-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: Alex Future Bokov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> The biggest problem is that the victim is lost forever, as a
> >>result I do not believe the killer should be allowed to live, nor
> >>be suspended, I believe they should be treated equally with the
> >Interesting. Does this belief follow logically from an axiom or is
> >this belief itself an axiom?
> I do not believe in life after death. I therefore believe that when
> someone dies and the structure of the brain decays, they are lost.
I agree, but that is a separate axiom from...
> It follows axiomatically that I believe the killer suffer an equal
...this. The no life after death axiom I understand, because it
meshes with my own Ockham's Razor axiom. The "eye for an eye" axiom
I don't understand. But then again, I guess that's why they're
axioms. They don't need a rational basis; one has to have *some*
arbitrary point of reference (cf. Existentialism Plus).
> >If there was a technology for "fixing what's wrong" with the
> >perpetrator, would you be in favor of allowing the perpetrator to
> >opt for this treatment?
> This does not equate to justice for the loss of the victim, so the
> answer is no.
It would be interesting to speculate on the evolutionary origins of
this 'justice' meme, and how widespread it is. Do we agree, though,
that it exists at a level that doesn't run quite as deep as the
'survival', 'expansion', and 'opimization' memes?
> >If the 'non-homicidal' portions of the perpetrator's brain could
> >be extracted and used for some productive purpose instead of just
> >becoming worm-food (3D modeller in a vat?) would you be in favor
> >of such an extraction?
> Being unsure of the granularity of the brain, this is a difficult
> question, as long as the personnality (sense of self?) of the
> original killer is irrevocably destroyed I suppose.
This is a third axiom-- that if the 'homicidal' and 'non-homicidal'
portions of a perpetrator's brain can be separated, then 'homicidal'
portion also *must* be the one that houses the sense of self, the
identity. Unlike the other two axioms-- no life after death, and eye
for an eye, this axiom just might be overturned by future discoveries
When an axiom contradicts scientific findings, there emerges a conflict
between it and the scientific method axiom. So, if evidence starts to
accumulate that any human brain can be nudged into a state conducive to
cold-blooded murder, or conversely if it is demonstrated that removing
a particular tangle of neurons will make a person incapable of killing,
that will open quite a can of worms, won't it?
Please don't be offended by my cross examination, btw. I'm partly playing
devil's advocate to learn more about your point of view.
Iran Contra SOF Linda Thompson
Why are the above words in my signature? Check out:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT