Re:The Heart of Deterrence (2012)
by danbruc on Saturday April 23, 2016 @11:27PM
(#11558428)
That's patently untrue. The very notion of justice is built upon revenge. To say modern justice systems aren't based on it is to say they float in the air, founded upon nothing.
Citation needed. »Justifications for punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation.« [1] Note that retribution is not revenge and that retribution is probably the most controversial justification for legal punishment. [2] What good does it do, whom does it help?
Well, yes, it is eminently sensible in many situations to obtain nuclear weapons for your country. That doesn't mean I have to support them doing so, as it is not necessarily in MY interest for them to do so, even if it is in their own interest.
Why would it not be in your interest unless you want to attack that other country? You argued that not having nuclear weapons increases the risk of being attacked, so more nuclear weapons should reduce the likelihood of armed conflicts which in turn means a more stable world which benefits everyone (besides weapons manufacturers and the like).
Our domination of the planet suggests this is the case.
How does that follow? The dominant species on a planet can certainly be benevolent. I grant you that humanity had and probably always will have a fair share of assholes and that they are good at getting into influential positions, but without good additional arguments I wilt not grant you that it is a fundamental aspect of humans that will forever prevent us from living together in peace. We certainly still have to go a long way, but we also have already come a long way.
No, it's not.
If you don't have nuclear weapons you increase the risk of being attacked, you should really consider getting some.
If you wear sexy cloths (not wear non-sexy cloths) you increase the risk of being rapped, you should really consider getting some non-sexy cloths.
A dictator cannot gain power without the support of a large segment of the population.
A coup d'état does neither require the participation nor the support of a large fraction of the population.
Yes. It is immoral not to resist evil.
That is a bold statement. How far does that go? If I see someone pointing a gun at somebody, should I try to intervene even if it is likely that I don't stand a chance? Is it my moral obligation to travel to North Korea and try to topple regime?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You argued that the people are responsible for the actions of their leaders. It is admittedly not the best analogy but wouldn't it similarly follow that a mother is responsible for the actions of her child?
Citation needed. »Justifications for punishment include retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation.« [1] Note that retribution is not revenge and that retribution is probably the most controversial justification for legal punishment. [2] What good does it do, whom does it help?
Well, yes, it is eminently sensible in many situations to obtain nuclear weapons for your country. That doesn't mean I have to support them doing so, as it is not necessarily in MY interest for them to do so, even if it is in their own interest.
Why would it not be in your interest unless you want to attack that other country? You argued that not having nuclear weapons increases the risk of being attacked, so more nuclear weapons should reduce the likelihood of armed conflicts which in turn means a more stable world which benefits everyone (besides weapons manufacturers and the like).
Our domination of the planet suggests this is the case.
How does that follow? The dominant species on a planet can certainly be benevolent. I grant you that humanity had and probably always will have a fair share of assholes and that they are good at getting into influential positions, but without good additional arguments I wilt not grant you that it is a fundamental aspect of humans that will forever prevent us from living together in peace. We certainly still have to go a long way, but we also have already come a long way.
No, it's not.
If you don't have nuclear weapons you increase the risk of being attacked, you should really consider getting some.
If you wear sexy cloths (not wear non-sexy cloths) you increase the risk of being rapped, you should really consider getting some non-sexy cloths.
A dictator cannot gain power without the support of a large segment of the population.
A coup d'état does neither require the participation nor the support of a large fraction of the population.
Yes. It is immoral not to resist evil.
That is a bold statement. How far does that go? If I see someone pointing a gun at somebody, should I try to intervene even if it is likely that I don't stand a chance? Is it my moral obligation to travel to North Korea and try to topple regime?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
You argued that the people are responsible for the actions of their leaders. It is admittedly not the best analogy but wouldn't it similarly follow that a mother is responsible for the actions of her child?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punishment
[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/legal-punishment/