What you have stumbled onto my friend is the so called "Star Trek Effect". See when Star Trek first aired in the late 1960's it ushered in a new era of peace and understanding. The plucky crew of the Enterprise gave the world hope for a better tomorrow. Which you can clearly see indicated by the corresponding drop in California's homicide rate from the pre-Star Trek era.
Further if you compare the pre-Star Trek era (15,000BCE-1966AD) number of violent deaths with the post Star Trek Era (1967-Present), you can see just how great an affect Star Trek has had. Seriously, Statistics don't lie.
Claiming that the drop in the murder rate is due to suspending the death penalty is just plain silly.
First off, this is the state of California, not the country (thanks for looking at the actual information)
secondly, there's other data I posted about it which also suggests that states with capital punishment have higher murder rates, REGARDLESS of year.
It does bring up the point though, that the information given in that blurb is merely correlation and doesn't provide strong evidence as to whether one causes the other, or why.
That's easy enough to work out.
You take the death penalty away from some of the states and watch to see what happens.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
What you have stumbled onto my friend is the so called "Star Trek Effect". See when Star Trek first aired in the late 1960's it ushered in a new era of peace and understanding. The plucky crew of the Enterprise gave the world hope for a better tomorrow. Which you can clearly see indicated by the corresponding drop in California's homicide rate from the pre-Star Trek era.
Further if you compare the pre-Star Trek era (15,000BCE-1966AD) number of violent deaths with the post Star Trek Era (1967-Present), you can see just how great an affect Star Trek has had. Seriously, Statistics don't lie.
Claiming that the drop in the murder rate is due to suspending the death penalty is just plain silly.
First off, this is the state of California, not the country (thanks for looking at the actual information)
secondly, there's other data I posted about it which also suggests that states with capital punishment have higher murder rates, REGARDLESS of year.
It does bring up the point though, that the information given in that blurb is merely correlation and doesn't provide strong evidence as to whether one causes the other, or why.
sure.
but when there is a lot of correlary evidence from different angles suggesting the same thing, and no evidence to the contrary, it is a decent argument.
This was the first stuff I found. If Cade had any sort of response, I'd have put in the effort to find something more causatory. Since no one has anything, though, it's not worth the effort.
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
but it is more correlary evidence suggesting the same thing.
And there's even more on the site I linked.
There isn't going to be a direct causation for something like this, because that's not possible.
It's not good enough to dismiss it as a correlary when there's so much of it.
It's like screaming strawman strawman when you are losing an argument and there's isn't one.
It might not give any clues as to a causation, but the consistency of the correlates shows there is something systematic underlying the disparaty in rates between states overall and its being reflected in murder rates between states with the death penalty and those without.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
but it is more correlary evidence suggesting the same thing.
And there's even more on the site I linked.
There isn't going to be a direct causation for something like this, because that's not possible.
It's not good enough to dismiss it as a correlary when there's so much of it.
It's like screaming strawman strawman when you are losing an argument and there's isn't one.
It might not give any clues as to a causation, but the consistency of the correlates shows there is something systematic underlying the disparaty in rates between states overall and its being reflected in murder rates between states with the death penalty and those without.
dude, I'm the one who posted it. I'm not trying to dismiss it.
I just want to be clear that this isn't open and shut, just strongly suggestive.
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
I said don't assume I'm picking a side you are assuming I'm picking a side what are you doing man.
if someone does you a favour, you will want to return that favour. in fact you will feel great unrest at the idea of not returning the favour. the size of the favour doesn't matter.
its pretty much instinctual and of benefit to our successful survival that this occurs, without any requirement of overt reasoning or rationality behind it, since we are a social species.
and yes it is culturally free.
we are social animals because the successful spreading of our genetic material takes place, has always taken place, and always will take place, within the context of other humans we interact with.
it isn't enough to just consider the individual for instincts, but the whole herd of humans as well. we have prosocial-cooperative reflexes. it's a nice way to think about it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
I said don't assume I'm picking a side you are assuming I'm picking a side what are you doing man.
Both of you.
Back to reading class. Off you go.
man I didn't assume anything
all I did was summarize your post
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
I said don't assume I'm picking a side you are assuming I'm picking a side what are you doing man.
if someone does you a favour, you will want to return that favour. in fact you will feel great unrest at the idea of not returning the favour. the size of the favour doesn't matter.
its pretty much instinctual and of benefit to our successful survival that this occurs, without any requirement of overt reasoning or rationality behind it, since we are a social species.
and yes it is culturally free.
we are social animals because the successful spreading of our genetic material takes place, has always taken place, and always will take place, within the context of other humans we interact with.
it isn't enough to just consider the individual for instincts, but the whole herd of humans as well. we have prosocial reflexes. it's a nice way to think about it.
