Is "an eye for an eye" immoral?
Acid attack victim invokes Islamic retribution
Iranian woman blinded by man persuades court to punish him in similar way
Four years ago, a spurned suitor poured a bucket of sulfuric acid over her head, leaving her blind and disfigured.Late last month, an Iranian court ordered that five drops of the same chemical be placed in each of her attacker's eyes, acceding to Bahrami's demand that he be punished according to a principle in Islamic jurisprudence that allows a victim to seek retribution for a crime.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28217429/
Is "an eye for an eye" immoral?
If your answer is "yes, it's immoral", is it inherently immoral as a principle for sentences given by a judiciary, or is its morality dependent on particular conditions? What if there were strong empirical evidence that a sentence such as the one in the above article makes that difference between 10,000 women having acid dumped on their heads each year vs. 100 each year, and if the sentence is only given in cases where guilt of the defendant is very, very clear?
My answer: its morality is conditional, and in my illustration, it would be a moral sentence. But I'm more interested in what you guys think.
And I'm not making (nor am I particularly interested in) an argument regarding constitutionality in the U.S. or lack thereof. I'm interested in the question of morality.
As a note, I do think a reasonably holistic view of costs, benefits and risks is appropriate (and an obligation) in moral calculus, and in this case, one example of an indirect effect could be, if one wishes to argue it, that violent punishments imposed by our government could increase violence in our society or harm society in some other indirect way.
- B Rational's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Here is another one...
Here is how Obama plans on force feeding his personal beliefs
of all of us.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
"right to conscious" BS
First, based on the story you linked to and other stuff on the web, it seems that this would protect workers from being disciplined by their employers, not the state.
Second, if someone is working in a field that requires a government license, then unless this person is opposed to the license requirement in general, I have no pity for him if his license is revoked because he refused to do his job. When a pharmacist refuses to provide a drug, he is abusing his role a government-granted cartel.
Finally, given that the government has long had its nose too deep in everybody's business (with funding, licensing, etc), there is nothing special about the government placing criteria on what people have to do in order to keep their government-granted privileges.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You never cease to tickle me... BS huh?
1) Workers would be disciplined by their employers via federal mandates. Thats BS Adam.
2) People should have choice in their professional lives, if you are a licensed registered nurse at a county hospital, you should not be required to participate in the murder of unborn children. Thats BS Adam.
And 3) You talk out of both sides of your mouth, you rightfully imply the government has stuck its snauz too deep in peoples liberties for too long, then go on to justify it? Now that is BS my double talking friend.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
2)
What's the big difference between a zygote and a single sperm just about ready to enter the egg or sperm denied the chance to enter the egg for that matter?
Is it like the wet foot, dry foot rule?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Geez, guys, can you take this
Geez, guys, can you take this to an open thread rather than going with Red Wing's threadjack here. I really don't want this to turn into an abortion debate thread.
Red Wing -- comment on open threads or write a diary if you feel compelled to make some point that is, at bast, maybe barely tangentially related to some diary or discussion thereof.
You lost me in that clever retort of yours...? ;-)
?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
?
You called abortion murder and had no qualifiers.
So unless you think condoms are murder, you must see a major difference between a zygote being destroyed/killed and the destruction of sperm or egg cells by themselves when they would have "naturally" had a chance to combine.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Red Wing,I've posted two
Red Wing,
I've posted two diaries recently, and on both the comments you have posted comments are at best barely tangentially related. How about you cut the threadjack crap? If you have some point you feel an irresistable urge to make that is essentially irrelevant to a diary and its thread, make your point on an open thread. Just etiquette and basic consideration.
Get over yourself...
Neither were "thread jacks" BR, it's like if you don't dominate a thread, and members here don't pander to your direction of the rhetoric, you immediately then label it; irrelevant, irrational, nonsensical, etc etc etc?
This thread posed a moral quandary question, my post is directly related to that.
In reality, twice it has been YOU that has done the thread jacking here!
