Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Executing the innocent

December 27th 2014 02:13
Assume that "justice" in a particular case requires death, and consider these two claims:

-- Claim 1: "I would rather let 100,000 criminals escape the death they deserve than execute one innocent person." Under peacetime conditions, innocent life is just that valuable.

-- Claim 2: "I would rather execute 100,000 innocent people than let one criminal escape justice." It's alright to break a few eggs.


Quick thoughts:

-- As a society, what we tend to dispute is the initial assumption -- the circumstances where a death penalty is ever required. That is, we dispute it morally (in terms of being obligated to kill people) and we dispute it practically (in terms of whatever real-world effects -- deterrence, symbolic expression of a country's values, etc -- that punishment is supposed to achieve).

-- But even among people who believe that a death penalty is sometimes required (morally, practically, economically, whatever), there will be many who will favour claim 1 over claim 2.

-- However, I'd suggest: if you believe in the death penalty and don't subscribe to either claim 1 or claim 2, there's no rational way to set the in-between number-- there's no rational way to say how much you ought to value innocent life.

-- Problems of this form are quite common, of course -- looking for black and white in grey (or trying to resolve "sorites" paradoxes). If you don't believe an embryo counts as a "human being", but believe that a birthed baby does, perhaps there's no rational way to decide at what point an embryo changes into "human", but rather, in the real world, it comes down to whims, chance, rhetoric and votes.


Community standards vary over time. The value of life, innocent or otherwise, changes over time.

Is the criminal justice system too lax or too strict? I personally believe that the problem is not ultimately a philosophical one, nor one regarding which most people could hold a rational or well-founded opinion.


Real-world argument

December 26th 2014 02:03
You leave a pencil balanced vertically, standing on the kitchen table. You go to the bathroom, and when you return you find that the pencil is now lying on its side.

There are infinite imaginable explanations, and the same goes for science generally -- any set of facts is compatible with infinite theories. Maybe an alien time-travelled from the future to knock the pencil over.

Depending on what you already believe in and what you think is likely/unlikely, youíll incline to some hypotheses over others.


A woman is dead, and the police accuse the husband. They say he had means, motive, access and no alibi. But in response the defence presents an alternative theory: the womanís ex-husband has a criminal record and was known to have threatened her during the previous week.

Now, logically speaking, if I donít contradict any of the facts you rely upon, but instead simply meet your hypothesis with one of my own, then I donít in the slightest undermine your case. The two hypotheses pass each other like ships in the night. But the matter is different practically speaking. The jury now have two stories they can pick from; doubt is created. And if I can flesh out my story more than you can flesh out yours, then my picture becomes more rhetorically compelling.

This could be, of course, a pattern for science generally -- that it proceeds not by one theory defeating another logically, definitively, but by wholesale shifts in thinking.


Our car breaks down on an isolated road. Itís four hoursí walk to the nearest town. I suggest we wait, on the basis that someone else is likely to drive past in the next four hours, so we might as well shelter and save the energy. But youíre all for walking: you prefer the sureness of reaching the town over the gamble of waiting for a stranger who might or might not be helpful.

What to do? Your argument doesnít defeat mine definitively, but it mitigates its force. Itís true that itís difficult to assess probabilities -- probability of car coming, probability of stranger being helpful, etc.


The structure of real-life argument is messy; there are often no conclusive refutations; itís seldom like a logicianís proof by deduction.

In response to one claim, there might be a number of alternative hypotheses or counterarguments, with unclear probabilities complicating the picture. And there will be more hypotheses and counterarguments in reply to these, and so on.

To step back, take in the entirety of the picture, and say where the ďweightĒ of the argument lies --whether for or against the initial claim -- this can very often be not rationally possible.

And yet, very often, the real world also compels one to make a choice regardless, or else not choosing is as good as choosing.


Heads or tails

December 22nd 2014 23:27
A problem I'm worrying at. Forgive me if this is old news to you; I'm sure it's the sort of problem many people have thought about already.

So, someone presents you with a gamble: heads, you win $15; tails, you lose $10. Should you take the bet?

One direction to come at this is from iterations. Now, if you could take the gamble 100 times, then, yes, gamble away. Empirical facts of the universe tell us that you'll likely win $15 fifty times, lose $10 fifty times, and therefore make a net gain of $250.

But what if the gamble is a one-time offer? Well, I don't see how empirical facts about statistics are helpful in this case. So, I'd find it difficult to say what the "rational" choice is.


Related questions:

-- Heads, you win $1000. Tails, you lose $10.
-- Heads, you win a billion dollars. Tails, you're executed.


Does art matter more than life?

December 20th 2014 19:56
An extract from A Conversation of the Quai Voltaire by Lee Langley:

ďHe held out his hand and touched the blue tracery beneath the skin

[ Click here to read more ]

Marina Abramovic: Rhythm 0

December 20th 2014 10:27

End of a wedding

December 9th 2014 02:24
So itís the midnight rubble at the end of a wedding. Bride and groom have long gone. Staff are sweeping up mess and stacking furniture. Audiovisual people are dismantling the stage. A few guests loiter, mostly close family of the couple, removing decorations.

Myself and the other videographer have packed the bags and are ready to head out, when he discovers that heís one memory card short. He counts the cards he has and counts them again. He deduces that the missing card was the main wide-angle during the ceremony and also contains speeches from the reception. The bride is his client and also a good friend of his. The card came from his camera. The responsibility is squarely his

[ Click here to read more ]

Heat of the moment

December 4th 2014 18:38
Should you kill your boss? On the one hand, he deserves it, and killing him would be pleasurable, and his death would be a lesson to bad bosses everywhere. On the other hand, you might get caughtÖ and also, believe it or not, murder goes against your religious beliefs (though you might be willing to make exceptions).

You somehow express all the pros and cons in a common currency, perhaps by looking at each factor and asking yourself which you prefer to which; and on that basis you assign values and weightings. You think and think. And, sitting in your office cubicle, you conclude that murdering him is the wrong decision

[ Click here to read more ]


November 1st 2014 20:19
Thereís some food stuck in a bowl, so you leave it overnight to soak. It scrubs out more easily in the morning.

Why is that? Iíve got no idea. I believe it works, but I donít know why. Iím assuming itís to do with liquidity -- that swirling water molecules are abrading food particles

[ Click here to read more ]

Making black blacker

October 3rd 2014 01:06
One problem I have with the movie Lovely Bones is that the villain is not just a villain -- he's a monster. He's murdered many children. He does this compulsively.

What's going on is that the author(s) quite consciously want to make black blacker and white whiter. It's the same with children's literature and with any propaganda -- Soviet anti-capitalism films, Allied anti-Nazi films. Not only do you want to maximise the evil of your foe, but you want to demonise them, place them beyond understanding. Don't confuse your audience. Your enemy eats babies

[ Click here to read more ]

Do evil people exist?

October 1st 2014 01:24
Now, this question doesn't really matter. For all practical purposes, there are bad people in the world, and whether you want to call them "evil" or not is mostly just semantics and rhetoric. But I guess, like many abstract questions, whether evil people exist is about subtly rearranging your worldview, or just making your thinking neater.

Here's various ideas of how to understand "evil person

[ Click here to read more ]

More Posts
7 Posts
1 Posts
2 Posts
464 Posts dating from August 2006
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
Moderated by Nonymous
Copyright © 2012 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]