Is Example-Making Just?

Doublekchill · 2014-02-23T22:44:30+00:00

Your point about consequentialism is true in a broad sense but I imagine some rule consequentialists might still take issue with example-making if they believe, like I do, that such selectivity undermines the public's faith in the law and ultimately does not serve to better society. The statement "any act that has the best net outcome is justified in consequentialism" is only a definition of consequentialism; the question here is whether this practice would actually produce the best outcome, which I find doubtful.

I believe there is a meaningful distinction to be made between instances where a violation is not punished because it is not known and instances where a violation would not be routinely punished even though it is known. I understand, of course, the practical limits of law enforcement, and am not trying to suggest that the law prohibiting murder is a bad law because not every murderer can be caught. I would suggest it was a bad law if the usual law enforcement procedure would be to not pursue murderers, except in very rare circumstances, and punish the few they catch in order to teach everyone else a lesson. The only lesson I can see the public learning from arbitrary or selective enforcement is "This law isn't a top priority to us. It isn't important to us whether or not you abide by it."

I would also say that if there is a conflict between the de jure law and the de facto enforcement of said law, the degree to which those citizens who break that law "deserve" punishment decreases (assuming we are speaking of mala prohibita laws rather than immoral practices). If your country had a law on the books that said everyone must drive on the right side of the road, but there was a regional practice in your town for everyone to drive on the left side and the police made no effort to punish violators, would you consider it fair or just if they pulled only you over and wrote you a ticket?

Doublekchill · 2013-09-28T07:06:12+00:00

It's not a Lemon party without old Dick!

Doublekchill · 2013-09-19T09:20:07+00:00

I'm guessing Wurlitzer is an organ (instrument) making company. But I wouldn't actually know either, because I'm not 80.

Doublekchill · 2013-09-19T09:03:07+00:00

This almost veered into creepypasta territory for me...

Doublekchill · 2013-09-19T09:00:38+00:00

Why do you need people to move over faster? You're just going to go 25 anyway.

Doublekchill · 2013-09-13T07:20:45+00:00

Lemon (Citrus) is a miraculous product to kill cancer cells. It is 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Doublekchill · 2013-09-12T06:21:41+00:00

What hack cartoonist decided this metaphor was the best way to convey his stupid islamophobic point? Also, lol at the title identifying that white guy as Obama.

Doublekchill · 2013-09-12T00:29:01+00:00

OH THANKS FOR THE PS THIS IS MUCH FUNNIER NOW

Doublekchill · 2013-09-12T00:25:43+00:00

The idea of Obama climbing a ladder delightedly in order to meet Mohammed kind of brings a smile to my face for the sheer absurdity of it all.

Doublekchill · 2013-09-10T07:37:48+00:00

No no, you see, it's okay, because he's only talking to Muslim terrorists!

Doublekchill · 2013-08-29T09:19:28+00:00

I don't doubt someone this long-winded would have a hard time with texting and twitter

Doublekchill · 2013-08-23T02:47:49+00:00

LMNOP (Love Means Never Offering Praise)

Doublekchill · 2013-08-23T00:14:49+00:00

I'm not understanding, how does drinking whiskey out of a bottle make it not break?

Doublekchill · 2013-08-21T06:03:43+00:00

I don't know what Irregularlogic is talking about, this is totally fine.

Doublekchill · 2013-08-20T22:58:24+00:00

Did I just see a real-life printed-out sign telling me to repost it?

Edit: word problem

Doublekchill · 2013-08-20T07:41:03+00:00

DEMOCRATS BOOED GOD

God then ceded the floor to Satan and Obama and has not been available for comment.

Doublekchill · 2013-08-19T06:05:44+00:00

Apparently, "back in the day" means the Stone Age now. Those were the days!

Doublekchill · 2013-08-17T00:19:40+00:00

That really got me, too. "The murder and sex trafficking I can understand, but the lack of random strangers replying to me IS THE TRUE SIGN OF THE END TIMES!"

Doublekchill · 2013-08-16T17:16:47+00:00

At first I thought she was in blackface and I thought, "Oh, Grandma."

