Milosevic dies in jail

Originally Posted by Musharraf

[...]It's just that without a sentence, you're not guilty of a crime, law is easy as that!

You might still be guilty of a crime. Just because a court hasn't told be that I am indeed guilty doesn't mean I'm not. It just means that the court was not convinced of my being guilty. I mean even though Hitler committed suicide he's still guilty of a lot of bad things, isn't he?

Quote:

Criminals like Saddam or Milosevic should feel the same pain they made their victims feel. But im afraid you cant make someone feel a million deaths -.-

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

How ya doing, buddy?

Ultimately the problem with convicting Bush or Blair on warcrimes is proving whether or not they personally implemented policies that lead to Geneva violations or Crimes Against Humanity.

Even assuming they didn't, you could still get Bush on the fact that he is the Commander in Chief of US Armed forces, and that any policies commited by said entity come back on his shoulders, regardless of any ignorance on the President's behalf.

As far as Blair is concerned, since "sending young soldiers to war" isn't an actual crime in any sense, the worst thing I can think of the British being responsible for is compliance with the indiscriminate use of White Phosphorous by Americans in civilian areas.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Devo

Regardless of a "argument" for war you can still be prosecuted of war crimes if you violated numerous human rights and basically committed acts of inhumanity against civilians.

Would this make it possible to dig up Abraham Lincoln and put him on trial for war crimes, then? What about Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson?

Ramsey Clark and his group want to try Bill Clinton for war crimes, too, actually.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by gyges

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

Unfortunately, I think you utilitarianism is incomplete.
One thing you have to take into consideration is the fact that a lot of people will not be happy until justice has been administered. As such, it is a necessary evil for the happiness of the people.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

So then, what is your solution for people that commit heinous acts? Slap them on the wrist, and hope that they can be rehabilitated? Tell me, have you ever seen the movie A Clockwork Orange?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by gyges

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

You should never say something like that on an American message board, see above to find out why

FELIPE NO

I'm kind of with gyges on this one. There's a thin line between revenge and "justice", if there is one at all.

Dude died. What would his punishment have been? To die?

Originally Posted by t(-_-t)

As such, it is a necessary evil for the happiness of the people.

That may be true, but is this valid reasoning?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

You should never say something like that on an American message board, see above to find out why

It's not as if we metaphorically dropped his pants and verbally sodomozed him for this. Or are you saying that we're behaving unreasonably?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by t(-_-t)

Starting wars, especially when there is, at the time, apparent reasonable cause for the war, is completely different from what Milosevic did, which was basically to directly target and kill thousands of people of an ethnic group merely for the fact that they are in that group.
Genocide and war are different,

Ethnic cleansing during the Yugoslavia wars, was participied by all three groups. Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. The Croats wanted to cleanse Croatia from all Non-Croats and to do the same with the Croatian Part in Bosnia. The Bosnians wanted to create with the help of the Mujahedeen, a pan-islamistic state. And the Serbs wanted to annex the Serbian part of Bosnia and the Krajna in Croatia, by force such as genocide.
I can understand if the UN says "We have to do something!" But does this give you a reason to bomb innocent citizens, schools, hospitals and so on?

But what I find it somehow strange is, that the US has started wars without a UN mandate like fo example the bombig of Yugoslavia in 1999 or the war in Iraq 2003.

Originally Posted by t(-_-t)

and if you think they aren't, you need to keep quiet about international affairs, 'cuz you clearly don't really know what you are talking about.

Well for me the Balkans aren't international affairs since I am from the Balkans, from Bosnia and this has something to do with my homeland, so I think, to be as modest as possible, that I know what I'm talking about if the topic is the Balkans.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by gyges

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've never understood that. Why should you create even more suffering in the world than there already is? I mean why should you make someone suffer because he made someone suffer? That way you're not better than him, because you have caused as much suffering, not? Anyway, as an utilitarian, I think that it's wrong to cause even more suffering than there already is, no matter who is the one suffering ...
Generally I think that justice is the wrong way to go about problems. The world is unfair, it's just the way it is ...

So what you're basically saying is that justice is just thinly disguised vengeance?

Whether it is, or it isn't you wouldn't be violating your utilitarianist beliefs by supporting justice. Since I'm pretty sure the victims would be happy to see justice done. The needs of the many still outweigh the needs of the few.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

But people can be irrational; so maybe they shouldn't always be given what they actually want.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Eleo

But people can be irrational; so maybe they shouldn't always be given what they actually want.

Since we're speaking in such generalities; not everybody that wants justice wants to see the accused hanged.

Which is why most countries don't have the death penalty. Since in every case it's already too late. Yet justice still needs to upheld, otherwise anarchy would reign.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Eleo

But people can be irrational; so maybe they shouldn't always be given what they actually want.

Clearly the idea of utilitarianism is foriegn to you.
Utilitarianism gives little importance to what is "rational" and really has only the objective of doing the most good for the most people. So, if it is irrational for justice to be administered to Milosevic, but a vast majority of people will be pleased and happy with that, then by all means, justice should be administered.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Devo

If you don't punish those who commit murder than what's to stop others from doing it? Not all people are afraid to take a life, it's the consequences that keep them from doing so.

Maybe somebody else here is up to contesting that. I'm way too cynical for that. Regardless it'd still be a interesting perspective.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Devo

Well the other argument is there are going to be some psycopaths and sociopaths who take life without caring about the consequences. You can't usually stop those folks until it's too late.

