Well, the prison sentence of, say, 10 years is also delivered at once, as fast as it is physically possible - i.e. in 10 years. Would it be delivered in batches of one year duration, spread over thirty years as one year in three, it would be barbaric. This formal logic may be quite annoying.
I think that any criminal punishment is a violation of natural rights. Clearly, the death punishment or confiscation or beating are. I have not read much Locke (I know I should), but I have always thought that the criminal forfeits his rights to some extent when he decides to do the crime. To steal a purse is an act of awful self-humiliation. Of course, one of the reasons is that one may be caught with humiliating effects. But this humiliation is surely a direct result of one's actions. And I believe that the act is self-humiliating even if one is not caught.
Your proposal to send the convicts away is not a solution (quite apart from it being impractical). It would mean evicting them from their homes into a foreign land. Clearly, this is a violation of rights, just like the other kinds of punishment.
But I agree that forfeiting one's rights is a troubling idea. I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
>And I believe that the act is self-humiliating even if one is not caught.
In this light, much of the rap oeuvre (50 Cent's How To Rob) consists of self-mortification. There is something about this explanation that strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it.
>I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
Does getting eaten by a bear violate any rights? How about starving to death?
Has it crossed your mind how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us where rights are considered not to be things unto themselves but either conventions of behavior we adapt to make life more pleasant, or rules of conduct imposed on us by sovereigns in order to make our society more productive?
This was not an explanation but a personal view. For me, personally, it would be humiliating. Yes, I am aware that there are people out there that would steal a purse and not feel bad about it. There even are people that would feel excited to steal a purse and do it for the thrill, not for the money. I have met people that would specifically do others harm for genuine pleasure. It is not self-mortification in their view. Well, I grew up in a catholic country. It is hard to get rid of the idea of harming one's immortal soul.
The self-image and/or dignity of such people are different from mine - I am tempted to call it abnormal. How did they arrive to this condition, I do not know. Some say people are born that way, some argue it is the environment ("difficult childhood, deficit of vitamins"). It does not matter. How these people are "strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it".
>...how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us...
Many different things cross my mind, unfortunately not many stay. One can think explicitly in terms of natural rights without really bothering to decide first where they come from (this is a fascinating topic, but separate). Not everyone likes to put this hat on - the Torah is one example. The cats are never mentioned in the whole of Tanakh - does it mean I better shouldn't too?
Yes, some very nice people think that the rights are "arbitrary" majority-imposed rules of conduct, of equal status with other majority-imposed rules. I personally find it more productive and more natural to view them differently. I think the Parliament is not the best authority to decide what's right and what's wrong.
The idea of prison makes me uneasy. One of the reasons is that it is difficult to square it with the natural rights. My solution is the "forfeiture", but I am still uneasy, that's why I relate to this post. But this unease is not enough to just drop the idea of natural rights.
>The self-image and/or dignity of such people are different from mine - I am tempted to call it abnormal.
Having grown up with these people in their larval stages, in an environment where they didn't feel constrained to put a mask on, I can tell you that in their mind it is YOU who are abnormal. Are you confident that people such as yourself outnumber people such as them, or that it will always be so?
>The cats are never mentioned in the whole of Tanakh - does it mean I better shouldn't too?
On one hand, we can reach out and touch a cat; they're not some abstract concept. On the other, they are of far less consequence to our daily lives and the structure of our society, not to mention our behavior, than natural rights are. Of course, this argument is circumstantial, but you'd think they'd be in the Torah if they were that important.
>Yes, some very nice people think that the rights are "arbitrary" majority-imposed rules of conduct, of equal status with other majority-imposed rules.
Oh, no, the majority never imposes rules of conduct, not for long, anyway. A sovereign, on the other hand...anyway, think of natural rights as a constant in an equation. We all know what our desired end state is-a harmonious, stable and prosperous society, where decent people can live decent lives. A few hundred years ago, our thinkers decided that the best way to write this equation was to throw natural rights on its left side. Unfortunately, when we try to apply this to the real world, we mostly end up with poor results with little resemblance to the desired end state. So, why not try different constants?
>But this unease is not enough to just drop the idea of natural rights.
What does the idea, in and of itself, avail us?
Anyway, I'd still like to find out if getting eaten by a bear is an infringement on your natural rights.
> Are you confident that people such as yourself outnumber people such as them...
No. Also, I am tempted to call abnormal the people that listen to a very loud music with their car windows open. Despite there seeming to be so many of them. I am also tempted to call them other names.
> The cats... You use the Torah argument, then you use the "reach out and touch" argument, then the "consequence to our daily lives" argument. So you seem to be eclectic in selecting your authority. May I be that too?
