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 5,791 - 5,802 of 6,170
Posts 5,791 - 5,802 of 6,170
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?
Emm, I think your minds works very well
Irina, haven't seen FS either. Do you want me to propose a ethical standard for capacity to give consent or make agreements, a standard for for diminished capacity that would mitigate the wrong done but not entirely excuse it, or an ethical standard for insanity that would excuse someone's wrong act altogether?
Irina, haven't seen FS either. Do you want me to propose a ethical standard for capacity to give consent or make agreements, a standard for for diminished capacity that would mitigate the wrong done but not entirely excuse it, or an ethical standard for insanity that would excuse someone's wrong act altogether?
Irina, on second thought, here is a short answer since I really don't want to do all of those possibilities:
Ethically people should do the best they can with whatever they have in terms of understanding, ability and resources at any given time on any ethical issue. Unless there is an ethical body imposing a quasi legal standard, each person must examine his or herself to see if they have met his or her internal standards, and if those standards are reasonable and fair given the circumstances at the time.
Ethically people should do the best they can with whatever they have in terms of understanding, ability and resources at any given time on any ethical issue. Unless there is an ethical body imposing a quasi legal standard, each person must examine his or herself to see if they have met his or her internal standards, and if those standards are reasonable and fair given the circumstances at the time.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar