and it's well known that in tyrannies and dictatures, the law is what the powers that be want it to be.Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:44 amTry this: Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:39 amBut that's not all he said, is it? He provided examples. Being dragged out of your home by strangers and thrown into a cell is not meaningfully different physically from being kidnapped. But it is not considered morally equivalent. Yet, for executions, you've provided nothing but a physical equivalence and assumed the moral one.
Lisa Montgomery
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41033
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Epstein didn't hang himself.
His network (unsurprising) is still protected. It's a 'conspiracy theory' if one looks into it, at any depth.
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
He attempted to show that whatever might determine moral equivalence between a punishment and crime, it cannot be physical similarities alone. He did this by showing the similarity between some crimes and their legal punishments, which we don't consider to be morally equivalent.I went by what you presented. My reply was relevant, clear and not a mischaracterisation of his argument. I quoted the critical bits verbatim and drew valid conclusions from them.
You took from this only that what is legal is morally permissible. But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
"Legal" necessarily comes with baggage and can't be whatever you want without losing the meaning of his argument. The obvious assumption that "legal" here includes the idea of proportionality renders your statement about dissidents irrelevant for example.
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Kindly quote the sentences he wrote to that effect. They are definitely not among the excerpt you did quote.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 6:08 amhe makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
That said, this remains a problem: The only difference between his position and the opponents of capital punishment he refers to is that in his view some laws make capital punishment morally unobjectionable while his opponents maintain that none do. It will be nice of you if you quote his argument by which he concludes that some laws make capital punishment morally unobjectionable.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60720
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Legalised kidnapping and legalised murder are a lot different. Without life there is nothing. With imprisonment there's life yet.
And capital punishment offers only revenge over life imprisonment. Not something civilised societies should be involved in.
And capital punishment offers only revenge over life imprisonment. Not something civilised societies should be involved in.
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
You snipped the bolded bit from your quote:
As for the remainder of your post, the excerpt only attempts to show that physical similarities alone can't be all that might make the punishment equivalent to the crime. Giving several examples where this is perceived to be true, he asks the reader to consider what makes the death penalty different then?*
*I can't quote where he actually asks the reader to do that, but it is what he's doing just the same.
If what is meant by "legal" can be divorced from concepts like proportionality, as it is in your comment about dissidents, then a perception of a moral difference between the physically similar punishment and crime in his examples can't be assumed. He does assume it, ergo he's working with a particular conception of legal that renders your dissidents example irrelevant.But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
As for the remainder of your post, the excerpt only attempts to show that physical similarities alone can't be all that might make the punishment equivalent to the crime. Giving several examples where this is perceived to be true, he asks the reader to consider what makes the death penalty different then?*
*I can't quote where he actually asks the reader to do that, but it is what he's doing just the same.
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yes, I think this is likely to be the right approach. Imprisonment is a kind of wrong...pErvinalia wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:15 amLegalised kidnapping and legalised murder are a lot different. Without life there is nothing. With imprisonment there's life yet.
As for what civilized society ought to do, meh.
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
- pErvinalia
- On the good stuff
- Posts: 60720
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
- About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
- Location: dystopia
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yeah, what has civilised society ever given us?
