tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post6310599700374089524..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Thought PoliceAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-73627831628024569072007-12-28T21:05:00.000-07:002007-12-28T21:05:00.000-07:00While I agree that actions or negligence harmful t...While I agree that actions or negligence harmful to others are the result of the mental state(s) involved. Inciting others to harmful acts or negligence is also morally wrong.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't follow, however, that people should be criticized or judged for their personal thoughts. You speak of less severe punishments. My position is that morality begins with a mental state, and the discovery of mental states help determine the moral judgement of an action or negligence. Devoid of the act or negligence causing harm however, morality has not yet entered the picture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-16303488473113576292007-11-30T16:14:00.000-07:002007-11-30T16:14:00.000-07:00It wasn't my intent to ask whether hate crimes are...It wasn't my intent to ask whether hate crimes are worse than other crimes (and I'd hesitate to call the other a crime of passion to set it apart, as in my example both were to be done in equal passion, therefore, the passion is equal in both cases) so much as should the law even consider the motive beyond necessity to establish mens rea, although the answers given do inspire some thoughts on that, and have indirectly answered the question.<BR/><BR/>I perhaps should have chosen a better crime A in the example, something that doesn't elicit such a level of empathy relative to the second. In hindsight, my whole effort seems rather poorly constructed. Still, it provided some useful responses.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52364894416200842192007-11-29T20:08:00.000-07:002007-11-29T20:08:00.000-07:00You're correct. I read your post without reading ...You're correct. I read your post without reading his.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-21527282371326716402007-11-29T20:04:00.000-07:002007-11-29T20:04:00.000-07:00Anonymous,I understand the point you're making. I...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I understand the point you're making. I was really responding to Kevin's question that asked, effectively, "should hate crimes be punished more severely than crimes of passion?"<BR/><BR/>I thought the answer was a pretty obvious yes. That's what I was really responding to. The example in question was his, not mine.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-55317206857285373292007-11-29T19:45:00.000-07:002007-11-29T19:45:00.000-07:00To clarify, if someone says hate crimes represent ...To clarify, if someone says hate crimes represent the worst category of murder (thus worthy of more severe punishment), we should test this by thinking of other kinds of murder that are thought of as the worst kind. <BR/><BR/>You don't test it by comparing it to an already established milder form of murder. That's a settled matter. If A is greater than B, and B is greater than than C, then A is greater than than C.<BR/><BR/>Of course this applies to other crimes that fall under hate crimes legislation -- assualt, battery, etc..<BR/><BR/>That's all I'm trying to say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-35949538485999240332007-11-29T19:29:00.000-07:002007-11-29T19:29:00.000-07:00Obviously the motivation matters when it comes to ...<I>Obviously the motivation matters when it comes to deciding punishment.</I><BR/><BR/>I think we've agreed on that. Intent matters. Motive matters. The question of hate crimes is about which motives are worthy of greater punishment. The examples I gave highlight the issue better, because 'crimes of passion' are already considered lesser than other kinds of murder before we even get to hate crimes.<BR/><BR/>My point was to try and get closer to comparing apples to apples (depending on where you come down on the issue). <BR/><BR/>Your example contained something everyone already considers to be something other than apples -- crimes of passion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-32579317633016158282007-11-29T18:49:00.000-07:002007-11-29T18:49:00.000-07:00I think everyone agrees on your example. A better ...<I>I think everyone agrees on your example. A better comparison would be someone murdering someone because of their race vs. someone murdering someone to steal their wallet, for a cheap thrill, because they looked at them wrong, etc.</I><BR/><BR/>So if everyone agrees on this example, it should be obvious that the intent of the crime should matter beyond establishing a guilty mind. Obviously the motivation matters when it comes to deciding punishment.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58859078497930148902007-11-29T17:48:00.000-07:002007-11-29T17:48:00.000-07:00The desire to kill people out of pure racism is wo...<I>The desire to kill people out of pure racism is worse. I say this because the desire to kill someone out of the hurt caused by an affair is somewhat understandable. </I> <BR/><BR/>I think everyone agrees on your example. A better comparison would be someone murdering someone because of their race vs. someone murdering someone to steal their wallet, for a cheap thrill, because they looked at them wrong, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-69118072598928205232007-11-29T10:41:00.000-07:002007-11-29T10:41:00.000-07:00Kevin said...Should murder B be punished to a grea...Kevin said...<BR/><I>Should murder B be punished to a greater degree than murder A simply because the motivation was racism? Both desires led to crimes of equal weight. Should the law consider either criminal's motivation beyond what is necessary to establish mens rea?</I><BR/><BR/>I don't think there's even a question here, considering what I understand about DU.<BR/><BR/>Some desires are worse than others. To the extent that we can modify desires, we should spend more condemnation on the worse desires.<BR/><BR/>The desire to kill people out of pure racism is worse. I say this because the desire to kill someone out of the hurt caused by an affair is somewhat understandable. When I say "understandable," I mean that there are some good desires that are tied up with a marriage and being faithful that could be twisted into the wrong desire to kill someone.<BR/><BR/>The person who kills out of pure racism should be condemned (and punished) more than the person that kills out of the twisted desires associated with being cheated on.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that we should condone either, simply that those that kill with the more evil intent should be punished more, because have have more reason to condemn those more evil desires.<BR/><BR/>The courts even uphold this principle. Those that kill out of malice or for profit are treated more harshly than those that kill in self defense or in a misguided attempt to do good.Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-14210831070950136572007-11-29T10:11:00.000-07:002007-11-29T10:11:00.000-07:00I, too, first thought of the subject of hate crime...I, too, first thought of the subject of hate crimes as I read this. I guess the link is pretty obvious. I'm wondering about it in the greater context of law. Namely, just how much of the thought should the law be concerned with? Should law be limited to thought to the point of merely putting the action into context of mens rea? Or should the law be concerned with the specific content of the desire (beyond the level of merely using it to establish mens rea).<BR/><BR/>For example: We have two example murders. In murder A, a man murders another man for having an affair with his (the first man) wife. In murder B, a white supremacist kills a black man for simply being black. Assume that all other details are equivalent (same amount of planning, same brutality in the murder, same passion of motivation, etc). Should murder B be punished to a greater degree than murder A simply because the motivation was racism? Both desires led to crimes of equal weight. Should the law consider either criminal's motivation beyond what is necessary to establish mens rea?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626857285330229082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-61514843807233759252007-11-29T07:47:00.000-07:002007-11-29T07:47:00.000-07:00anonymous said... I'd be curious about your positi...anonymous said...<BR/><I> I'd be curious about your position on "hate crimes" legislation.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Seconded. How should we respond the words of a white supremacist as he encourages the worst in others? Should we lock him up because of the likelihood that his words will lead to violence, do we get on a megaphone and attempt to overpower his message with reason, or do we wait until some violence has occurred and then sort out who to punish?Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550676050413627351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-20994618643239269282007-11-29T05:12:00.000-07:002007-11-29T05:12:00.000-07:00Amazingly well said.Amazingly well said.Divided By Zer0https://www.blogger.com/profile/02161522651023903941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18750401821789607822007-11-28T23:30:00.000-07:002007-11-28T23:30:00.000-07:00What an excellent posting!I'd be curious about you...What an excellent posting!<BR/><BR/>I'd be curious about your position on "hate crimes" legislation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com