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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (134601)	5/27/2004 4:11:12 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Neocon, re: In most cases, it is preferable to bring people to trial. However, surely you are aware that the Shari'ah legitimates stoning an adulterous, so the rule of law is not a cure all, it may be barbaric itself. In the end, conscience is unavoidable. I would do a lot to help a young woman evade the rule of law as administered by the Taliban, all the more if I knew she were guilty. Would you turn her over to the mullahs? The questions of whether we should follow the rule of law to punish or simply rely on "moral outrage," is separate from the question of whether we should refuse to apply the rule of law when it morally outrages us to do so. The first question is easily answered and I answered it when I disagreed with your earlier assertion that "moral outrage" was, in and of itself, a justification for killing. The second question is a much more intriguing one. I am a firm believer in the concept of individual conscience taking precedence over the rule of law. Not only are many laws unfair, but laws are often blunt and do not address all of the myriad situations that exist in life. We need to look at those factors that surround a "crime" and apply our common sense and community values at both the prosecutorial, trial and sentencing stages of the process. That's why I disagree with the conservative right's movement to require that judges and courts be severely curtailed in using discretion in sentencing. My personal values go much further down that trail. I do not personally feel constrained by legal definitions of right and wrong or by the laws application of different shades of gray to various rights and wrongs. As an example, I think it's a bigger crime for a trophy hunter to legally kill an animal as a trophy than I do for a hunter to illegally kill an animal to use for meat when times are hard. If I saw someone do the second I wouldn't turn him in. It will be no surprise to you, therefor, that I would help the young woman evade the rule of law, not feel a single pang of conscience and feel proud of myself for having promoted a greater good. In life I feel we are all morally bound to do what we can to make the world better. Sometimes my view of what will make the world better will conflict with someone else's view. When that happens I hope that I'll continue to weigh the question of whose call it is. If the effect is predominately on the other person then it's his call and I'll stand aside. If not then I'll step in. It's the same for nations and that's why we're wrong in Iraq when we try to impose our values on their lives.