Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (15210)	6/21/2002 5:54:41 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Justice demands retribution as a way to restore the moral balance of the universe. That's just one paradigm. I feel like today is Groundhog Day.

To: Neocon who wrote (15210)	6/21/2002 6:01:47 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

When the state tries to uphold the sanctity of life by killing it will never avoid the contradiction successfully. That contradiction dilutes any moral or ethical basis for the very punishment. What is left is a question of who is meaner, and that is not always a contest that society can or would want to win. TP

To: Neocon who wrote (15210)	6/21/2002 11:10:04 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

Justice demands retribution as a way to restore the moral balance of the universe. Isn't that a bit ambitious, possibly even pretentious? We don't even know with any certainty that there is a balance to be restored, do we? If our search for justice - which is a concept we invented, pursued through a system we created - can protect us from malefactors without stepping on the rights which we have decided all citizens are to be accorded, that would be quite enough for me. That's a pretty ambitious goal in its own right, without setting out to restore the moral balance of the universe....

To: Neocon who wrote (15210)	6/24/2002 1:15:49 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"Justice demands retribution as a way to restore the moral balance of the universe." I don't know that that is a useful perspective. However, let us take it as a premise. What then is the "balance", and how is it to be "restored"? If harming someone has unbalanced the universe, then how does harming that person restore the balance? There are many ways (short of killing a person) which may curtail the freedom of that person to threaten harm. When we look at the problem of Acts of God (as they are known), and the tragedy and suffering that floods, fires, earthquakes, disease, etc. inflict on life, we are tempted to assume that any "balance" to the universe (in the sense of the admixture of good and evil) would naturally necessitate a great deal of both good and evil. If you were speaking merely of the relations of humankind, I suppose that that would have been made clear. Now, the universe is a big place. How is one to know how much or little of one act or the other act needs to be done in order to have "balance"? It seems to me that merely assuming that the universe has a moral balance, is an awfully egregious presumption. And the idea that you or I could restore the balance likewise rather conceited, is it not? If the universe does have a "balance", then how is one to know that the criminals are not restoring that balance...or at the very least, contributing to it?? I certainly don't mean to depreciate the possibilities inherent in your speculation. It is just that the surety with which you offered such a fantastic statement was somewhat off-putting...