> We all know what our desired end state is... I think this is wrong. This target is quite different for a religious Jew, for a paternalistic socialist, for a individualistic libertarian, for an extreme nationalist. So it is not right to say that the goal is common, people just try different ways to achieve it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> ...why not try different constants? Because my "target Utopia" is probably compatible with the natural rights thinking - at least more than with some other alternatives. I would like a longer, fuller trial period, in order to test this thinking thoroughly. And the alternatives are being tried too, a lot. All such experiments are messy and incomplete - I do my own experiments much more cleanly. But I am not convinced by this admittedly messy and partial evidence that the natural rights thinking produces "poor results" compared to any alternative.
> I'd still like to find out if getting eaten by a bear is an infringement on your natural rights.
And what about getting eaten by a cancer or an Alzheimer's?
>So you seem to be eclectic in selecting your authority. May I be that too?
Sure.
>This target is quite different for a religious Jew, for a paternalistic socialist, for a individualistic libertarian, for an extreme nationalist.
But surely there's something in common between all their goals. I'm not talking about some sociopath, just the run of the mill representatives.
>And what about getting eaten by a cancer or an Alzheimer's?
Good point! Obviously absurd to say that these situations violate your natural rights, though the effects on you are just the same as if somebody went and violated them. Or, say, your country goes to war with another country, and a bomb drops on your house; it's hard to make the argument that your natural rights got violated, though plainly you've been deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So how can you say that there are natural rights that are anything other than bundles of social obligations owed you by other members of your society and guaranteed to some degree by social mechanisms? And if this is so, how are they natural, or things unto themselves?
>But surely there's something in common between all their goals.
I don't think so. My bliss is not a goal for any anti-Semite. A paternalistic Eden of a socialist, where everyone is carefree and taken care off, is a hell for an individualist that would not give up an ounce of control over his life (and vice versa). Some religious Muslims imagine 72 virgins for each - I guess this dream is not always reciprocated by the virgins. There are Israelis that would like to wake up one day and find out that all Arabs have mysteriously disappeared. And vice versa, certainly. And so on.
> the effects on you are just the same as if somebody went and violated them.
Rights are about people. They mean what not to do to one another. Ethics and stuff. Bombs, bugs, bears - are not the subject for ethics. People are. For one human to kill another is a sin (that's a big no-no). This is because we can comprehend direct consequences of our actions and so are responsible for them. The right is more than just a "social construct", because sin is individual. It is wrong to kill because it is wrong, not because a majority of some dimwits somewhere has decided that it is. It is useless to blame a bug or a bear or a falling brick - they cannot sin. Shit happens. Er, :-).
In the system you're discussing, I don't see any need for rights as properties of the potential victim. I just see responsibilities of the potential violator.
I think that any criminal punishment is a violation of natural rights. Clearly, the death punishment or confiscation or beating are. I have not read much Locke (I know I should), but I have always thought that the criminal forfeits his rights to some extent when he decides to do the crime. To steal a purse is an act of awful self-humiliation. Of course, one of the reasons is that one may be caught with humiliating effects. But this humiliation is surely a direct result of one's actions. And I believe that the act is self-humiliating even if one is not caught.
Your proposal to send the convicts away is not a solution (quite apart from it being impractical). It would mean evicting them from their homes into a foreign land. Clearly, this is a violation of rights, just like the other kinds of punishment.
But I agree that forfeiting one's rights is a troubling idea. I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
Reply
In this light, much of the rap oeuvre (50 Cent's How To Rob) consists of self-mortification. There is something about this explanation that strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it.
>I just cannot think of a punishment that would not violate any rights.
Does getting eaten by a bear violate any rights? How about starving to death?
Has it crossed your mind how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us where rights are considered not to be things unto themselves but either conventions of behavior we adapt to make life more pleasant, or rules of conduct imposed on us by sovereigns in order to make our society more productive?
Does the Torah speak of rights much?
Reply
This was not an explanation but a personal view. For me, personally, it would be humiliating. Yes, I am aware that there are people out there that would steal a purse and not feel bad about it. There even are people that would feel excited to steal a purse and do it for the thrill, not for the money. I have met people that would specifically do others harm for genuine pleasure. It is not self-mortification in their view. Well, I grew up in a catholic country. It is hard to get rid of the idea of harming one's immortal soul.
The self-image and/or dignity of such people are different from mine - I am tempted to call it abnormal. How did they arrive to this condition, I do not know. Some say people are born that way, some argue it is the environment ("difficult childhood, deficit of vitamins"). It does not matter. How these people are "strikes me as wrong, but I can't put my finger on it".
>...how much simpler it would be to explain the world around us...
Many different things cross my mind, unfortunately not many stay. One can think explicitly in terms of natural rights without really bothering to decide first where they come from (this is a fascinating topic, but separate). Not everyone likes to put this hat on - the Torah is one example. The cats are never mentioned in the whole of Tanakh - does it mean I better shouldn't too?
Yes, some very nice people think that the rights are "arbitrary" majority-imposed rules of conduct, of equal status with other majority-imposed rules. I personally find it more productive and more natural to view them differently. I think the Parliament is not the best authority to decide what's right and what's wrong.
The idea of prison makes me uneasy. One of the reasons is that it is difficult to square it with the natural rights. My solution is the "forfeiture", but I am still uneasy, that's why I relate to this post. But this unease is not enough to just drop the idea of natural rights.
Reply
Having grown up with these people in their larval stages, in an environment where they didn't feel constrained to put a mask on, I can tell you that in their mind it is YOU who are abnormal. Are you confident that people such as yourself outnumber people such as them, or that it will always be so?
>The cats are never mentioned in the whole of Tanakh - does it mean I better shouldn't too?
On one hand, we can reach out and touch a cat; they're not some abstract concept. On the other, they are of far less consequence to our daily lives and the structure of our society, not to mention our behavior, than natural rights are. Of course, this argument is circumstantial, but you'd think they'd be in the Torah if they were that important.
>Yes, some very nice people think that the rights are "arbitrary" majority-imposed rules of conduct, of equal status with other majority-imposed rules.
Oh, no, the majority never imposes rules of conduct, not for long, anyway. A sovereign, on the other hand...anyway, think of natural rights as a constant in an equation. We all know what our desired end state is-a harmonious, stable and prosperous society, where decent people can live decent lives. A few hundred years ago, our thinkers decided that the best way to write this equation was to throw natural rights on its left side. Unfortunately, when we try to apply this to the real world, we mostly end up with poor results with little resemblance to the desired end state. So, why not try different constants?
>But this unease is not enough to just drop the idea of natural rights.
What does the idea, in and of itself, avail us?
Anyway, I'd still like to find out if getting eaten by a bear is an infringement on your natural rights.
Reply
No. Also, I am tempted to call abnormal the people that listen to a very loud music with their car windows open. Despite there seeming to be so many of them. I am also tempted to call them other names.
> The cats...
You use the Torah argument, then you use the "reach out and touch" argument, then the "consequence to our daily lives" argument. So you seem to be eclectic in selecting your authority. May I be that too?
> We all know what our desired end state is...
I think this is wrong. This target is quite different for a religious Jew, for a paternalistic socialist, for a individualistic libertarian, for an extreme nationalist. So it is not right to say that the goal is common, people just try different ways to achieve it. Quite the opposite, in fact.
> ...why not try different constants?
Because my "target Utopia" is probably compatible with the natural rights thinking - at least more than with some other alternatives. I would like a longer, fuller trial period, in order to test this thinking thoroughly. And the alternatives are being tried too, a lot. All such experiments are messy and incomplete - I do my own experiments much more cleanly. But I am not convinced by this admittedly messy and partial evidence that the natural rights thinking produces "poor results" compared to any alternative.
> I'd still like to find out if getting eaten by a bear is an infringement on your natural rights.
And what about getting eaten by a cancer or an Alzheimer's?
Reply
Sure.
>This target is quite different for a religious Jew, for a paternalistic socialist, for a individualistic libertarian, for an extreme nationalist.
But surely there's something in common between all their goals. I'm not talking about some sociopath, just the run of the mill representatives.
>And what about getting eaten by a cancer or an Alzheimer's?
Good point! Obviously absurd to say that these situations violate your natural rights, though the effects on you are just the same as if somebody went and violated them. Or, say, your country goes to war with another country, and a bomb drops on your house; it's hard to make the argument that your natural rights got violated, though plainly you've been deprived of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So how can you say that there are natural rights that are anything other than bundles of social obligations owed you by other members of your society and guaranteed to some degree by social mechanisms? And if this is so, how are they natural, or things unto themselves?
Reply
I don't think so. My bliss is not a goal for any anti-Semite. A paternalistic Eden of a socialist, where everyone is carefree and taken care off, is a hell for an individualist that would not give up an ounce of control over his life (and vice versa). Some religious Muslims imagine 72 virgins for each - I guess this dream is not always reciprocated by the virgins. There are Israelis that would like to wake up one day and find out that all Arabs have mysteriously disappeared. And vice versa, certainly. And so on.
> the effects on you are just the same as if somebody went and violated them.
Rights are about people. They mean what not to do to one another. Ethics and stuff. Bombs, bugs, bears - are not the subject for ethics. People are. For one human to kill another is a sin (that's a big no-no). This is because we can comprehend direct consequences of our actions and so are responsible for them. The right is more than just a "social construct", because sin is individual. It is wrong to kill because it is wrong, not because a majority of some dimwits somewhere has decided that it is. It is useless to blame a bug or a bear or a falling brick - they cannot sin. Shit happens. Er, :-).
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment