangle button is less just because the square button lays the blame at the foot (figuratively speaking) of the blind assembler where it belongs.

Interesting. Do you think that people commit evil because of their design? As in some sort of deterministic manner? Or are you assuming this to be true because of the way I have phrased this topic?

 

[Koldo]

Really, you should be able to work this through yourself.

I am quite sure that what we both regard as (un)necessary harm is not exactly the same group of things. Which is why I have asked.

But let's try a few examples:

It would be a very bad surgeon, I think, who would remove a whole leg when what he was trying to treat was a gangrenous toe, if the gangrene had not yet spread. Yes, the toe has to go, and that is harmful, yet necessary to save the live of the patient. Agreed?

Well, okay, let's suppose that we absolutely must -- for some reason I don't know, but we're just supposing -- kill somebody for something that they did. Now, in doing so, would it be best to simply kill them, quickly, with as little pain as possible (see Dr. Guillotine)? Or should we begin first by castrating them, then hanging, cutting down while still alive and conscious, disembowelling -- and so on as the English liked to do for traitors? You know, to make the whole thing last a good long while, so that the victim suffers maximally but the nation gets the proper message: don't mess with the Monarch!?

Now, we can also ask the question, "is rehabilitation possible?" If it is -- or even might be -- would be not be more just to seek that? Well, obviously, that is my view, but I admit that I may be wrong. Certainly, a lot of supporters of capital punishment think that I am.

So finally, we come to the two buttons. If the square button can completely rehabilitate the fellow in question, then the triangular button -- while it may satisfy something in yourself -- is completely UNNECESSARY. In both cases, the public is spared from further harm by the culprit. But only in one does there have to be additional -- needless -- suffering.

That is the thing though, as far as I see it: It is necessary to kill the criminal in question to achieve justice, regardless of whether there is another alternative where the public is spared from further harm. The killing wouldn't be done to spare the public from further harm, in which case it would be indeed unnecessary, but rather to achieve justice.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am quite sure that what we both regard as (un)necessary harm is not exactly the same group of things. Which is why I have asked.



That is the thing though, as far as I see it: It is necessary to kill the criminal in question to achieve justice, regardless of whether there is another alternative where the public is spared from further harm. The killing wouldn't be done to spare the public from further harm, in which case it would be indeed unnecessary, but rather to achieve justice.

Well, I took the time to explain my views in some depth, so why don't you return the favour. Tell me, In what way do you think that killing someone, even though it does not "spare the public from further harm," achieves "justice?"

That would, I think require you to describe what you actually think "justice" is.

 

[danieldemol]

Interesting. Do you think that people commit evil because of their design? As in some sort of deterministic manner? Or are you assuming this to be true because of the way I have phrased this topic?

I think some crimes are committed due to mental disorders or bad environmental factors, although I don't know enough about human behavior to know if all crimes can be reduced to predetermined causes, so partly just the way you phrased the topic.

 

[Quintessence]

I am intrigued. Why do you find that interesting?

In a culture that generally embraces narratives of free will and being able to make decisions for oneself free from force or coercion, it is a bit odd that some humans will judge in a way that does precisely that. This means on some level one must disrespect the agency of the person one is judging - treating them more like an object to be used and controlled. Somehow, this stripping of agency is considered justice? Does that make sense?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. "Justice" is not a concept I'm particularly a fan of because of this and other problems. Stripped of all the moralizing, self-righteous language, justice seems to be about controlling others more than anything else. Removing their agency, not allowing them to make decisions for themselves, but passing judgement because... reasons.

 

[Quagmire]

What can I do with the joystick?

It's an extremely brave question.

 

[Quagmire]

I would push the square button.

If someone has a debt to pay, it's easier for them to do that if they're alive.

 

[Koldo]

Well, I took the time to explain my views in some depth, so why don't you return the favour. Tell me, In what way do you think that killing someone, even though it does not "spare the public from further harm," achieves "justice?"

That would, I think require you to describe what you actually think "justice" is.

Sure.
Justice is the virtue of treating people fairly.
What does it mean to treat people fairly?
It is to treat people by the merit of their actions and conditions. In essence, this also means that good actions deserve to be reciprocated with good reactions while evil actions deserve to be reciprocated with evil reactions. When either do not happen, justice is missing. This is the simple version.

Therefore, it doesn't matter if killing a murderer is unnecessary to prevent further harm from him, it is the fair treatment and therefore just.

 

[Koldo]

I would push the square button.

If someone has a debt to pay, it's easier for them to do that if they're alive.

Certain debts can not be paid though.

 

[Koldo]

I think some crimes are committed due to mental disorders or bad environmental factors, although I don't know enough about human behavior to know if all crimes can be reduced to predetermined causes, so partly just the way you phrased the topic.

How do you assign personal responsibility when it comes down to human behaviour? Would you say we are responsible for what we do? If so, what does it mean to be responsible for something?