No, the puzzle is why people who would in fact rejoice if Pinochet or Kissinger were brought up on charges feel obliged to pretend that they think it's barbaric to feel that way or do that sort of thing. In fact it would barbaric _not_ to do that sort of thing. Decent people support justice, although of course in a free society people will differ about what that involves. (Hence democracy, to resolve such differences peaceably.) But apart from a few philosophers whose brains have been washed by some metaphysical doctrine, I actually do trust that if push comes to shove, all of you would jump the right way on this one too.
Jordan, don't be scared, no one would trust me with a position of power, and my entirely justified view that anti-retributivists aren't being honest about their beliefs, and in general that very often others can know what we really think better than we can ourselves (in historical materialist terms this is a basic premise of the theory of ideology) does not commit me to any sort of paternalism -- something I'd vigorously oppose. So if I ended up on the losing side of a vote about whether to let the torturers go untouched, I'd abide by the results.
--- Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:35:17 -0700 "Jordan Hayes"
> <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
> writes:
> > I thought I'd seen it all on this here intertubes,
> but this one takes
> >
> > the cake:
> >
> > -=-=-=
> >
> > Carrol writes:
> >
> > > "I want torture to stop -- but it's incidental
> to me
> > > whether someone is made morally responsible for
> > > its occurrence."
> >
> > Andie writes:
> >
> > > No, you don't.
> >
> > Carrol writes:
> >
> > > Well, what can I say. You know more about what I
> > > really think/feel than I do.
> >
> > Andie writes:
> >
> > > Actually I think I do know better than you what
> you
> > > think about this, and if you were honest with
> yourself
> > > you'd admit it too. just like all of us on this
> list.
> >
> > -=-=-=
> >
> > I think the word I'm thinking of here is
> 'delusional' ...
> >
> > But it's worth going back to what he thinks he's
> right about:
> >
> > > It's time to stop lying to ourselves. You want
> see the
> > > torturers jailed or executed, the same as all
> decent people
> > > do.
> >
> > I guess I now know who not to ask about how to
> characterize "decent
> > people" ... I'm with Carrol on this one, and I
> wish I could laugh at
> >
> > Andie's pronouncements -- if they didn't just
> scare me.
>
> I am with you and Carrol on this. Frankly, I think
> that
> andie is out to lunch on this, especially with his
> pronouncements that he knows what we think
> better than we do. Perhaps he does, but the
> burden of proof falls very much on his shoulders
> to establish that to be the case. The more
> interesting question is why such a smart
> and humane guy should take that sort of
> position.
>
> Since I mentioned my friend Tom Clark before,
> it is relevant to note that over the past couple
> of years, he has been engaged in a sort of
> dialog/debate with U. Penn law professor,
> Stephen Morse, over the justifiability of
> retributivism. Morse holds that even if
> we accept a fully naturalistic view of man
> which denies libertarian free will, that
> retribution as a goal (indeed the central
> goal) of criminal justice can still be justified.
> Tom Clark on the other hands holds that once
> we dispense with the notion of libertarian
> free will, retribution as such becomes increasingly
> harder to justify. See:
> http://www.naturalism.org/morse.htm
>
> Jim F.
>
> >
> > /jordan
> >
> > ___________________________________
> >
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222