Try hard to remember you are a participant here, just participate. Quit thinking you are some despotic godfather of SC, you are not.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
there's value in keeping a diary coherent
I agree with BR that there is value in keeping a discussion on topic--it makes it easier to refer back to the diary as a discussion of a particular topic without distraction.
Also, I don't see any connection between this discussion of criminal justice and the topic of healthcare mandates.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You are being personal...
If you are unable to see the moral dilemma both of these examples evoke, you are either being (a) disingenuous, or you are (b) intellectually impaired.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Red Wing, I just don't know
Red Wing, I just don't know how else to put this: Don't be an idiot. Just because a diary discusses one type of moral dilemma doesn't mean that any other type of moral dilemma topic is sufficiently relevant to introduce into the thread. To borrow your phrasing (adjusted a bit for proper structure), if you don't understand (or won't admit to understanding) what I've just said -- and if you don't see (or won't admit) that the moral dilemma topic you introduced is not sufficiently relevant -- then either (a) you are being disingenuous, or (b) you are intellectually impaired.
Which brings me back to: Don't be an idiot (or disingenuous).
How original of you...
...so whatever BR?
Umm, lets see...An eye for an eye....and the mandating one commit murder at work...seems that both retain inherent bilateral moral conundrums one can find without trying to hard...
Nonetheless, you have made this into such a giant issue - so I posted something...something that can hardly be considered a thread jack - and even if it were BR - oh well - get over it already - for heavens sake man!?!
Move on already...?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
It's always interesting when
It's always interesting when someone persists in a comment-for-comment exchange on some topic and then tells someone else to "get over it". You obviously threadjacked, according to two people plus common sense, and you've been asked to drop it here and stop it elsewhere, yet you persist with the ridiculous insistence that your topic is sufficiently relevant. And then you say "Get over it". How about you "get over" your compulsion to pollute threads with threadjacks of whatever nearly random thought you happen to have, but don't have the consideration to post on an open thread or diary of your own? Now there's an idea.
As for your, um, explanation (I'm being charitable), I wouldn't even call it a stretch. It's whatever is beyond a stretch. It's absurd. And obviously so. Give it up. Learn a lesson. And move on.
Same old...
...arrogant, contemptuous, BR...
I was over it before you started it, and essentially thread jacked your own diary over it?
I understand it though, it's really pretty clear for everyone to see...
...you preach to us, you like to think you're teaching us... you inform us, instruct us, and disperse judgment over us, you are so grandiose that you are utterly incapable of anything else but exercising those attributes that add to your own self aggrandizement.
You're like a little kid out on the SC playground that derides everyone he encounters in a vain attempt to make himself feel ok?
So go ahead, do what you do best, continue to whine like the little _____ that you are.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
LOL, thanks for the chuckle,
LOL, thanks for the chuckle, RW. Boy, you sure have a funny way of showing that you are "over" something. And it is knee-slapping funny that you would ironically go off on a childish rant against me and include a reference to a little kid at a playground. Too funny, my man.
Funny? It certainly is...
We know BR...
...you... behaving like a petty, malcontent child...
...how could one even suggest such a thing?
After all, we're talking about the mighty Oz... I mean BR...here.
Like everyone you encounter, I must not be objective, rational, or sincere enough...right...
...that... or perhaps simply a bit too unfeigned for your liking...
I know you'd prefer to keep that cutain sealed tight and remain your ostentatious self.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Slow year for you already?
Slow year for you already? Seriously, can you think of no better way to spend your time -- even your blogging time -- than to persist with this silliness, continuing to clutter up this thread that I had intended to (and hoped would) consist of serious discussion of a serious topic? Even if not, hopefully at some point you'll develop enough of a sense of consideration to stop polluting threads with persistent threadjacks and persistent, gratuitous, childish personal attacks. How's this for a 2009 resolution for you: Grow up. At least enough not to get in the way of the adults so much. If not, go on a long vacation and/or get a room with GR and MissL to occupy your time.
If you have anything substantive and relevant to add to this thread, feel free. Otherwise, write a diary, comment on an open thread, or find something else to do, if not out of consideration for me (not something I'd count on) than at least out of consideration for others on this site, most of whom must also find your childish conduct annoying.
The word for the day is: etiquette (see also: consideration. Also: maturity.)
I'm not going to continue this exchange beyond this point. Go ahead and get in your last word, then please find another thread unless you have something substantive and relevant to say here.
Ironically, if you would only practice....
...what you so hypocritically preach...
...there would be - no need - to continue this exchange.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
My personal thoughts on this
My personal thoughts on this are that punishment should not be doled out as a means of "retribution," but rather as a way to "set things right." Obviously things can't always be "set right," but I just don't see how adding another intentionally blinded person into society makes things better for anyone. At it's best, the goal of punishment should be to eventually return the punished to society as a contributing, positive influence.
I fully admit that this may be a bit naive and overly optimistic, but it's possible that most moral codes are!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I think you're overlooking
I think you're overlooking the objective of deterrence.
What is your answer to the question in my diary:
against destruction
You may be interested in a recent rant I posted over at Freedom Democrats
entiteld "Against Destruction". It address this issue pretty directly (in the second half).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Thanks, Adam. I'll check it
Thanks, Adam. I'll check it out.
As for you commentary, "Against Destruction"...
Common observation, and sad commentary for the left.
The very fact that these "working class democrats" are able to rationalize for the uaw, what they could not for wallstreet is clear evidence of the lefts political, and as such personal intemperance.
What will they do when obama takes away the secret ballot for unions. When their taxes go up. When they can't get a loan cause the liberals screwed that up too.
Bunch of suckers.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
wrong diary
My dairy was not about the UAW bailout, or Democrats. Also, I use the same name when I post over there as I do here (i.e. not Kaligula).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
My bad...maybe...?
I simply clicked the link you provided...and read it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Conundrum
I am not sure I buy the deterrence argument. I will attempt to look up statistics for whether our death penalty, which is analogous to your prompt, is a strong deterrent. I thought I've heard that there is not a strong correlation between the death penalty and deterrence. I could be wrong.
I do think deterrence can work on some levels though, such as nuclear deterrence-- M.A.D. I will have to put more thought into this before I can explain in what specific contexts it works and when it doesn't.
One interesting aspect about this argument is that it puts the right-wing's dismissal of hate-crimes in a tedious position. If deterrence is in fact a true psychological factor/response (as people on the right often claim especially with the death penalty), then hate-crime laws are valid. Let me illustrate this point with an example. If someone attacks a gay person for being gay (e.g. Matthew Shepard
) or a black person for being black, one could argue that the attack's motive is to send a message of 'stay in your place ________ ' (fill in the blank with the undesirable group). This attack is a form of deterrence, which means the attack goes beyond the particular attack in its intention. This situation requires a special type of law since it is not a particular/singular attack, but a 'send a message of deterrence' attack. If deterrence works, then hate-crime laws should be valid. I suppose in some situations it may be hard to prove the motive, but let's just say that history is full of ripe examples of bigotry as a motive (e.g. Emmett Till 
).
P.S. (for B Rational mostly) I just finished turning in grades today. I am glad that is over. Unfortunately, I am driving from Fort Collins, CO to Chicago (with two toddlers and the dog--yes, fun trip for all) tomorrow so I won't be able to comment for a day or two. I then will be able to get to the Krugman reply. Sorry for the delay.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
the empirical problem of deterrence
I'm sure that deterrence is theoretically sound, but it is difficult to evaluate whether particular punishment regimes really do act as deterrants in the real world. I've only looked into the death-penalty argument, and my understanding is that it basically has no effect (some studies show a deterrent effect, others show that it increases crime).
In general, this is an issue of social sciences, and (macro) social sciences are fundamentally intractable. We're fooling ourselves if we try to engineer society (deterrence ) around our pathetic understanding of how society works as a whole (that's not to say that we can't effectively evaluate things like rehabilitation programs, which act at the individual level).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Come on man!
What a crock of liberal crap!
Go see how many people are getting laid on the beautiful beaches of Dubai?
How many chicks in Saudi Arabia are wearing the latest Donna Karan
Now do we want that here, of course not, but to try to pass some subjective pseudo scholarly nonsense by us and imply deterrents do not work is...BS Adam.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
proof of principle
I never wrote that deterrents do not work -- I wrote that it is difficult to know if deterrence is effective in particular situations.
I even admitted that the general idea of deterrence is sound. The extreme examples you provided are simply proof of principle -- showing that deterrence can work under some situations. Which is basically what I wrote.
When I said that it is hard to judge the deterrent effect of punishment, I was thinking of situations (such as assault and murder) in which socidty will impose considerable costs on the criminal even in the absence of considerations of deterrence. A justice system based on restitution and incapacitation will impose substantial costs on real criminals, so the question is whether additional punishment will deter the criminal to an additional extent.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
OK then...
What in the world does;
"I was thinking of situations (such as assault and murder) in which socidty will impose considerable costs on the criminal even in the absence of considerations of deterrence".
Mean exactly?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Exactly or the gist?
Jail time doesn't deter most murders...
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I think jailtime does....
I think many criminals think twice before pulling the trigger knowing what that means in terms of the consequences.
I don't think it is a meritorious conscience that spares those lives.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
unintentional deterants
Let's say that we are writing laws regarding vandalism, and we are not going to consider deterants. Our laws will only be based on the prinicples of restitution and incapacitation. When we write the law, we will not think about whether the punishments will discourage people from comitting the crimes.
So we say that if a person is caught painting walls without permission, then that person will be required to clean the wall(s) that he painted. This is based on restitution -- our concern is that the victims of the crime are able to continue with their lives as though the crime had never occurred.
Additionally, we can confiscate the vandal's paint supplies and forbid him from posessing paint supplies for the next five years; every week a cop will search his house and take any paint supplies that are found. This is based on the prinicple of incapacitation -- our concern is that he will be unable to commit this crime again in the future.
Together, these consequences may place a considerable burden on the vandal. A would-be vandal may refrain from vandalism because he doesn't want to spend his summer cleaning walls. In that case, these punishments may have a deterant value even if the lawmakers never considered it.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
You are only fooling yourself Adam...
...by using locution to avoid admitting the truth...
Repainting the wall, banning them from possessing paint supplies, police search and seizure, these are all simply deterrents, and as far as the police visiting their homes and searching... pretty frick'in extreme deterrents at that!
Just admit deterrents work?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Euthyphro dilemma
Muslims might take offense to you calling their God immoral, same goes for the Juedo-Christian God during the OT.
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Muslims...take offense...? LOL!
...Funny how Muslims go out of their way to be unoffensive to western culture...
Respect western cirizens...
And teach peace and love...
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You're mocking their God.
n/t
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
No problems with their higher power...
...big issues with their higher power's devotee's!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I have no problem with Pepperidge Farm...
...big issues with Pepperidge Farm's food.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Perfect analogy!
If only the primary consumers of Pepperidge Farm products were placing poison in it.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Funny how stating
that muslims are an enemy turns them into one.
It plays well into a fear that the US will come to forcefully occupy land that doesn't belong to them for the sake of laying claim to the resources, (oil&water, especially the Tigris River), and destroy the culture and try to replace it with free market imperialism.
One could look back in our own history and view the KKK as a terrorist organization that played a heavy hand in dehumanizing blacks, while at the same time using the mantle of Christianity as their moral guiding principle. Folks would go to church on Sunday morning and a hanging on Sunday afternoon. That's pretty barbaric. Yet no Arab country invaded 'hanging country' and called the folks in the KKK terrorists and insisted that they lay down their arms. The NRA made sure of that.
It takes time for a culture to change and to absorb those changes. One of THE most profound lessons of Martin Luther King was his goal of creating change not with violence, but through peaceful protest. The civil rights movement which was inspired by non-violent activism, being willing to be beaten or killed for the cause of equality without responding in kind, was a remarkable feat. It shows the oppressors to be what they are, bullies filled with a false sense of superiority and bravado.
I'm only half stupid