Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Wrong. It is not society's duty to help the poor. Society is a tool with many uses, that can only be sustained through a common-will. A common-will which does not have to include raising everyone's standard of living.
And what is "common-will", is it the same as Rousseau's? If it's, then can you proove that such thing exists? If it exists can you proove that it's relevant? Many questions in your way. I never talk about "common-will" because I find the concept as superempirical, and I believe it's non-existent as god, for example.
Beyond that I fear that you're misunderstanding what I said. I talked about morality, therefore a moral duty, morality is subjective (there are others that argue the contrary, as always), so what you really have to answer is towards the moral value of raising the "standard of living" of everyone, not if it belongs to the common-will in a given time and a given place, that's totally irrelevant. If the good didn't exist then we should create it, as simple as that.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You look too deeply into something that is plain as day. The common-will is simply the desire to act as a group, as oppposed to many groups.
Things that are plain as day are usually very complex issues in disguise. Something as a "common-will" is philosophically highly problematic.
When you say that the individual has a duty to society that is a moral evaluation, yes? If that is the case then the fact that society is tool with many uses does not prevent it to have a duty to the individual as well. Society can only exist as a collective of individuals, how can it be the object of duty distinct of those to other individuals? Likewise, what would be the reason for the individual to create society if it doesn't expect something in return?
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Society is not a big loving care-bear that a bunch of people get together and create in order to have it rain fluffy prosperity down on them. It is a tool, a force, that is only capable when you have many people working together as a group. It'd be hubris for me to say that I know what the definitive goal of society is, but here in america the tool that is society is used via the hand of the republic. The will of the people and the power of the government move it.
Not knowing the purpose of society must make living in it strange. I'm not saying society is a big loving care-bear, but it's purpose must be for those who create it. Society has a goal, it is not the goal. Therefore, the state is there for the people and not the people for the state.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Saturnus
Not knowing the purpose of society must make living in it strange. I'm not saying society is a big loving care-bear, but it's purpose must be for those who create it. Society has a goal, it is not the goal. Therefore, the state is there for the people and not the people for the state.
Exactly: Mutual care. But GC don't mistake this afirmations with factual occurences, it's just how I see society, how I perceive a moral duty. You don't perceive it, and it's OK, you appear to follow the rule of utilitarism, more than the common-will, as you say that society is a "tool". Both rules have flaws but that's far from the topic's range.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Data on the sickness of pedophiles. More an analog case really, wich I'm sure people will find sick and disgusting. Doctor von Cosel likes bodies (WARNING: written necrophilia in there). Ironically doctor von Cosel was declared sane by psycologists. What does this says about pedophilia? Well being an analogue case this shows that not all pedophiles are insane (or "sick")
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
There's no doubt that pedophiles are sick. The question is whether or not they deserve treatment.
*climbs on high horse*
When informed and educated people use the word "sick", they mean something else than what you do
*climbs down from high horse*
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
There's no doubt that pedophiles are sick. The question is whether or not they deserve treatment.
If the person is sick, and if the sickness is what caused a reaction that led him to commit a criminal act, then there's no doubt he's inimputable, therefore stands without guilt (a great "hole" in the concept of the "rabid dog"), the question of treatment refers always to the danger grade in wich this subject falls, but if it's a criminal act then you can be sure that he'll receive. Saying otherwise is illogical.
But my point is that pedofilia is not a necessary nor sufficient condition to be "sick". To me, then, pedophiles, if they commited a criminal act, then should be treated in principle as everyone, psicologic evaluations should be done case by case.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
And I was just beginning to read Marquis de Sade's Juliette...
...that book was disturbing.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Oh please, enlightened one, explain to this mere mortal what you mean.
Not entirely unsurprising, 'sick' means having an unhealthy condition. If a certain behaviour is a symptome of a sickness, then it cannot be ascribed to the choice of the person commiting it.That person is then just a victim. It certainly isn't connected to how appalling you find that behaviour. There are numerous people for which cleaning themselves is often a symptome of disease.
But you're not necessarily entirely wrong though. Pedophily could be considered a disease and still not be the direct cause of pederasty. Seen that way, pedophiles can be pitied and offered help, while pederasts can be punished.
Re: Another strike towards sanity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Maybe in Argentina it works that way, but here in America you have to prove you can't tell the difference between right and wrong before you're sick enough to be not guilty.
I don't know what you mean by this GC, that's exactly what I said. You presume wellbeing, and the defendent prooves sickness. Actually the dogma, yes a dogma, is pretty similar, since it's based in similar principles and, of course, many of this laws, more often than not, adjust to this principles.
Quote:
Pedophiles and rapists know what they do is wrong. That argument has never stood up in court. If it ever has, it certainly got overturned on appeal.
That should be prooved. If you're saying that all pedophiles are sick, in some technical sense, then you cannot attach responsability to their actions. Saturnus explains it better than I.
