www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:Interestingly, I wasn't talking about that at all.

It fit what you said, though.

Lofty ideals, every one of them - but all my life I have also valued visceral passion for right over wrong.

Passion for pursuing right over wrong is fine. Passion in choosing what is right and what is wrong... not so good, I find.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:we're discussing the "right-ness" of the Swiss being willing to allow a technicality stand in the way of Polanski's extradition. They obviously are willing to allow that technicality to trump doing the right thing;

To follow the letter of the law, regardless of individual circumstances, is the right thing. Whether or not that technicality of the law should be changed is a different question entirely, and not relevant to the decision.

Really? You can see no division between morality and legality? Slavery was legal in the U.S. up until the Emancipation Proclamation - so therefore, you would argue that it was morally right, but now isn't?

Let's say a murderer killed your family. He was arrested for this awful crime, and there is no doubt about his guilt. However, the arresting officer made a mistake in the details of the arrest (don't know if you guys have Miranda rights, but let's just suppose it was a technicality.) Of course, under the letter of the law that mistake means that the judge must declare a mistrial, and the murderer goes free. According to your statement above, not only is this the legally correct thing, but is also the morally correct thing. Let me just say this: you are one cold-blooded bastard.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Passion for pursuing right over wrong is fine. Passion in choosing what is right and what is wrong... not so good, I find.

Who, then, should set my own moral compass if not me?

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:So then why do you argue against the law? The law says he violated his parole and should be go to trial for that.

No - the law (i.e. Swiss law) says that the US must provide the Swiss courts with certain documents before the extradition request can be granted. The US failed to do so, ergo no extradition.

Oh, my bad, I thought you were talking about the US.

Captain Seafort wrote:Indeed, but nor is such a society possible if emotion is allowed to influence the execution of the law. It's formation certainly, but never the execution.

I would love to see a single nation that doesn't have emotional influence in its execution of law. I doubt one exists. Truth is that its not about "if" emotion influences but by how much. A measure of a people isn't if they're perfect, more importantly if they try to be good people.

Mikey wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Passion for pursuing right over wrong is fine. Passion in choosing what is right and what is wrong... not so good, I find.

Who, then, should set my own moral compass if not me?

That's not my concern. I'm only concerned with mine and societies.

Mikey wrote:You can see no division between morality and legality? Slavery was legal in the U.S. up until the Emancipation Proclamation - so therefore, you would argue that it was morally right, but now isn't?

Strawman. Pretty fucking stupid strawman at that. Go back and trying reading that sentence you quoted.

Deepcrush wrote:I would love to see a single nation that doesn't have emotional influence in its execution of law. I doubt one exists.

Probably not, but I don't see how what is affects what's right. In a perfect country there would be no emotional influence whatsoever, and all laws would be executed to the absolute letter. Then again, in a perfect country the laws would all be perfectly just, and would never have to be applied because everyone would follow them to the letter.

Captain Seafort wrote:Probably not, but I don't see how what is affects what's right. In a perfect country there would be no emotional influence whatsoever, and all laws would be executed to the absolute letter. Then again, in a perfect country the laws would all be perfectly just, and would never have to be applied because everyone would follow them to the letter.

Also then again, who would care to make the laws if emotional influence was removed. To remove emotion is to pretend we are no longer human. In the end, any such arguments are meaningless as humanity and emotion will never part ways. Emotion has to play a role otherwise we couldn't know right from wrong.

GrahamKennedy wrote:That's not my concern. I'm only concerned with mine and societies.

Then why bring up a critique of how I set mine?

Captain Seafort wrote:Strawman. Pretty f***ing stupid strawman at that. Go back and trying reading that sentence you quoted.

The fact remains that you said that legality is the determinant of moral rectitude.

Mikey wrote:The fact remains that you said that legality is the determinant of moral rectitude.

Wrong. Go back and read the fucking passage you quoted.

OK. "To follow the letter of the law, regardless of individual circumstances, is the right thing." I'm sure I don't need to remind you that "right," in the context of the prior passage and this one, clearly refers to moral rectitude. What, then, am I missing? If you don't mean what you said, fine; but I can't be expected to divine that fact.

Mikey wrote:What, then, am I missing?

The very next sentence: Whether or not that technicality of the law should be changed is a different question entirely, and not relevant to the decision.

Your position is akin to saying the law should be ignored if it produces a result you don't like. Such subjectivism quite frankly scares me.

The addition you made is quite tangential to the fact that you had previously said that in your estimation, the letter of the law defines moral rectitude. What you said, inclusively, means that some laws may need to be changed; but until they are, the letter of those laws still determines morality.

Perhaps you didn't mean your statement to read that way; but as it is, I must restate the fact that I can't reasonably be expected to divine your intentions rather than your words.

On a more general note, I think I'm done here. Your arguments are appearing increasingly Blackstar-ish to me, and it seems that the same may be true from your POV. I don't know if you care, but from my end I'd rather not let a debate continue to the point of eroding my respect for you.

Mikey wrote:The addition you made is quite tangential to the fact that you had previously said that in your estimation, the letter of the law defines moral rectitude. What you said, inclusively, means that some laws may need to be changed; but until they are, the letter of those laws still determines morality.

I said no such thing - I said that to follow the letter of the law is the right thing to do. I made no comment whatsoever regarding the right or wrong of the law itself, and indeed pointed that out repeatedly.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Mikey wrote:The addition you made is quite tangential to the fact that you had previously said that in your estimation, the letter of the law defines moral rectitude. What you said, inclusively, means that some laws may need to be changed; but until they are, the letter of those laws still determines morality.

I said no such thing - I said that to follow the letter of the law is the right thing to do. I made no comment whatsoever regarding the right or wrong of the law itself, and indeed pointed that out repeatedly.

To follow an unjust law is unjust in and of itself.

stitch626 wrote:To follow an unjust law is unjust in and of itself.

If you don't like it then get it changed or bug out.