You're oversimplifying.
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
Evander on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Honestly, if people can point me to examples of this "fundamental human need for retributive justice" in academic study or philosophy or wherever, I will stop being so contemptuous of it, I swear. This thread is the first place I have encountered it, and only in the context of people who want to find a way to justify the punishment system.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
I said don't assume I'm picking a side you are assuming I'm picking a side what are you doing man.
Both of you.
Back to reading class. Off you go.
man I didn't assume anything
all I did was summarize your post
ah i see. I took the negative phrasing the wrong way. My bad.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
This is an explanation certainly. It is not the only explanation, and it doesn't explain altruistic behavior. So we are both guilty of oversimplification. Forgive me. It's an internet forum, so I've gotten into bad habits.
What I mean by culturally free is not that we will want to be fair to members of another culture.
It is that, in all cultures, you find this fairness impulse.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
This is an explanation certainly. It is not the only explanation, and it doesn't explain altruistic behavior. So we are both guilty of oversimplification. Forgive me. It's an internet forum, so I've gotten into bad habits.
Altruism could again be explained by projection.
And yeah, I meant to say that it was a possible explanation.
Evander on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
This is an explanation certainly. It is not the only explanation, and it doesn't explain altruistic behavior. So we are both guilty of oversimplification. Forgive me. It's an internet forum, so I've gotten into bad habits.
Altruism could again be explained by projection.
And yeah, I meant to say that it was a possible explanation.
I dislike freud intensely and have a rather large emotional bias against the large scale employment of his theories.
Mostly because you can rip the Freudian theory out of any statement and drop in any number of other theories and get the same results. It's too general a theory to be very useful nowadays. It's nearly a century out of date.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
This is an explanation certainly. It is not the only explanation, and it doesn't explain altruistic behavior. So we are both guilty of oversimplification. Forgive me. It's an internet forum, so I've gotten into bad habits.
Altruism could again be explained by projection.
And yeah, I meant to say that it was a possible explanation.
I dislike freud intensely and have a rather large emotional bias against the large scale employment of his theories.
Mostly because you can rip the Freudian theory out of any statement and drop in any number of other theories and get the same results. It's too general a theory to be very useful nowadays. It's nearly a century out of date.
Sorry, I've never read any Freud.
I'm an economist. My background for this stuff is more sociological and history of ethics stuff. I've never touched psychology.
Evander on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Projection is very much a freudian term. It's basically a shorthand for a large number of cognitive and social reflexes, cognitions and interactions being expressed with a single word. Freud had no idea of what we know now about people at the time, so all he could do was express a macro theory. Much of it was based on clinical cases, so his theory lacks a lot of experimental validity and generalisability. Unfortuantly, it's unfalsifiable because of its macroness as well.
So I don't really find it very useful in a debate about a complex entity. It's not a solution, it's just a restatement of a question.
That so much of Freudian terminology disseminated throughout other fields and our general language is because of the shorthand nature of it. It's a nice shorthand to use when discussing complex subjects that makes you think you understand whats going on when you haven't even touched the complexity of it. It's not a validation of it.
I think if you want to employ the term projection, you need to go and read what freud said about projection, and then read what other people say about it now. I'm sure there's some personality textbooks in the library near you that you could use for a quick overview.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Comparing murder rates and capital punishment laws state by state is well known to be an utterly useless piece of junk math. If your graph there noted various times when states outlawed and then reinstated the death penalty, it would show that it had no effect on crime/murder.
Levitt makes a good case about in this in Freakonomics that its because the death penalty, even in Texas, is so rarely actually used. A crack-dealing murderer is safer on death row than on the streets. He also demonstrates that incarceration has a definite deterrent effect, and explicitly leaves it open that if we actually used the death penalty more often, it would have a noticeable deterrent effect as well. But in its current form, it takes too long and is too unlikely to actually be meaningful to someone contemplating a crime.
Projection is very much a freudian term. It's basically a shorthand for a large number of cognitive and social reflexes, cognitions and interactions being expressed with a single world.
So I don't really find it very useful in a debate about a complex entity. It's not a solution, it's just a restatement of a question.
when I said projection, I meant it in the context I heard used earlier.
often those who are doing good things are projecting themselves on to those they are benefiting, both out of a wish that some one would/had do(ne) the same for them, and/or because they derive a residual sort of vicarious utility (satisfaction) out of imagining how the other would feel about the act.
If your graph there noted various times when states outlawed and then reinstated the death penalty, it would show that it had no effect on crime/murder.
You mean, like the one I posted on California underneath the first one?
And as much as I love Freakonomics, it is not a collection of definitive studies, it is a collection of very interesting conjecture.
Projection is very much a freudian term. It's basically a shorthand for a large number of cognitive and social reflexes, cognitions and interactions being expressed with a single world.
So I don't really find it very useful in a debate about a complex entity. It's not a solution, it's just a restatement of a question.
when I said projection, I meant it in the context I heard used earlier.
often those who are doing good things are projecting themselves on to those they are benefiting, both out of a wish that some one would/had do(ne) the same for them, and/or because they derive a residual sort of vicarious utility (satisfaction) out of imagining how the other would feel about the act.
Yep that's Freud.
Your studies have been based on his theories, by the sound of it. He gets everywhere doesn't he?
I'd look into him, because your theories are based on something most of psychology has moved on from.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
And as much as I love Freakonomics, it is not a collection of definitive studies, it is a collection of very interesting conjecture.
Actually, no, it's the cutting edge of econometric analysis of data, and they back up everything in it quite handily.
As opposed to say, Gladwell, who cherry-picks and offers conjecture.
And yeah, your graph that says that there were more executions in years that there were more capital crimes?! Are you being serious?
Actually this would be a very interesting conclusion, because executions never take place in the same year as the crime is committed. The causal connection, if it exists and isn't purely circumstantial (which I suspect it is) would have to run the other way, from execution to crime.
I keep seeing things like *How many innocent deaths are an acceptable price to pay to kill one guilty person?* or *Would YOU be willing to die, wrongfully -accused, in order to increase the rate of capital punishment*
These seem like very dishonest questions to ask, as their entire point is to try and paint someone in a bad light regardless of their answer.
Answer the same question yourself, using the current system.
How many innocent lives spent in prison are an acceptable price to pay to lock up 1 guilty person? go ahead, answer with a number! not a sentence.
I keep seeing things like *How many innocent deaths are an acceptable price to pay to kill one guilty person?* or *Would YOU be willing to die, wrongfully -accused, in order to increase the rate of capital punishment*
These seem like very dishonest questions to ask, as their entire point is to try and paint someone in a bad light regardless of their answer.
Answer the same question yourself, using the current system.
How many innocent lives spent in prison are an acceptable price to pay to lock up 1 guilty person? go ahead, answer with a number! not a sentence.
It's a question of acceptable risks. At least if you lock up one innocent person, you have the chance to right the wrong. Not so much once you've given them the juice.
But honestly, if you think your question was any less stupid, you should rethink that.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
I keep seeing things like *How many innocent deaths are an acceptable price to pay to kill one guilty person?* or *Would YOU be willing to die, wrongfully -accused, in order to increase the rate of capital punishment*
These seem like very dishonest questions to ask, as their entire point is to try and paint someone in a bad light regardless of their answer.
Answer the same question yourself, using the current system.
How many innocent lives spent in prison are an acceptable price to pay to lock up 1 guilty person? go ahead, answer with a number! not a sentence.
It's a question of acceptable risks. At least if you lock up one innocent person, you have the chance to right the wrong. Not so much once you've given them the juice.
But honestly, if you think your question was any less stupid, you should rethink that.
You really quite spectacularly missed his point.
*mimes hand sailing off into a steep dive*
Wooooosh.
His point was that those types of questions are stupid. He gave a concrete example of it. He also asked you to answer it with a number, which you did not do.
It was a practical exercise in why some of the arguments against are framed badly.
I think they are framed badly, incidentally, even though I agree with not having the death penalty.
This doesn't mean any method of arguing it is acceptable though.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Why should I have to answer it with a number? It's completely beside the point. And the point itself was stupid, all because of how final fucking killing someone is.
You can't "fix" that. There's not even a fucking comparison.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
Why should I have to answer it with a number? It's completely beside the point. And the point itself was stupid, all because of how final fucking killing someone is.
You can't "fix" that. There's not even a fucking comparison.
I agree with you and at the same time your method of arguing it makes me wish you weren't on my side.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
I keep seeing things like *How many innocent deaths are an acceptable price to pay to kill one guilty person?* or *Would YOU be willing to die, wrongfully -accused, in order to increase the rate of capital punishment*
These seem like very dishonest questions to ask, as their entire point is to try and paint someone in a bad light regardless of their answer.
Answer the same question yourself, using the current system.
How many innocent lives spent in prison are an acceptable price to pay to lock up 1 guilty person? go ahead, answer with a number! not a sentence.
It's a question of acceptable risks. At least if you lock up one innocent person, you have the chance to right the wrong. Not so much once you've given them the juice.
But honestly, if you think your question was any less stupid, you should rethink that.
You really quite spectacularly missed his point.
*mimes hand sailing off into a steep dive*
Wooooosh.
His point was that those types of questions are stupid. He gave a concrete example of it. He also asked you to answer it with a number, which you did not do.
It was a practical exercise in why some of the arguments against are framed badly.
I think they are framed badly, incidentally, even though I agree with not having the death penalty.
This doesn't mean any method of arguing it is acceptable though.
I don't think it's stupid. I mean anyone arguing that we just need to execute more people faster, is, by necessity, arguing that we should also accept a higher false positive rate leading to actual executions. People on death row, years later, get acquitted of the murders that put them there.
The question only comes up because the people advocating this type of policy don't really think their position through. Whereas people opposing them are not on the other hand saying that we need to imprison more people faster, or we should reject due-process so we can clear backlogs in the court system.
Why should I have to answer it with a number? It's completely beside the point. And the point itself was stupid, all because of how final fucking killing someone is.
You can't "fix" that. There's not even a fucking comparison.
I agree with you and at the same time your method of arguing it makes me wish you weren't on my side.
That's okay. Sometimes I wish I wasn't on my side either.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
If your graph there noted various times when states outlawed and then reinstated the death penalty, it would show that it had no effect on crime/murder.
And as much as I love Freakonomics, it is not a collection of definitive studies, it is a collection of very interesting conjecture.
You realize Freakonomics is merely a lay person's version of Levitt's peer reviewed papers, right?
As to the death penalty state murder rate vs. non-DP murder rate, I think a very reasonable explanation is that communities with high murder rates are less forgiving of crimes and more exasperated to find a solution. The idea that the death penalty increases murders doesn't really makes sense.
That said, I'm against a broad application of it on practical grounds of accuracy. If we had a magical, perfect (in both accuracy and fairness of punishment) justice system, I'd support an execution chamber attached to the courthouse itself.
And on that note, that's why the death penalty cannot be an especially effective deterrent, because it is not immediate nor guaranteed. There are plenty of people who commit death penalty eligible offenses who wouldn't offer to fight a cage match to the death with a healthy adult tiger. But you cannot make the death penalty immediate or guaranteed without running into incredible problems with accuracy and fairness.
I do still support it for certain types of terrorism and war crimes, as I believe the chance of an innocent person being convicted is negligible, and the offense merits it so strongly that any other sentence at all would be inappropriate. The fact that Eichmann, for example, was executed, brings a warm glow to my heart. I just wish it was more common. Pinochet should have been shot in the streets like a dog, for example.
The idea that the death penalty increases murders doesn't make sense...but the fact that you find essentially the same murder rate or higher obviously shows that it doesn't have the deterrent effect that it is often argued it does.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
The idea that the death penalty increases murders doesn't make sense...but the fact that you find essentially the same murder rate or higher obviously shows that it doesn't have the deterrent effect that it is often argued it does.
Yeah that's what I take from it.
You can't argue that it increases it from those graphs.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
If I get caught up in my metaphor for you -- that an inherent physical part of your being is a reliable, if not infallible indicator of future behavior -- then I'm inclined to throw away the evidence in favor of metaphorical reasoning, and conclude that you are not guilty.
My disagreement is that I don't think people actually do that.
Well, certainly people use the concept of a person's character to determine future behavior, which arguably is the use of a Morality as Essence metaphor. People often say "he could never do that" or "I can't believe she would do that" or what-have-you, even in the face of evidence. Maybe I'm reaching too far when I try to classify that as metaphorical reasoning, but it certainly can be. Still, I think this point might not be that significant anyway in light of the rest of your post, which I'll get to now.
We're not literally thinking in that metaphor anyway, so while our manner of expressing the morality may be sub-optimal, the way we think about it is not.
Here's where your expertise may have me at a simple lack of knowledge, but this seems faulty to me. Why would we use metaphorical reasoning when we could decide not to? It makes sense if that method of reasoning is easier, simpler, and more concrete than simple direct-reasoning about morality, a complicated and abstract concept.
Or maybe it's the "literally" part that's causing this confusion. I think people really do literally using moral accounting as a primary mode of moral reasoning. They don't literally believe morality is wealth, but they absolutely use methods of reasoning derived from that metaphor without realizing they are derived from a metaphor.
When someone says "I owe you" for a favor, do they actually realize they're speaking in metaphor? I'd say, from personal experience, most likely not. That's because the financial mode of reasoning is used so often and so pervasively and so intuitively that we forget its origin in metaphor. No, we're not literally thinking in metaphor, but we are using the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that result from that metaphor as if they were literally a part of morality.
To paraphrase Nietzsche (poorly) -- we told ourselves a story, and then forgot that we were the ones who first told it.
The way that I'm understanding the basis of your argument is that all or most (English speaking) people think in the metaphor and therefore all the people who utilize said metaphor in speech are making utilizing bad moral reasoning based upon it.
I think this might be the issue, but forgive me if I'm mistaken. I think very few people think of morality as wealth, literally, or even attempt to describe morality as wealth intentionally. However, humans clearly find this metaphor appealing as the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that result from such a metaphor are ubiquitous. As far as I can tell, people really do think using the tools of a metaphor, even if they never directly address or realize that those tools are tied to a metaphor, resultant from it, or attempt to describe morality through that particular metaphor (wealth).
What I am saying is that while I disagree with the very premise, even if we accept that the metaphor someone uses to think about morality can shape how they think, what a certain metaphor means to different people is not the same. Depending on their experiences with banks, money, etc, the metaphor will vary in its meaning.
The meaning might vary slightly, but there are limits to how much it may vary or else it ceases to be the same metaphor, and you're instead employing another. Anyone who uses financial language to describe morality is clearly using logic that stems from a metaphor of morality as wealth. If I am in your debt, morally, I have clearly defined morality as wealth implicit in my language. The logic of moral debt I am employing is an entailment of the Morality as Wealth metaphor, whether I realize this or not. Whether I am overtly using or thinking "in metaphor," I am certainly thinking using reasoning tools that are logical entailments not of morality itself, but of a metaphor for morality.
What is being presented, or so it seems to me, is that anyone who thinsk with this metaphor falls into the same traps, and I'm saying that because language is not the same for everyone you cannot assume they use and see the metaphor the same way.
Again, there are only so many variations on a metaphor before it ceases to be the same metaphor. And, further, I'm decrying the use of reasoning tools/modes resultant from that metaphor. I suppose, theoretically, if we are fully aware of and disclaim our use of a metaphor, for strictly descriptive purposes, I have no problem using a metaphor to describe morality. However, it's this unthinking use of metaphorical reasoning that I rail against. The problem is the failure to realize that there are separating steps from morality>metaphor>logical entailments of the metaphor>metaphorical reasoning. We often "start," intellectually, at the final step. We accept the system of reasoning without understanding its imperfect origins, and simply think this reasoning is inherent to/comprehensive of morality, when really it is resultant from the metaphor (which is an approximation), not morality itself. We know this because we can discuss morality without these metaphorical reasoning systems, which means that morality need not always result in certain modes of reasoning. These modes are not inherent to morality, but to the metaphors we use to describe and analyze morality. This is often forgotten.
Basically rephrasing what I said above, you cannot universalize when language and its meaning to different people is involved. Also, you're saying that our use of a given metaphor shapes our thinking on the topic, not that the way we talk about it gives insights. You're changing what you're saying. What I am addressing is the point you tried to make that because we use a metaphor, said metaphor gives rise to faulty thinking. What I am arguing is that this isn't necessarily true, and that even if it were it could not be uniformly true because language usage is not uniform.
Again, this is probably my fault for poor articulation, but it is the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that I take issue with. I argue that these result from the same metaphor -- the Morality as Wealth metaphor. However, I think that this is acceptably universalizing -- I don't see how anyone using terms like "owe" and "debt" isn't being metaphorical, specifically financially.
So, while we may not be consciously or overtly using the metaphor, it does shape our thinking because we employ tools which are derived from it.
To try to sum that all up: Metaphors don't necessarily shape the way we think just because we use them
I agree. However, I take issue with what happens when we do. It's the thinking that bothers me -- the root of it is a particular metaphor.
so I don't think that argument that we get trapped in the metaphor when trying to think about a real-life problem is a good one.
Again, this is probably my fault for using too many terms without clear delineation, but the problem for me is that we get trapped into modes of reasoning that clearly stem from metaphor, and that these modes of reasoning are not inherent to our morality. We don't literally accrue moral debts -- such a concept is clearly metaphorical. And yet people do become trapped in thinking about morality using moral accounting, even if they never consciously describe morality as wealth.
VFM on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
They (metaphors) don't necessarily shape the way you think but they will shape someone learning how to think from others via context.
Ie
how everybody learns most social information.
How often have you looked up a word or a concept in a dictionary or encyclopedia that you picked up from other people.
That's a trained skill. You were taught to do that. For all others you look to other people, and if they are using terrible metaphors it's easy to learn things wrong.
It's not good enough to go "Oh I know well enough to tell that there's more than just the metaphor." and just blindly assume everybody can do that.
That's really rather massively naive and you should stop assuming things like that. Like now. Stop it. I can see you doing it. Stop that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
They (metaphors) don't necessarily shape the way you think but they will shape someone learning how to think from others via context.
Ie
how everybody learns most social information.
How often have you looked up a word or a concept in a dictionary or encyclopedia that you picked up from other people.
That's a trained skill. You were taught to do that. For all others you look to other people, and if they are using terrible metaphors it's easy to learn things wrong.
It's not good enough to go "Oh I know well enough to tell that there's more than just the metaphor." and just blindly assume everybody can do that.
That's really rather massively naive and you should stop assuming things like that. Like now. Stop it. I can see you doing it. Stop that.
I think my point is exactly the opposite -- that this stuff is so ingrained that it needs to be made explicit and taught to people. I didn't just go "Oh I know well enough to tell that this is just a metaphor" one day -- I myself used the moral accounting mode of reasoning all the time before realizing (from someone, in a book, making it explicit to me) that I was using metaphorical language.
Posts
That's easy enough to work out.
You take the death penalty away from some of the states and watch to see what happens.
sure.
but when there is a lot of correlary evidence from different angles suggesting the same thing, and no evidence to the contrary, it is a decent argument.
This was the first stuff I found. If Cade had any sort of response, I'd have put in the effort to find something more causatory. Since no one has anything, though, it's not worth the effort.
WRT the wealth argument, I think the point is that it's a linguistic device to justify the idea of retributive punishment to ourselves. It would be the same if we used math-language.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
To be fair, it's still just correlary
but it is more correlary evidence suggesting the same thing.
And there's even more on the site I linked.
There isn't going to be a direct causation for something like this, because that's not possible.
It's not good enough to dismiss it as a correlary when there's so much of it.
It's like screaming strawman strawman when you are losing an argument and there's isn't one.
It might not give any clues as to a causation, but the consistency of the correlates shows there is something systematic underlying the disparaty in rates between states overall and its being reflected in murder rates between states with the death penalty and those without.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=10281423&postcount=118
Don't take this as me picking a side please.
Take a look at this too, it's good stuff that mentions how fairness is culturally free.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
dude, I'm the one who posted it. I'm not trying to dismiss it.
I just want to be clear that this isn't open and shut, just strongly suggestive.
racism, rape, and murder all come from an instinctual, inborn basis as well.
that doesn't justify them
sorry you triggered an information dump from my interpreting statistics in psychology classes which is why i sounded more serious than i was. :^:
Well, all your post says is that politically, we will have difficulty convincing people to give up a justice system based on punishment. Which I don't disagree with, the evidence is everywhere. It doesn't make the case that punishment is a necessary part of a justice system, though, or that catasrtrophe will somehow result from removing it.
I will watch your video.
edit: google chrome does not seem to like that video player.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
when looking at instincts, one must remember that these all grew out of urges that are beneficial for the spreading of one's own genetic material.
I said don't assume I'm picking a side you are assuming I'm picking a side what are you doing man.
Both of you.
Back to reading class. Off you go.
no this is not true.
if someone does you a favour, you will want to return that favour. in fact you will feel great unrest at the idea of not returning the favour. the size of the favour doesn't matter.
its pretty much instinctual and of benefit to our successful survival that this occurs, without any requirement of overt reasoning or rationality behind it, since we are a social species.
and yes it is culturally free.
we are social animals because the successful spreading of our genetic material takes place, has always taken place, and always will take place, within the context of other humans we interact with.
it isn't enough to just consider the individual for instincts, but the whole herd of humans as well. we have prosocial-cooperative reflexes. it's a nice way to think about it.
Which is a great thing.
man I didn't assume anything
all I did was summarize your post
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
You're oversimplifying.
We return favors because we project ourself on to the other, and want our favors returned as well.
We're also a lot more likely to accept favors from those who are more similar to us. Again, perpetuation of our own kind of genetic material, over another kind (the biological impetus behind racism.) Our pro-social insticts only go so far.
Which is why things like segregation so easily overcame any sort of fairness instinct.
ah i see. I took the negative phrasing the wrong way. My bad.
This is an explanation certainly. It is not the only explanation, and it doesn't explain altruistic behavior. So we are both guilty of oversimplification. Forgive me. It's an internet forum, so I've gotten into bad habits.
What I mean by culturally free is not that we will want to be fair to members of another culture.
It is that, in all cultures, you find this fairness impulse.
Altruism could again be explained by projection.
And yeah, I meant to say that it was a possible explanation.
I dislike freud intensely and have a rather large emotional bias against the large scale employment of his theories.
Mostly because you can rip the Freudian theory out of any statement and drop in any number of other theories and get the same results. It's too general a theory to be very useful nowadays. It's nearly a century out of date.
Sorry, I've never read any Freud.
I'm an economist. My background for this stuff is more sociological and history of ethics stuff. I've never touched psychology.
So I don't really find it very useful in a debate about a complex entity. It's not a solution, it's just a restatement of a question.
That so much of Freudian terminology disseminated throughout other fields and our general language is because of the shorthand nature of it. It's a nice shorthand to use when discussing complex subjects that makes you think you understand whats going on when you haven't even touched the complexity of it. It's not a validation of it.
I think if you want to employ the term projection, you need to go and read what freud said about projection, and then read what other people say about it now. I'm sure there's some personality textbooks in the library near you that you could use for a quick overview.
Levitt makes a good case about in this in Freakonomics that its because the death penalty, even in Texas, is so rarely actually used. A crack-dealing murderer is safer on death row than on the streets. He also demonstrates that incarceration has a definite deterrent effect, and explicitly leaves it open that if we actually used the death penalty more often, it would have a noticeable deterrent effect as well. But in its current form, it takes too long and is too unlikely to actually be meaningful to someone contemplating a crime.
when I said projection, I meant it in the context I heard used earlier.
often those who are doing good things are projecting themselves on to those they are benefiting, both out of a wish that some one would/had do(ne) the same for them, and/or because they derive a residual sort of vicarious utility (satisfaction) out of imagining how the other would feel about the act.
You mean, like the one I posted on California underneath the first one?
And as much as I love Freakonomics, it is not a collection of definitive studies, it is a collection of very interesting conjecture.
As opposed to say, Gladwell, who cherry-picks and offers conjecture.
And yeah, your graph that says that there were more executions in years that there were more capital crimes?! Are you being serious?
Yep that's Freud.
Your studies have been based on his theories, by the sound of it. He gets everywhere doesn't he?
I'd look into him, because your theories are based on something most of psychology has moved on from.
Actually this would be a very interesting conclusion, because executions never take place in the same year as the crime is committed. The causal connection, if it exists and isn't purely circumstantial (which I suspect it is) would have to run the other way, from execution to crime.
These seem like very dishonest questions to ask, as their entire point is to try and paint someone in a bad light regardless of their answer.
Answer the same question yourself, using the current system.
How many innocent lives spent in prison are an acceptable price to pay to lock up 1 guilty person? go ahead, answer with a number! not a sentence.
It's a question of acceptable risks. At least if you lock up one innocent person, you have the chance to right the wrong. Not so much once you've given them the juice.
But honestly, if you think your question was any less stupid, you should rethink that.
You really quite spectacularly missed his point.
*mimes hand sailing off into a steep dive*
Wooooosh.
His point was that those types of questions are stupid. He gave a concrete example of it. He also asked you to answer it with a number, which you did not do.
It was a practical exercise in why some of the arguments against are framed badly.
I think they are framed badly, incidentally, even though I agree with not having the death penalty.
This doesn't mean any method of arguing it is acceptable though.
You can't "fix" that. There's not even a fucking comparison.
I agree with you and at the same time your method of arguing it makes me wish you weren't on my side.
The question only comes up because the people advocating this type of policy don't really think their position through. Whereas people opposing them are not on the other hand saying that we need to imprison more people faster, or we should reject due-process so we can clear backlogs in the court system.
That's okay. Sometimes I wish I wasn't on my side either.
You realize Freakonomics is merely a lay person's version of Levitt's peer reviewed papers, right?
As to the death penalty state murder rate vs. non-DP murder rate, I think a very reasonable explanation is that communities with high murder rates are less forgiving of crimes and more exasperated to find a solution. The idea that the death penalty increases murders doesn't really makes sense.
That said, I'm against a broad application of it on practical grounds of accuracy. If we had a magical, perfect (in both accuracy and fairness of punishment) justice system, I'd support an execution chamber attached to the courthouse itself.
And on that note, that's why the death penalty cannot be an especially effective deterrent, because it is not immediate nor guaranteed. There are plenty of people who commit death penalty eligible offenses who wouldn't offer to fight a cage match to the death with a healthy adult tiger. But you cannot make the death penalty immediate or guaranteed without running into incredible problems with accuracy and fairness.
I do still support it for certain types of terrorism and war crimes, as I believe the chance of an innocent person being convicted is negligible, and the offense merits it so strongly that any other sentence at all would be inappropriate. The fact that Eichmann, for example, was executed, brings a warm glow to my heart. I just wish it was more common. Pinochet should have been shot in the streets like a dog, for example.
Yeah that's what I take from it.
You can't argue that it increases it from those graphs.
Well, certainly people use the concept of a person's character to determine future behavior, which arguably is the use of a Morality as Essence metaphor. People often say "he could never do that" or "I can't believe she would do that" or what-have-you, even in the face of evidence. Maybe I'm reaching too far when I try to classify that as metaphorical reasoning, but it certainly can be. Still, I think this point might not be that significant anyway in light of the rest of your post, which I'll get to now.
Here's where your expertise may have me at a simple lack of knowledge, but this seems faulty to me. Why would we use metaphorical reasoning when we could decide not to? It makes sense if that method of reasoning is easier, simpler, and more concrete than simple direct-reasoning about morality, a complicated and abstract concept.
Or maybe it's the "literally" part that's causing this confusion. I think people really do literally using moral accounting as a primary mode of moral reasoning. They don't literally believe morality is wealth, but they absolutely use methods of reasoning derived from that metaphor without realizing they are derived from a metaphor.
When someone says "I owe you" for a favor, do they actually realize they're speaking in metaphor? I'd say, from personal experience, most likely not. That's because the financial mode of reasoning is used so often and so pervasively and so intuitively that we forget its origin in metaphor. No, we're not literally thinking in metaphor, but we are using the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that result from that metaphor as if they were literally a part of morality.
To paraphrase Nietzsche (poorly) -- we told ourselves a story, and then forgot that we were the ones who first told it.
I think this might be the issue, but forgive me if I'm mistaken. I think very few people think of morality as wealth, literally, or even attempt to describe morality as wealth intentionally. However, humans clearly find this metaphor appealing as the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that result from such a metaphor are ubiquitous. As far as I can tell, people really do think using the tools of a metaphor, even if they never directly address or realize that those tools are tied to a metaphor, resultant from it, or attempt to describe morality through that particular metaphor (wealth).
The meaning might vary slightly, but there are limits to how much it may vary or else it ceases to be the same metaphor, and you're instead employing another. Anyone who uses financial language to describe morality is clearly using logic that stems from a metaphor of morality as wealth. If I am in your debt, morally, I have clearly defined morality as wealth implicit in my language. The logic of moral debt I am employing is an entailment of the Morality as Wealth metaphor, whether I realize this or not. Whether I am overtly using or thinking "in metaphor," I am certainly thinking using reasoning tools that are logical entailments not of morality itself, but of a metaphor for morality.
Again, there are only so many variations on a metaphor before it ceases to be the same metaphor. And, further, I'm decrying the use of reasoning tools/modes resultant from that metaphor. I suppose, theoretically, if we are fully aware of and disclaim our use of a metaphor, for strictly descriptive purposes, I have no problem using a metaphor to describe morality. However, it's this unthinking use of metaphorical reasoning that I rail against. The problem is the failure to realize that there are separating steps from morality>metaphor>logical entailments of the metaphor>metaphorical reasoning. We often "start," intellectually, at the final step. We accept the system of reasoning without understanding its imperfect origins, and simply think this reasoning is inherent to/comprehensive of morality, when really it is resultant from the metaphor (which is an approximation), not morality itself. We know this because we can discuss morality without these metaphorical reasoning systems, which means that morality need not always result in certain modes of reasoning. These modes are not inherent to morality, but to the metaphors we use to describe and analyze morality. This is often forgotten.
Again, this is probably my fault for poor articulation, but it is the logical entailments and modes of reasoning that I take issue with. I argue that these result from the same metaphor -- the Morality as Wealth metaphor. However, I think that this is acceptably universalizing -- I don't see how anyone using terms like "owe" and "debt" isn't being metaphorical, specifically financially.
So, while we may not be consciously or overtly using the metaphor, it does shape our thinking because we employ tools which are derived from it.
I agree. However, I take issue with what happens when we do. It's the thinking that bothers me -- the root of it is a particular metaphor.
Again, this is probably my fault for using too many terms without clear delineation, but the problem for me is that we get trapped into modes of reasoning that clearly stem from metaphor, and that these modes of reasoning are not inherent to our morality. We don't literally accrue moral debts -- such a concept is clearly metaphorical. And yet people do become trapped in thinking about morality using moral accounting, even if they never consciously describe morality as wealth.
Ie
how everybody learns most social information.
How often have you looked up a word or a concept in a dictionary or encyclopedia that you picked up from other people.
That's a trained skill. You were taught to do that. For all others you look to other people, and if they are using terrible metaphors it's easy to learn things wrong.
It's not good enough to go "Oh I know well enough to tell that there's more than just the metaphor." and just blindly assume everybody can do that.
That's really rather massively naive and you should stop assuming things like that. Like now. Stop it. I can see you doing it. Stop that.
I think my point is exactly the opposite -- that this stuff is so ingrained that it needs to be made explicit and taught to people. I didn't just go "Oh I know well enough to tell that this is just a metaphor" one day -- I myself used the moral accounting mode of reasoning all the time before realizing (from someone, in a book, making it explicit to me) that I was using metaphorical language.