Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,788 - 5,799 of 6,170
Posts 5,788 - 5,799 of 6,170
Well, there may never be anything like X, but it's an interesting thought experiment.
Actually, what about chloroform? It makes you feel sleepy, and no matter how much will power you exert, if you get enough chloroform, you will go to sleep. No free will there!
We do recognize a difference between great and little temptations, and we admire people who overcome great temptations more. Is a person who succumbs to a great temptation less immoral than someone who succumbs to a lesser one?
And why couldn't *anyone* use the diminished capacity excuse? "Look, I knew that it was wrong, and I struggled with the temptation, but I gave in anyway, which shows that I didn't have the strength of will to resist."
Actually, what about chloroform? It makes you feel sleepy, and no matter how much will power you exert, if you get enough chloroform, you will go to sleep. No free will there!
We do recognize a difference between great and little temptations, and we admire people who overcome great temptations more. Is a person who succumbs to a great temptation less immoral than someone who succumbs to a lesser one?
And why couldn't *anyone* use the diminished capacity excuse? "Look, I knew that it was wrong, and I struggled with the temptation, but I gave in anyway, which shows that I didn't have the strength of will to resist."
Prob, sorry I mis-read you. 
Irina, I don't think you can make a bright line rule for capacity. Certainly there is a point where reasonable people can agree someone lacks capacity, and for gray areas you need to look at the person and circumstances on a case by case basis to say if a person had capacity at a given time. That's why we have witnesses, experts and evidence at trials. At the end of the day, there is the jury (or judge if it is a bench trial) sifting all the evidence in a given case to determine the truth. From an ethical standpoint I would say if there is any reason to doubt, wait for another night.
Irina, I don't think you can make a bright line rule for capacity. Certainly there is a point where reasonable people can agree someone lacks capacity, and for gray areas you need to look at the person and circumstances on a case by case basis to say if a person had capacity at a given time. That's why we have witnesses, experts and evidence at trials. At the end of the day, there is the jury (or judge if it is a bench trial) sifting all the evidence in a given case to determine the truth. From an ethical standpoint I would say if there is any reason to doubt, wait for another night.
Chloroform knocks you out, it is far from a "love potion". The fact is that humans can over ride the basic drives if they wish. It is our choice to run off with the painted lady or tall dark stranger. The devil or pheromones didn't make us do it. I know I can't blame my bad choices on anyone but myself.
Irina, can you rephrase that? I may be dense, but I am not sure what "it" refers to there. Sometimes I am not smarter than a bot.
Bev:
Are you referring to my message 5790? I could rephrase it thus: "So mere failure is not sufficient to demonstrate diminished capacity."
Explanations: I said before,
And why couldn't *anyone* use the diminished capacity excuse? "Look, I knew that it was wrong, and I struggled with the temptation, but I gave in anyway, which shows that I didn't have the strength of will to resist."
A person who argues this way apparently believes that mere failure to overcome temptation proves diminished capacity. It would be like arm wrestling between the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. If the devil wins, it must be that the angel was weaker; therefore he has diminished capacity.
But if we grant that, we are granting a universal excuse: whenever someone gives in to temptation, he has diminished capacity and hence is not at fault. Since this result is unpalatable, one may wish to deny the premise; hence, one would claim:
Mere failure is not sufficient to demonstrate diminished capacity.
Are you referring to my message 5790? I could rephrase it thus: "So mere failure is not sufficient to demonstrate diminished capacity."
Explanations: I said before,
A person who argues this way apparently believes that mere failure to overcome temptation proves diminished capacity. It would be like arm wrestling between the angel on one shoulder and the devil on the other. If the devil wins, it must be that the angel was weaker; therefore he has diminished capacity.
But if we grant that, we are granting a universal excuse: whenever someone gives in to temptation, he has diminished capacity and hence is not at fault. Since this result is unpalatable, one may wish to deny the premise; hence, one would claim:
Mere failure is not sufficient to demonstrate diminished capacity.
Irina, diminished capacity is actually a concept from criminal law that is used by defense to seek a conviction of a lesser crime (similar to an insanity plea), and I used the word diminished in regards to capacity to consent in a different sense (though some of the concepts are similar). I should have found another word for diminished, I just didn't think about it much. However you look at it, these terms are defined legally by the jurisdictions in which they are used.
I don't think a slippery slope argument destroys the legitimacy of a capacity issue because we can set standards for when a person lacks capacity. There are gray areas even with standards, but they are on the boarders of those standards and can only be pushed so far. Legally, the standards may change depending on whether it is a criminal or civil case. Ethically the standard often changes too depending on the principles and precepts you or the group you choose to belong to may adopt.
I don't think a slippery slope argument destroys the legitimacy of a capacity issue because we can set standards for when a person lacks capacity. There are gray areas even with standards, but they are on the boarders of those standards and can only be pushed so far. Legally, the standards may change depending on whether it is a criminal or civil case. Ethically the standard often changes too depending on the principles and precepts you or the group you choose to belong to may adopt.
Irina, are you asking what standard do I think should be used for capacity to give consent or what standard I think should be used for diminished capacity for a lesser sentence in a criminal case or what standard should be used for insanity as a criminal defense? Do you want a legal standard or an ethical one?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar