And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[tomclarke]

Diogenes.

I don't know if you've ever reflected much on statistics, and what they mean.

The highest correlation with all crime is income: low income => more crime. So given US demographics (blacks are poorer) I would need to look really closely at the figures to determine what is the real racial correlation when other factors are controlled.

I can't find the relative black/white murder rates in this country. So, since you appear obsessed with racial difference, how about comparing US african american rates with Botswana African rates? The latter is 11.9/100,000 comparing with US - what was your figure again? a lot higher!

[ladajo]

blacks are poorer

Compared to who and where???

[williatw]

Ah yes, a country where the citizenry is armed never experiences riots (and of course, should the unthinkable happen in such a country, only the good guys would use guns).

London Riots 2011 deaths: 1

LA Riots 1992 deaths: 53


Did I mention that the homicide rate is four times higher in the US than here in the UK?

Four. Times. Higher!

Well I believe a female MOP said something to the effect that she would rather have all of London burned down then shoot looters to save the destruction. After all you can rebuild a shop(or city) but you can't give the precious darling alex-delarge wannabe rioter his life back. Well if you are happy with that kind of reasoning it is after all your country. After all you obviously think it is more "civilized" for a man to watch an intruder break into your house rape your wife or daughter in front of you while you are a good witness for the police, than the barbaric american who would rather shoot the SOB...your life your country. After all you could always say to her: "well dear our homicide rate is 1/4 that of the US...just take it up the *&^% for England" Tony Martin got just what he deserved I am sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

[hanelyp]

The highest correlation with all crime is income: low income => more crime.

Is that poverty leading to crime, or criminal mentality leading to poverty? Crime itself leading to poverty in the neighborhood?

[tomclarke]

blacks are poorer

Compared to who and where???

The statistics were country wide over US (african american) black vs white. So my statement was that country wide over US they are (average) compared with whites. It was a very unuseful racial analysis but diogenes wanted this.

As other post points out so many factors are mixed together 9on average) with social groupings that it is difficult to see what is chicken and what egg.

Undoubtedly there are genetic differences between any two isolated human populations which will include things that affect criminality in a typical western society, intelligence, ambition, etc, etc.

But these are not obviously related to skin color, which is very small genetic change. Also the genetic differences are conflated by cultural differences which are at least as large, and environmental differnces which are also large. I don't have good research on relative magnitudes of these things - it is very difficult to find sensible controls.

Further - South US black and white have not been isolated populations for 5 generations or more.

[tomclarke]

Ah yes, a country where the citizenry is armed never experiences riots (and of course, should the unthinkable happen in such a country, only the good guys would use guns).

London Riots 2011 deaths: 1

LA Riots 1992 deaths: 53


Did I mention that the homicide rate is four times higher in the US than here in the UK?

Four. Times. Higher!

Well I believe a female MOP said something to the effect that she would rather have all of London burned down then shoot looters to save the destruction. After all you can rebuild a shop(or city) but you can't give the precious darling alex-delarge wannabe rioter his life back. Well if you are happy with that kind of reasoning it is after all your country. After all you obviously think it is more "civilized" for a man to watch an intruder break into your house rape your wife or daughter in front of you while you are a good witness for the police, than the barbaric american who would rather shoot the SOB...your life your country. After all you could always say to her: "well dear our homicide rate is 1/4 that of the US...just take it up the *&^% for England" Tony Martin got just what he deserved I am sure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

The law in self-defence in this country is balanced pretty well at the moment. If you kill an intruder in your home you will be OK, unless the force you use is quite disproportionate to the threat. We have the weird idea that if somone taunts you in the street it is not good to draw a pistol and shoot him. Proportionality. It is accepted that people may be reasonably afraid in their own homes, and use violence in self-defence. The cirumstances are always taken into account by the court. And also things you don't see in Wikipedia, like whether they householder is a thug who clearly wants to kill all criminals regardless of the law.