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery

The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
I snipped it because it's word salad. What do you even mean with "difference between a crime and physically similar punishments"? My guess is that you meant something like "difference between a crime and physically similar actions", but that gets us back to the problem I pointed out earlier; van den Haag's only criterion - as far as you quoted him - by which murder can be differentiated from a morally justified killing of a human being is that the latter is condoned by means of a law. He is simply gainsaying the opponents of capital punishment he references, who say that no law justifies the killing of a human being.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:20 amYou snipped the bolded bit from your quote:
But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
If he has something else to prove them wrong you must be able to quote that. If you can't, he has nothing except for this: Capital punishment is morally justified if there is a law that says it is. And with that we are back to testing the assertion with my statement and yours. To wit,
"Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
"Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 39930
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
What about the idea of proportionality in sentencing? I think the idea here is that proportionality isn't simply the legal recourse available in sentencing as determined by the law, such that sentence B follows action A because the law says that it should and must, but that B is (or at least should be) in some way proportionate to A. Then the argument might be that execution is a proportionate sentence for murder reflected in law and not necessarily determined by law. Interested in your thoughts on this.Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:40 amI snipped it because it's word salad. What do you even mean with "difference between a crime and physically similar punishments"? My guess is that you meant something like "difference between a crime and physically similar actions", but that gets us back to the problem I pointed out earlier; van den Haag's only criterion - as far as you quoted him - by which murder can be differentiated from a morally justified killing of a human being is that the latter is condoned by means of a law. He is simply gainsaying the opponents of capital punishment he references, who say that no law justifies the killing of a human being.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:20 amYou snipped the bolded bit from your quote:
But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
If he has something else to prove them wrong you must be able to quote that. If you can't, he has nothing except for this: Capital punishment is morally justified if there is a law that says it is. And with that we are back to testing the assertion with my statement and yours. To wit,
"Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
"Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Again, it's an excerpt and it deals with a very specific counter to capital punishment i.e. that the death penalty is murder.Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:40 amSean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:20 amYou snipped the bolded bit from your quote:
I snipped it because it's word salad. What do you even mean with "difference between a crime and physically similar punishments"? My guess is that you meant something like "difference between a crime and physically similar actions", but that gets us back to the problem I pointed out earlier; van den Haag's only criterion - as far as you quoted him - by which murder can be differentiated from a morally justified killing of a human being is that the latter is condoned by means of a law. He is simply gainsaying the opponents of capital punishment he references, who say that no law justifies the killing of a human being.But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
If he has something else to prove them wrong you must be able to quote that. If you can't, he has nothing except for this: Capital punishment is morally justified if there is a law that says it is. And with that we are back to testing the assertion with my statement and yours. To wit,
"Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
"Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
I had to go back and reread the excerpt. You had me worried about my sanity for a second.I snipped it because it's word salad. What do you even mean with "difference between a crime and physically similar punishments"?

--excerptLegally imposed punishments such as fines, incarcerations, or executions, although often physically identical to the crimes punished, are not crimes or their moral equivalent.
...and later
--also exceptUnlawful imprisonment and kidnapping need not differ physically from the lawful arrest and incarceration used to punish unlawful imprisonment and kidnapping.
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Yes, proportionality is an excellent idea, but that is not what Ernest van den Haag argues about, at least not in the excerpt Sean Hayden quoted. From what we've seen so far he is simply asserting that a state sanctioned execution is not murder because a law makes it moral. The question must be asked: Is that what the law does? Hence my test statement, to which Sean has added his own.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 11:24 amWhat about the idea of proportionality in sentencing? I think the idea here is that proportionality isn't simply the legal recourse available in sentencing as determined by the law, such that sentence B follows action A because the law says that it should and must, but that B is (or at least should be) in some way proportionate to A. Then the argument might be that execution is a proportionate sentence for murder reflected in law and not necessarily determined by law. Interested in your thoughts on this.Hermit wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 9:40 amI snipped it because it's word salad. What do you even mean with "difference between a crime and physically similar punishments"? My guess is that you meant something like "difference between a crime and physically similar actions", but that gets us back to the problem I pointed out earlier; van den Haag's only criterion - as far as you quoted him - by which murder can be differentiated from a morally justified killing of a human being is that the latter is condoned by means of a law. He is simply gainsaying the opponents of capital punishment he references, who say that no law justifies the killing of a human being.Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:20 amYou snipped the bolded bit from your quote:
But by drawing attention to the fact that we perceive a difference between a crime and physically similar punishments, he makes clear that he can't possibly mean everything legal is morally permissible where legal can mean anything.
If he has something else to prove them wrong you must be able to quote that. If you can't, he has nothing except for this: Capital punishment is morally justified if there is a law that says it is. And with that we are back to testing the assertion with my statement and yours. To wit,
"Executing political dissidents is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
"Executing car thieves is not murder when they are lawfully executed." Is it?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Sean, quote van den Haags argument by which he concludes that some laws make capital punishment morally unobjectionable. It is not contained in the excerpt you provided.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
- Sean Hayden
- Microagressor
- Posts: 18924
- Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:55 pm
- About me: recovering humanist
- Contact:
Re: Lisa Montgomery
Keeping in mind that legal/laws isn't whatever you want them to be, the argument is the point of the comparison between crimes and physically similar punishments. He assumes the reader will perceive a moral difference despite their similarities, ergo just because death is the result of both murder and capital punishment, they needn't necessarily be considered the same morally.
The latest fad is a poverty social. Every woman must wear calico,
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
and every man his old clothes. In addition each is fined 25 cents if
he or she does not have a patch on his or her clothing. If these
parties become a regular thing, says an exchange, won't there be
a good chance for newspaper men to shine?
The Silver State. 1894.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 11 guests