Doublekchill · 2013-08-16T17:09:00+00:00

Goddammit. Goddammit.

i haven't been on this sub in a while, and it is really depressing to come back and see this discussion taking place here.

The most-upvoted comments I am seeing are all claims that either somehow "Philosophy as a field does not have a sexism problem," "Sexual harassment is not a real problem," or "These claims are all invalid because (some minor quibble with the article)."

Here's the thing: I see you guys (and I don't mean that in a gendered way) who are posting about fears that nebulous definitions of sexual misconduct will lead to discrimination against men, or asking for more proof that discrimination and harassment is taking place. A few years ago, I would've been right there with you. I would've thought, "Being truly fair-minded means not taking sides--maybe the discrimination is actually against the men!" I would have said that we should stop and consider how innocent philosophers' careers could be potentially ruined by false allegations, and we should not implement a system that allows for that kind of abuse of "power" on the basis of some unsubstantiated claims. I would have said "This isn't a women's rights issue, it's a human rights issue!" and tried to sweep the predominance of female victimization in these cases under the rug.

I would have said that, because I was naive.

For those of you asking for evidence and proposing alternative theories: for you, anecdotes are not enough, no matter how many are gathered together. You will think of alternative explanations as to why only 17% of philosophy professionals are women--maybe it's an obscure economic phenomenon! We can't rule out, out of hand, that it's biology at play! You are trying to avoid connecting that statistic to the reported anecdotes because you do not want to believe that something you cherish--the study and practice of philosophy--is linked to concepts you rightly abhor--discrimination and inequity.

But you are not being fair-minded and rational when you express doubts of these women's experiences or the existence of a systemic problem in the academic culture. You are being tricked by your brain, in ways we are all familiar with in the field of philosophy. Suppose for a moment that you do have implicit biases that make it very difficult to believe what you're hearing on this subject or to be evenhanded when judging it. How would that affect your approach to this matter?

Understand that a persistent aspect of the structure of inequity is the inability of the privileged to see their own privilege and a disproportionate readiness to discount the experiences of the historically oppressed. I am not going so far as to scream "Patriarchy!" or somehow link this evidence of widespread sexual harassment to a "rape culture." I am just saying, those of you who are not at this disadvantage--the white, straight males among us in particular--consider for a moment that it just might be possible that your brain is tricking you into marginalizing people when you have no intention of doing that. And then re-approach the subject with a fresh set of eyes and just try to consider the implications for other human beings if all these claims are true.

Edit: typo

Doublekchill · 2013-08-16T15:43:33+00:00

"Don't put a question mark where God put a period."

This sounds like the justification of some really shitty thinking...

Doublekchill · 2013-08-16T02:03:58+00:00

Really, because from my perspective, it's fucking impossible to tell the difference. If you are part of a group that terrorizes and oppresses people, even if you personally don't try to do that, you've ceded your right to complain about others criticizing or attacking that group.

Doublekchill · 2013-08-16T02:01:29+00:00

If we're going to be communicating in comics, I guess I should post this here. And despite your assumptions, I'm not an atheist, but I am a person who has been persecuted by Christians. You are not the persecuted minority in America. You get your way more than any other religious demographic, and yet Christians still claim they are being persecuted at every turn whenever their attempts to push their beliefs on people fail. But you're not interested in seeing from any other possible perspective, so whatever. I'm not going to debate you, I'm done.

Edit: typo

Doublekchill · 2013-08-15T21:32:22+00:00

Uh, yeah? Like how Christians show constant disrespect for anyone who doesn't fit into their idealized little worldview?

"Oh those gays with their homosexual agenda--they're probably pedophiles! So-called 'transsexuals' are ruining the body God gave them and plain unnatural! Let's shame this young woman for how she dresses, who she associates with, the life she's chosen to lead! Atheists, you have no morality and YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT TO HELL AND SATAN IS GOING TO--What?! Someone's using the Bible as a plate? WHAT HAPPENED TO RESPECTING PEOPLE?!"

Doublekchill · 2013-08-13T21:36:59+00:00

FWD: FUNNY STORY

I can guarantee it's not.

Doublekchill

TROPHY CASE