The Tony Martin case was a cause celebre with strong opinion that it was unjust.

That is because the burglars were habitual violent criminals, and Martin had been subject to repeat burglary.

But he deliberately in cold blood shot them when he was at no risk and they were fleeing. He knew that the weapon he was using might kill them.

The original court judgement was wrong (don't squeal about that, miscarriage of justice in the states is very common, as you know). It was corrected on appeal. The case as a whole caused a slight shift in the interpretation of the law, with more weight being given to the rights of householders.

Unthinking people - I hope there are none such on this thread - will respond to the particular case and think the law is wrong.

But consider a case where a young boy - 14 - breaks into what he thinks is an empty house for a lark egged on by others. No criminal intent. He surprises somone in the house who shoots him. Actually that would be self-defence.

The same boy, the boy runs towards the householder or does anything else other than flee, also self-defence.

The same boy, but this time the householder spies him from a distance, graps a shot-gun, shouts "Oy!". The boy flees through a window. The householder targets him and shoots to kill.

In the US perhaps some do think such behaviour is right - the sanctity of property rights over-riding common sense and decency, UK law in this case would judge the householder guilty of manslaughter or (if he was clear his actions would lead to death) murder.

The point here is that always in these moral questions there is a balance to be made, with possible wrong on both sides. I am glad we live in a country where if you by mistake stray onto somone else's property you need not fear life and limb.

I would expect those who don't trust the state for protection to reckon Martin was fully justified, protecting his property by punishing the burglars himself. If the punishment was harsh, they had it coming.

In this country we have given up the idea that vigilante justice, or personal vendetta, is preferable to due legal process. The law is an ass, and imperfect. The police cannot always protect us. But they do a pretty good job, and the alternative, vigilante mobs, people taking revenge themselves, is overall far far worse. Where people take the law into their own hands you have lawlessness, violence, and escalation with armed vigilante groups menacing anyone they suspect, right or wrong, of being an evildoer.

It comes down to whether you respond with an immediate gut reaction to circumstances, or whether with the wisdom that comes from experience and compassion you look at the big picture and choose the lesser of evils.

[tomclarke]

Um, the murder rate in the US is only ... only ... four times higher than in the UK? Thats not too shabby considering we have about five times the population.

Haha.... priceless!

Please keep the comedy coming everyone.

Maybe he does not know. The figures are always per head of population, typically given as annual number / 100,000.

[CKay]

you obviously think it is more "civilized" for a man to watch an intruder break into your house rape your wife or daughter in front of you while you are a good witness for the police, than the barbaric american who would rather shoot the SOB

Obviously.

Such ridiculously overblown and easily refuted rhetoric makes for neither a sound nor a persuasive argument.

[CKay]

Is that poverty leading to crime, or criminal mentality leading to poverty?

I'm sure that nobody here is suggesting that members of one racial group are genetically more predisposed towards a "criminal mentality" than any other... are they?

[krenshala]

Um, the murder rate in the US is only ... only ... four times higher than in the UK? Thats not too shabby considering we have about five times the population.

Haha.... priceless!

Please keep the comedy coming everyone.

Maybe he does not know. The figures are always per head of population, typically given as annual number / 100,000.

Nope, I didn't. That combined with his lack of any cite or numbers (though I could have looked that up too, I guess) lead to my mistake.

[CKay]

his lack of any cite or numbers ... lead to my mistake.

A few posts back:

2011 annual homicide rate per 100,000

UK 1.3
US 4.8

[ladajo]

blacks are poorer

Compared to who and where???

The statistics were country wide over US (african american) black vs white. So my statement was that country wide over US they are (average) compared with whites. It was a very unuseful racial analysis but diogenes wanted this.

As other post points out so many factors are mixed together 9on average) with social groupings that it is difficult to see what is chicken and what egg.

Undoubtedly there are genetic differences between any two isolated human populations which will include things that affect criminality in a typical western society, intelligence, ambition, etc, etc.

