Essay talk:Moral luck

Perhaps better as an essay?--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

• I will make it closer to the standards of an article in time. It's not a front-burner issue to me. Teresita 09:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Well if you've left, then... Totnesmartin 06:36, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Delete

I'm not sure if this serves our purposes. It doesn't debunk anything and it's not funny. Totnesmartin 13:45, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I've often thought of that argument, and it is actually a fairly good thought experiment. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 14:54, 26 February 2009 (EST)

It's an essay--we've kept worse drive-by abominations. TheoryOfPractice 15:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

It's provoked such an interesting debate that I withdraw the delete nomination. Totnesmartin 16:09, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hate speech

Note that the same argument can be used against criminalizing "hate speech": If someone makes a hateful remark and another person is killed as a direct result of it, the speaker is at fault; if not — no harm, no foul. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:58, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think so. Murders are never a direct result of hate speech; certainly not a single instance of hate speech: they involve a lot of different causal factors, like the murderer's psychological state & tendencies etc. But ultimately speech that incites hatred of a target group is not harmless, irrespective of whether people are actually killed. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

"Murders are never a direct result of hate speech" — what would you call a case where a neo-Nazi leader stated his belief that such-and-such a person, being of the wrong sort, was worthy of a violent death, and that person later turns up murdered? ListenerX^TalkerX 15:23, 26 February 2009 (EST)

You need to account for the agency of the actor who did the actual killing. TheoryOfPractice 15:32, 26 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) I'd say that the person directly responsible for the murder was the person who did the deed, not the person who suggested it. People don't lose their free will & responsibility just because they listen to somebody else's opinions. The Neo-Nazi would be guilty of a hate speech crime, & no doubt the murder inspired by their speech would be a major factor in their trial, but I don't think hate speech itself can be defined as murder or manslaughter. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

To clarify, I did not mean that the murderer himself would not share the blame. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Weaseloid, I would agree and that is so far how the Courts have ruled. they have held people liable as accessories to a murder, but not the murders themselves. "hate speech" is a form of domestic terrorism, by the way. The goal is to make a black person, or gay person, or woman frightened to go to a doctor, or date someone of the other color, or get married. The act in hate speech is the attempt to terrorize you and control you via that terror.--En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 15:40, 26 February 2009 (EST)

My position there is, "You're scared? Why should we give up free speech just because you're scared?" ListenerX^TalkerX 15:46, 26 February 2009 (EST)

You're position there is pretty self-centered and does nothing to account for the realities of the people with whom you share a society...TheoryOfPractice 15:52, 26 February 2009 (EST)

So I am self-centered for advocating free speech, which would extend to all people with whom I share a society, but the people advocating hate speech laws — which allow for the censorship of the speech of some of those advocates' ideological and political opponents — are not being self-centered? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:00, 26 February 2009 (EST)

You are self-centered for believing that you should be able to act any way you damn well please even if it has bad consequences on other people. TheoryOfPractice 16:10, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Did I say that? I did not. I said that we should have free speech and that the fact of people being scared is no reason to give that up. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:16, 26 February 2009 (EST)

So hang on; if some sizable number of people are scared of something, it should be banned? I can think of many things which we advocate which terrify people. Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 16:29, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think I'm not being clear here: speech, like any other act, can have consequences. If one of those consequences is the potential of doing harm/commit violence, then the law in any reasonable society should seek to limit that behaviour. I argue that terrorising someone--making them feel threatened or afraid, is an act of violence. Therefore, speech which is intended principally to terrorise or create fear in a subject(...and as with all crimes, intent is a key element in figuring out what is a crime and what is not), should be treated as an act of violence. You can't make death threats, you can't say "give me all the money" to a bank teller and then claim it was a joke, and you shouldn't be able to use speech as a means by which to terrorise people. TheoryOfPractice 16:39, 26 February 2009 (EST)

There is a large difference between your examples and what is prosecuted as "hate speech": your examples are threats of physical violence directed specifically against individuals, while what is prosecuted as "hate speech" is, more often than not, directed against large groups, and it does not even have to contain any threat of violence. Examples include the human rights complaints in Canada regarding a publication of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons and the charging of the British fascist, Nick Griffin, with incitement to racial hatred for calling Islam a "wicked and vicious faith." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:11, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Debate

I personally would argue that there is no morality attached to an accident, because it is precisely that, an accident. There may will be guilt, and the law sees the killing of a child differently from the killing of the poor tree the first guy ran over, but the morality is in the act of breaking the law of drinking and driving; making poor choices about when to say "when"; choosing to get behind the wheel of a car. To me, this "moral luck" is a strong man argument. I could kill someone today, with all the viciousness in my heart. That person might have gone on to be the one man capable of curing AIDS, or he might have gone on to be Hitler. My morality connection ends with the act of killing him, not with the consequences (chance or otherwise) that were associated with his death, unless that were my specific intent. (which is to say, I hear that so-and-so intends to blow up the golden gate bridge, and I run him down on his way to do his deed, to prevent him from acting. since my intent has longer reaching arms, so does the morality attached.)--En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 15:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I don't think the murder analogy is comparable to the drinking & driving one. A closer match would be somebody who owns a gun, plays with it carelessly & accidentally shoots somebody. Ultimately, the shooter bears responsible for the victim's death, because it comes down to their irresponsibility in messing around with that gun. Chance has played a part: if that bullet had been accidentally shot in another direction & not hit anybody, perhaps the law wouldn't have been broken at all (depending on laws where they are), but if they hadn't been so irresponsible in the first place, it wouldn't have happened at all. Drinking & driving is similar: it's taking an irresponsible risk & gambling on the outcome - you might make it home OK, might get arrested & lose your license, or might hit somebody, get in real trouble with the law & also have that death on your conscience for the rest of your life. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:50, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Intent should play very little part in deciding punishment or reward. I don't care if some murderer had good intentions, or if some hero was just doing his job. What matters is what happened. Or to quote V for Vendetta "I have not come for what you intended to do, I have come for what you did". Z3ro^talk 15:59, 26 February 2009 (EST)

