- #1
Moridin
- 692
- 3
If so, why do we put people in jail? Isn't inequality necessary for a functional justice system or any praise or blame configuration?
Moridin said:If so, why do we put people in jail? Isn't inequality necessary for a functional justice system or any praise or blame configuration?
RonL said:It seems to me that you are using the wrong words, every person on the face of the planet should have equal rights.
Value on the other hand is dependent on need, a small person that can fit through a small hole, is of more value than a large person.
By some standards Nelson Mandela is of great value, and yet he spent most of his life in jail.
A person that can be instructed once and follow through with a task without more help, is more likely to be of more value than someone that has to be instructed many time how to do something.
Huckleberry said:People are not put in jail because they are deemed to have less value. First they must perform some action that is against the laws of that society. Then, if the laws are just, they are put in jail for actions that do not respect the value of others. If people choose to see a criminal as having less value as themselves, and use that to justify illegal actions against that criminal, then they will also be put in jail.
It all boils down to the golden rule: treat others as you would like to be treated.
Well, as long as both parties consent to being tortured I don't have a moral argument against it. However, I do think that is insane, and probably the result of poor rationalization of harmful events to those individuals in the past. Or it could have a genetic cause. Justice systems have exceptions for cases of people who, by reason of insanity, are incapable of making responsible decisions. An empathetic person would feel sympathy and sadness for these people, not scorn.
It's my opinion that choosing to devalue someone else would only devalue the individual that makes that choice. I disagree with your statement that people are stripped of value when they perform an illegal act. I believe that value cannot be taken, only given or received.
Yes, I presuppose a natural morality. Please don't draw any conclusions based on that.Moridin said:So you agree that the golden rule presupposes the existence of natural morality?
I think it is sometimes necessary to put people in jail, but I do not see being placed in jail as a reduction in the value of a human being.Then you cannot possibly justify putting someone in jail, now can you?
Do you see the death penalty as such a reduction of the victim's value?Huckleberry said:I do not see being placed in jail as a reduction in the value of a human being.
Moridin said:It would be impossible to put anyone in jail if everyone had the same value or rights. When you do something illegal, you are stripped of value and rights and thrown in jail.
I'll admit to only skimming the thread, so maybe I missed someone else saying it(didn't look like it), but this is a really, really simple issue, though the question is asked in a little bit of a confusing way.Moridin said:If so, why do we put people in jail? Isn't inequality necessary for a functional justice system or any praise or blame configuration?
No. It is an individual's actions that should determine their social value. Punishments should be based on a person's actions, not their social value. A person who has committed no crime and is sentenced to death does not have lower value. A peaceful protester who is wrongfully arrested does not have lesser value. The fact that a person is convicted and sentenced to some form of punishment does not lower their value. It is the extent to which the criminal's actions harm others that determine their loss of social value.out of whack said:Do you see the death penalty as such a reduction of the victim's value?
No? If actions determine value (your first sentence) and actions determine punishment (your second sentence) then wouldn't you say that punishment follows value? I think actions determine social value which in turn should determine both rewards and punishments. It's not always the way it goes, but at least this looks like a workable principle.Huckleberry said:No. It is an individual's actions that should determine their social value. Punishments should be based on a person's actions, not their social value.out of whack said:Do you see the death penalty as such a reduction of the victim's value?
What I meant by my question above is that when a man is condemned to death, his value must be deemed to be negative otherwise there would be no reason to rid society of a valuable member. Even an innocent who is mistakenly condemned must be deemed (by the society that condemns him) to have no redeeming value, even if this judgement is in error.A person who has committed no crime and is sentenced to death does not have lower value.
As you said, it should follow their actions or lack thereof. There is of course a difference between true value and estimated value. Estimates are based on a process that is necessarily limited and therefore imperfect.How does the concept of social value apply to people who have not committed any crime?
The evidence says no. They are not equally rewarded.For example, does a homeless man have the same value as a doctor?
Is it a bigger crime to spit on someone of higher value than to spit on someone of lower value? This is similar as asking if it's a bigger crime to steal $10 than to steal $5. Theft remains theft regardless of the amount (within reasonable limits). I think the same rule would apply to spitting on people. The perpetrator loses value (not the victims) in comparable amounts.Would it be any more or less demeaning if I were to spit on each of them? Who gains or loses value in this scenario, and to what extent comparatively?
I say yes, but equality under the law does not imply equal value. It implies that the law applies equally to all members, regardless of their social value.Is it necessary that all individuals remain equal under the law to maintain a relatively unbiased justice system?
out of whack said:No? If actions determine value (your first sentence) and actions determine punishment (your second sentence) then wouldn't you say that punishment follows value? I think actions determine social value which in turn should determine both rewards and punishments. It's not always the way it goes, but at least this looks like a workable principle.
What I meant by my question above is that when a man is condemned to death, his value must be deemed to be negative otherwise there would be no reason to rid society of a valuable member. Even an innocent who is mistakenly condemned must be deemed (by the society that condemns him) to have no redeeming value, even if this judgement is in error.
As you said, it should follow their actions or lack thereof. There is of course a difference between true value and estimated value. Estimates are based on a process that is necessarily limited and therefore imperfect.
The evidence says no. They are not equally rewarded.
Is it a bigger crime to spit on someone of higher value than to spit on someone of lower value? This is similar as asking if it's a bigger crime to steal $10 than to steal $5. Theft remains theft regardless of the amount (within reasonable limits). I think the same rule would apply to spitting on people. The perpetrator loses value (not the victims) in comparable amounts.
There is no scientific evidence that suggests that all humans have the same intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is subjective and can vary based on individual beliefs and societal norms.
There is no objective way to measure the value of a human life. While some may use economic or societal contributions as a measure, these do not accurately reflect the worth of an individual.
Unfortunately, throughout history, certain groups of humans have been considered more valuable than others based on factors such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status. However, in terms of intrinsic value, all humans are equal.
The value of a human may change based on individual actions and behaviors, but their intrinsic worth as a human being remains the same.
The concept of equal value for humans is not a scientific fact, as value is subjective and varies among individuals and cultures. However, the scientific community generally supports the idea that all humans deserve equal rights and opportunities regardless of their differences.