I was thinking more along the lines of that most human beings are good and it's really not the fear of the consequences that prevent people from murdering each other.... oh hell I just made the arguement. I don't think I could back it up though.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Devo

If you don't punish those who commit murder than what's to stop others from doing it? Not all people are afraid to take a life, it's the consequences that keep them from doing so.

Sure, you have to take the deterrent effect of punishment into account, and see whether the unhappiness caused by the punishment is smaller or larger than the happiness "caused" by it by deterring people from comitting crimes.
But I do think there is a limit to what punishment can do to prevent crimes, and I don't think that the death-penalty is doing a better job than long prison sentences do. I see no reason why I should punish someone harder, if a lesser punishment is as deterrent as the hard one.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's not as if we metaphorically dropped his pants and verbally sodomozed him for this. Or are you saying that we're behaving unreasonably?

Look, dude, relax, I was just saying that it's dangerous to criticise the "eye for an eye" theory if you're discussing with Americans, worst case American republicans.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Sure, you have to take the deterrent effect of punishment into account, and see whether the unhappiness caused by the punishment is smaller or larger than the happiness "caused" by it by deterring people from comitting crimes.
But I do think there is a limit to what punishment can do to prevent crimes, and I don't think that the death-penalty is doing a better job than long prison sentences do. I see no reason why I should punish someone harder, if a lesser punishment is as deterrent as the hard one.

Yet your argument wasn't that people should serve jailtime, but that creating more suffering in the world wasn't what is right. Yet, how can jailtime be interpreted in any way other than suffering? The response then, is to create a prison environment where inmates do not suffer at all, yet if that is the case, then you are essentially rewarding criminals with taxpayer money, and how is that right?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Musharraf

Look, dude, relax, I was just saying that it's dangerous to criticise the "eye for an eye" theory if you're discussing with Americans, worst case American republicans.

Eh, close minded people will be close minded people. That doesn't mean that opinions shouldn't be discussed or otherwise limited. Singling out Americans is not fair and make's me a sad panda. Could I get a hug from you after this?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The response then, is to create a prison environment where inmates do not suffer at all, yet if that is the case, then you are essentially rewarding criminals with taxpayer money, and how is that right?

Prisons aren't exactly paradise retreats, especially not European prisons.

*edit*
Plus, American prisons actually generate money. All the non-risk prisoners are whored out as cheap labor. Some of which are highly qualified.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Yet your argument wasn't that people should serve jailtime, but that creating more suffering in the world wasn't what is right. Yet, how can jailtime be interpreted in any way other than suffering? The response then, is to create a prison environment where inmates do not suffer at all, yet if that is the case, then you are essentially rewarding criminals with taxpayer money, and how is that right?

Actually, that's pretty much what's happening here in Sweden right now. there are people coming from abroad, committing crimes, only so that they can be caught and be put into prison, because the living-standard in the prison's here is pretty high, they even get better food than we do at school...

But actually, I wouldn't have any problems with prisoners enjoying their time in prison, if it would deter them from committing crimes. The point I have been trying to make, is that I don't think that "justice" is the right way to go. I believe that whatever causes the most happiness is the right way to go, and if "letting Milosevic experience a few million deaths" would cause greater happiness overall in the world than him only getting to spend a few years in prison, or even be freed, than I would think it's the right thing to do. It's just that I do not think people are so sadistic, that the happiness caused by his suffering would be as great as his own suffering.

I don't think that "not creating suffering" is the right thing to do, but creating "most happiness", and sometimes creating suffering might be necessary to deter people from creating even more suffering. And that's why I think the "eye for an eye" logic is wrong.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

Problem is "most happiness" is not only idealic but way to subjective.

Yes, of course in reality it's also not possible to see all the consequences of ones actions, but I think one could try and see as far as one can, and do the things one thinks are right. In this case I don't see how vengeance can cause much happiness.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

As far as Blair is concerned, since "sending young soldiers to war" isn't an actual crime in any sense, the worst thing I can think of the British being responsible for is compliance with the indiscriminate use of White Phosphorous by Americans in civilian areas.

Or the assault on those young boys carried out by British soldiers. Or the use of cluster bombs (which are illegal, mind you) during the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

You still don't get my point. Morality and happiness are merely ideas, they are not concrete subjects. My happiness is not your happiness. What I believe is right can be different from what you believe is right. Laws and penalities are as close to an agreement on morality as any of us can come.

That's true, but my definition of what is morally right is a purely theoretical one. I, as a human being, can never know what is right/best for someone else, so I can never know if what I do is right or wrong. But still I can make some predictions. For example, making someone experience a few million deaths, as in this case, is as far as I can see, not causing more happiness than it is causing suffering.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Ah but what if one person's suffering causes the happiness or pleasure for those whom we're victims or families of victims. What then?

Yes, that's a dilemma. There are different views on that, some utilitarians think that one should create as much happiness for as many as possible, while others only care about the total sum of happiness minus the unhappiness, i.e. theoretically the right thing to do could be to make just one, or a small group, very happy, if the sum in the end is greatest.

Personally, I'm very split on the issue, and find it very difficult to decide, though I do think/hope that the greatest happiness would be caused by having as many people as possible happy... Maybe this dilemma is the reason I have begun looking at other philosophies ...

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Watts

Eh, close minded people will be close minded people. That doesn't mean that opinions shouldn't be discussed or otherwise limited. Singling out Americans is not fair and make's me a sad panda. Could I get a hug from you after this?

Sorry what are you saying there; it's late and I haven't had my nightbooze yet

There's nowhere I can't reach.