I think intent has to play some part. There is a distinct difference between somebody who kills unintentionally &/or in self-defence, & committing a premeditated murder. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:14, 26 February 2009 (EST)

There are very limited cases were I would agree; self defense being one of those. The problem is that you can't let a search for intent interfere with justice; just because you didn't mean to kill those 23 children doesn't mean you should be found innocent. Z3ro^talk 16:50, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Define "justice". Wisest educated Phantom Hoover! 16:54, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Justice is a rather abstract concept, but I think the simplest way to describe it is the consequence for violating society's laws, without which society could not exist. Z3ro^talk 19:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)

But justice recognises intent. Notice how criminal court proceedings use words like "willingly" & "knowingly", because they emphasise the perpetrator's intentions. Essential justice is about determining responsibility, which includes intent & other factors such as whether behaviour is responsible or irresponsible. Consider the following:

1. A motorist is driving carefully & responsibly, but a child runs into the road right in front of car. The driver attempts to brake but it is too late & the child is killed.
2. A motorist is driving carelessly, not paying attention to road. Maybe he's also drunk. A child runs into the road some distance ahead of the car, but because the driver isn't paying attention, he doesn't react in time & the child is killed.
3. A motorist sees a child run in front of the car. They don't care at all whether their car hits the child so they keep driving, killing the child.

In each case the outcome is the same: the child is killed by the car. But the driver's level of responsibility is vastly different in each case, and any justice proceedings should reflect that. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:21, 28 February 2009 (EST)

In each case, imagine what would happen if the defendent tried arguing in court that the child ran out in front of him, and was unable to stop, without reliable witnesses. He would still end up in jail. While he may get a shorter sentence, he is still punished. I agree that in such a case the motorist would be held to a different standard in our legal system; that does not mean I completely agree with it, or that it is the best system of justice. Z3ro^talk 09:32, 28 February 2009 (EST) PS - In your example, I would cut the driver slack if he actively tried to avoid the child, but was unable to. If he did nothing, he is just as guilty as if he ran the child down on purpose.

The question of witnesses is taking this in a different direction, re evidence rather than justice itself. Assume that in each case there were witnesses so the facts of the case are known. In case 1, the driver is free of blame since it was not physically possible to prevent his car hitting the child. In case 2, the driver is responsible for the child's death through dangerous driving: he did not intend to kill, but is still liable due to his own negligence & would receive some sort of sentence. In case 3, the driver is a murderer. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:49, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, I don't disagree with your assesment of what his standing would be in court. But then imagine you are the parent of said child; would you feel that justice has been done? I like my definition because it is both specific and vague; justice needs to be agreed upon by most of a society in order for it to be effective. What do you do when there is no clear justice? Z3ro^talk 09:52, 28 February 2009 (EST)

Relatives of victims are not well placed to make an objective judgement about the perpetrator's sentence or the "justice" of the case. What you're arguing for sounds a lot like retributive justice ("an eye for an eye" etc.) which I strongly disagree with. Modern sentencing should be about rehabilitation, and to some extent deterrence, not taking revenge on people. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:05, 28 February 2009 (EST)

I don't view rehabilitation as part of justice; rehabilitation is great, and should accompany sentencing, but in my opinion, justice is about consequences. Maybe not on a strict eye for an eye level, but a system of justice only functions based on consequences. You kill someone, you go to jail. At best, rehabilitation is incidental to justice. Z3ro^talk 10:32, 28 February 2009 (EST)

"You kill someone, you go to jail" - why? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:26, 28 February 2009 (EST)

That is an example. Actions need to have consequences, otherwise law is meaningless. Have you ever watch daytime TV court shows, where people basically argue that they did it, but shouldn't be punished? The entirety of just about every legal system is that actions have consequences. Z3ro^talk 13:30, 28 February 2009 (EST)

So you think our justice system is purely (or vastly) punitive, and that we hold no obligation to help the criminal change his views in life? What about the teen who is in juvie. Is that punitive in focus as well? What about the person committed the crime because they are addicts and do want to stop, but don't know how. And then the adult criminal who really is a criminal mostly because he or she has nothing better to look forward to. No real spirituality (of self or external), no education to consider getting a "real" job; low or no self esteem. if we can help people while also punish them, isn't that part of the obligation of holding someone? And if not, why not just kill them, as they are going to never change, anyhow. (I toss these questions out, by the way, because they should be asked. but it's one area i have no solid opinion on, cause some days i think that we should just "eye for eye" any adult who commits crimes, and other times i think we should do all we can to aid them. This whole social morality has never been a topic I found resolution about.)--En attendant Godot_{"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.»} 13:39, 28 February 2009 (EST)

(Unindent)(rant)I really hate the whole "it's not their fault, they had such a horrible life" crowd when it comes to criminals. Everyone in the US has an opportunity to do well, and many squander that. The receidivism rate for prisons is something like 80% (to lazy to search now, know it's high); these people don't care about committing crimes or the law. Why show them any respect, or any more concern than they showed the victims of their crimes. Treating criminals like victims just gives you criminals with a victim complex. Are there success stories? Of course there are, but they are exceptions, not the norm and would likely be successful anyway. Rehabilitation serves little purpose that couldn't be served after a sentence has been completed.(/rant) Z3ro^talk 14:03, 28 February 2009 (EST)