But these are not obviously related to skin color, which is very small genetic change. Also the genetic differences are conflated by cultural differences which are at least as large, and environmental differnces which are also large. I don't have good research on relative magnitudes of these things - it is very difficult to find sensible controls.

Further - South US black and white have not been isolated populations for 5 generations or more.

I do not see the core point about pverty as race realted. I see it that it may have started that way, but now it is more of a social cricumstances and opportunity issue. There is opportunity, but in the aggregate, it would seem that social circumstance reduces perception of choice and to some degree actual opportunity. There are plenty of folks of 'all color' that live in poverty. I do fully agree that Lower income lends itself to crime, especially violent crime. But that may also have its roots in social circumstance as to what is acceptable behavior and what is not.

[Diogenes]

Another aspect of this of which I have just now considered is the possibility of taking aborted tissue and growing a new child from it. If it is okay with the law to kill it, why should it be objectionable to the law to grow it a new body?

How is it different from growing a new child from any dead (or live, for that matter) body's tissue?

I don't see as how it is greatly different from a scientific perspective, but from a social perspective it is quite impactful to have to face a living representation of someone you thought you had killed.

Who would want to face a person for whom they gave the word to destroy because they were inconvenient?

As I have mentioned, Egg laying certainly clarifies the distinction between one creature and another.

It creates a distinction, but that distinction does not by itself create a moral obligation of the mother (or any other creature) to care for the egg. That's a separate issue.

One of my long standing laments (on this forum and elsewhere) is that people imagine boundaries where none in fact exist. You are trying to create an artificial boundary between a mother's consent to create a child and a mother's consent to care for a child.

The one is implicit of the other. In nature, they are the same thing. Creatures that do not follow this natural instinct are eliminated by the process of evolution. Survival dictates morality, and by objective standards, as that conduct of behavior which survival necessitates, abandoning offspring is immoral. The issues are not separate, they are exactly the same thing.

Where is the hard moral dividing line?

Mens rea.

So you are saying that there is in fact no hard dividing line?

No I am not. I am saying you cannot define an intention based act without taking intentions into account. Accidental death and intentional murder have the exact same result to the victim, but punishment serves no purpose if the behavior does not need correcting.

In fact the distinction between artificial and natural causation is another dubious topic - since humans are themselves part of the universe.

The argument that we are all part of the Universe, and that anything we do is therefore "natural" is a justification for Stalin, Hitler and Mao. There is a bigger picture, and every piece fits into it. The actual positions of those defending the practice are not based on any real concern for accuracy or scientific method, they are simply rationalizations of self-indulgent behavior. I will argue that evolution will decide the abortion question and I have little doubt as to how it is going to eventually come out.

Natural (as opposed to artificial) does not mean justified, so where does a justification come from?

It is a philosophical point. All I do is point out that one behavior is no different from another behavior, and if we accept the premise that the first behavior is okay, then we cannot condemn the second behavior either.

It is a method of demonstrating that one is engaging in false reasoning. In logical terms, if "A"="B", and " B"="C", then "A" must also equal "C."

I also have little doubt as to the outcome - tampering will prevail as it outpaces natural evolution.

And you presume to think that natural evolution will have no retort? Well, the people who built the Titanic thought it was unsinkable. Hubris seems to be a characteristic of people who think they are too smart to miss something.

[Diogenes]

In fact the distinction between artificial and natural causation is another dubious topic - since humans are themselves part of the universe.

The argument that we are all part of the Universe, and that anything we do is therefore "natural" is a justification for Stalin, Hitler and Mao. There is a bigger picture, and every piece fits into it. The actual positions of those defending the practice are not based on any real concern for accuracy or scientific method, they are simply rationalizations of self-indulgent behavior. I will argue that evolution will decide the abortion question and I have little doubt as to how it is going to eventually come out.

This not only breaks web discussion protocol (don't invoke Hitler etc to prove some other point) it is very loose argument. in fact it is a classic logic error.

Actually, Stalin and Mao were the bigger monsters, but socialist dictators are pretty much the same in terms of mindset and results, the only difference is how many bodies are available to be killed by them.

I was merely pointing out that the fact of evil's existence does not justify other evil's, regardless of whether we are all part of the same universe or not.

You are claiming artificial versus natural is a tenable distinction on which we can rest moral judgements.

I am claiming that if you don't interfere with what occurs, you can't be held accountable for what happens subsequently. Who is paying the moral cost of thalidomide?

I say it is not, since humans themselves are natural, and also developments in biology are blurring the distinction anyway.

Yes, pretty soon we will be able to do womb transplants so Transexuals can have someone else's children. Perhaps we will use bioengineering to grow horns in people's heads, or give them functional tails. I can see all sorts of examples of whimsical tampering.


"In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube' Whoooa"

You claim above that my argument says I never make distinctions between different natural entities, and therefore could not morally distinguish between good and bad people.

But that is an incorrect implication. I am not saying you can't make moral distinctions betwen different natural entities, that would be stupid, just that it is not consistent to make such a moral distinction on the basis of artificial/natural.

The issue here is causality. If you don't do anything, you have no responsibility for the consequences.

You may have some other moral reason, more sustainable, for thinking that killing zygotic cells is equivalent to murder. (At least I think that is your position). But invoking "natural is good, artificial bad" is inconsistent for the above reasons.

If you think there is a difference, show me what is that difference. Define the characteristics that separate the one condition (in which it is okay to kill) from the other, (in which it is not okay to kill.)

I personally think the Roman "Pater Familius" is logically more consistent than is your argument.

I think your categorisation of people with pro-choice views as morally self-indulgent is unfortunate, it is a strong judgement and yet you provide no justification.

I provide no justification because the categorization is axiomatic in my mind. It is self evident, and requires no proof. Abortion is used primarily for birth control. Except in the rare circumstances where it is medically necessary, it is nothing but an attempt to un-ring a bell. It is almost always a case of the relevant parties not wishing to take responsibility for the consequences of what they have done.

They were cavalier about the creation of a new human being, and simply want the problem to go away. For this reason, they chose not to regard their child as an independent human being, but rather as their own personal property to do with as they see fit.

Morally self-indulgent is exactly the right description.

As I have shown above your moral argument in the post is itself lax. I would not go so far as to call this laxness self-indulgence, and am sure you will correct it.

As your conclusions are based on your erroneous assumptions, they too are wrong.

[Diogenes]

Even if we accept the natural/artificial false dichotomy, Diogenes' argument is an example of Hume's is-ought problem.

First we are told the 'is', how things are: in this case, the natural state of affairs. Then, without any explanation or justification, the 'is' becomes 'ought': the natural state of affairs is how things ought to be.

But, without an intermediate step, this is a non-sequitur.

My apologies. I often make the assumption that others have the same mental acuity that I posses and do not need the intermediate steps explicitly spelled out for them. It is an error I am constantly making.

The component of my argument which you could apparently not discern without assistance is this: If you do not interfere with something, you cannot be held responsible for the consequences resulting from interfering with it.

Now "natural state of affairs" is a derivative of this concept. It is a "Daughter" argument of it. Does that help you with the sequence?

Of course, one might claim "the natural state of affairs is how things ought to be" as a priori knowledge, or choose to take it as a maxim, but then we're back to Tom's observation that everything is natural.

Even piles of millions of dead bodies; A monument to socialism.

Your point is actually sophistry. What is "natural" for a species is that behavior which allows it to endure. The special consequences of evils acts do not necessarily manifest themselves immediately, or in a binary fashion. A hundred million dead people has an effect on the species, but as it is not necessarily immediate, or easily tabulated, it is often lost on people who prefer to see everything in easily understandable terms such as black or white.

Reality tends to be analog. Human discernment, not so much.