site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11mo ago (text post)   29994 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 8, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Can you explain the rationale for the moral character being irrelevant?

Note that I said that it is irrelevant if unknown to the defendant

Yeah, explain that argument.

The problem I have with it is that the case becomes about thoughtcrime.

It is harder (perhaps impossible) to ascertain the contents of Bob's mind, than the contents of Joe's rap sheet. Common sense dictates we start looking for the keys under the lamppost, ie with Joe's rap sheet. If Joe's rap sheet (and Bob's ) is empty or light, then we can veer into mentalism and voo, ask him to cry convincingly for the jury etc.

The argument is simple. Under Anglo-American jurisprudence, in order for a person to be guilty of a crime he must have acted [with the mens reas, ie the criminal state of mind] that is required of that crime. However, a person who acts in self-defense lacks mens rea. Thomas v. Arn, 704 F. 2d 865, 875 (6th Cir 1983).

So, the issue in a self-defense case is the defendant's mens rea, and whether the victim is a good person or a bad person is normally irrelevant to that issue:

The flaw in this argument is that it assumes the law of self-defense centers on the victim's acts and intent. To the contrary, the law recognizes the justification of self-defense not because the victim "deserved" what he or she got, but because the defendant acted reasonably under the circumstances. Reasonableness is judged by how the situation appeared to the defendant, not the victim. As the Court of Appeal noted, "Because [j]ustification does not depend upon the existence of actual danger but rather depends upon appearances' (People v. Clark (1982) 130 Cal. App.3d 371, 377 [181 Cal. Rptr. 682]; see also CALJIC No. 5.51), a defendant may be equally justified in killing agood' person who brandishes a toy gun in jest as a `bad' person who brandishes a real gun in anger." If the defendant kills an innocent person, but circumstances made it reasonably appear that the killing was necessary in self-defense, that is tragedy, not murder. The test, therefore, is not whether the victim adopted the third party threats, but whether the defendant reasonably associated the victim with those threats.

People v. Minifie, 13 Cal. 4th 1055, 1068 (1996).

However, because self-defense hinges on whether the defendant acted reasonably based on what the defendant knew at the time, if the victim had a violent history and the defendant knew of that history, that is relevant to whether the defendant acted reasonably. See, eg, California Criminal Jury Instructions 505 and 3470, each of which say, in part, "If you find that the defendant knew that had threatened or harmed others in the past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant’s conduct and beliefs were reasonable."

Thanks for expanding.

I believe you need a guilty act too. And if the victim was clearly a bad person, and he deserved it, then society suffers no damage, and there's no guilty act. Is mens rea (thoughtcrime) alone, sufficient?

Yes, of course there must also be a criminal act. In murder or manslaughter, the criminal act is causing the death of the victim. In fraud, it is making a false representation. But you are trying to import a concept ("the victim was a bad guy, so there is no crime") which is utterly foreign to Anglo-American jurisprudence. That is fine, but you obviously can't complain because, in this particular case, the system is following principles that are not only well-established but also foundational.

But you are trying to import a concept ("the victim was a bad guy, so there is no crime") which is utterly foreign to Anglo-American jurisprudence.

What about capital punishment? Is that murder, or is there no crime because the victim was a bad guy?

Murder is generally defined as an "unlawful" killing. So that is why capital punishment is not murder.

Your answer just begs the question, mine makes sense.

At least try to justify the law. Perhaps you could argue that the executioner does not have mens rea, and therefore it's fine. It's a tragedy when a convicted murderer dies, and so on.

No, it answers your question. You asked whether capital punishment is not "murder" because the victim is deemed a bad guy. The answer is no, because there is a different reason that capital punishment is not "murder": because an execution is not an unlawful killing.

As for mens rea, an executioner clearly has the mens rea required for murder: The mens rea required for murder is malice aforethought, which is usually of two kinds, one of which is actual malice, which is the intent to kill. The executioner clearly has the intent to kill, so he acts with actual malice, and so has the mens rea necessary for murder. But the killing is not unlawful, because states with capital punishment obviously provides that an intentional killing by an executioner of a person who has been sentenced to death is not an unlawful killing. Therefore, despite causing the death of a person while acting with the mens rea required for murder, an executioner is not guilty of murder.

Similarly, in California, the killing of a fetus is murder. See Penal Code Sec 187(a) ["(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."]. But, does that mean an abortion is murder? An abortion is an intentional killing, so the mens rea is satisfied. But, an abortion is not murder because the law goes on to explicitly state that an abortion is not unlawful:

(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:

(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.

(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or more likely than not.

(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats