Symposium Philosophicum IV

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Wed Mar 24, 2004 6:55 pm

Oh Curio? Take that amphora of your head and defend your speech!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Curio Agelastus on Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:20 am

**A slightly echoing voice appears from the back**
Oy! As I'm sure you remember, along with a few others, the amphora on the head is traditional! :D
However, it's difficult enough already for people to take my views seriously, so I'll remove the amphora.

Now, capital punishment. A controversial issue indeed, almost as much so as the issue of whether cats or dogs make better pets. :twisted:

Some crimes so heinous that they deserve death? Put simply, who are we to judge what goes in another man's mind? Equally, who are we to assume that any one person is not capable of rehabilitation? Ultimately, we must ask ourselves if we still believe in "an eye for an eye" justice - and if we do not, what crime is there that deserves death?

Coruncanius has spoken excellently and I suggest that the main conclusion to be taken from the first part of his speech is this - the arguments for capital punishment are illogical. He correctly points out that the question of what crimes deserve capital punishment is subjective, and is often decided by tradition - as illogical an arbitrator as any I've heard of. The implementation of capital punishment is clearly more difficult than it might seem, despite it being the "easy" way of out the problem of how to rehabilitate criminals.

But the primary argument against capital punishment is also not and objective one, in that it is usually mainly moral, and hence emotional. A major argument against capital punishment is that we have no right to take away a man's life - to be the ultimate arbitrator in whether he lives or dies. It may be that that man has committed the worst of crimes, but I would still argue against the execution of such a person. If said person is decided to have mental health problems, then we should do our best to cure them - if not, we should try and rehabilitate them.

But why bother, when we can get rid of the problem so cheaply?

**Extreme sarcasm above**

Ad honorem,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Britannicus.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Fri Mar 26, 2004 5:42 pm

Do you know, mi Curio, that one execution costs more than a life-long prison-sentence?

Atticus, your turn!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:59 pm

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:Do you know, mi Curio, that one execution costs more than a life-long prison-sentence?


I can hardly imagine that. Tossing people into the sea, for instance, on a ferryship, is costless, no? Sorry, just some humour macabre here.

Vale,
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:21 pm

Salvete,

Locate, could you move me a little further in the list of speakers ? I am quite busy right now finishing my last papers before the Easter holidays begin. Within a few days though, I expect to have enough time again to write a decent posting.

Valete,

Q. Pomponius Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:24 pm

all right, than it is Draco's turn. Go and get'em, draco!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sun Apr 04, 2004 1:04 pm

*rises from the depths*

The death penalty. What can I say about that from an Aristotelean point of view? As we all know, Aristoteles regarded as morally right actions or thoughts that don't harm others, nor harm oneself, through the practicising of moderateness and modesty. All extremes are bad. Now, as he himself did not, as far as I can remember, make any statements on the death penalty per se, his moral values could work both ways.

If we are to regard an ideal moral system as a system where all extremes should be eliminated, this could take a radical turn if we superimpose this system on people and people's actions. The most effective way to get rid of people who harm others in an extreme way, such as torture, murder, terrorism or sexual abuse, is to kill them. Still, one could question if this would make society more moderate. We must be realistic. No matter how good a community is, there will always be crime and there will always be people who harm others in an extreme way. Killing one psychopath, in other words, doesn't prevent the rising of another.

The other way in which we could interpret the theory of extremes, is if we regard the death penalty as an extreme solution, i.e. a bad solution because it's not moderate. Aristoteles was a firm believer of growth through knowledge and observation. We have to observe the facts: death penalty as a means of deterrence does not work. In fact, states or countries where the death penalty exists usually have higher crime rates. Also, even if one commits atrocities so extreme that they deserve to die for it, their death will not have those affected by this person's acts regain anything they've lost. Even though the person may not be alive anymore, the memory may haunt them forever. Thirdly, a justice system is prone to making errors. Observation and knowledge of the justice system around the world and in Western democracies in particular will easily teach this. The question is, then: would you rather condemn an innocent man to die, or would you rather sentence a guilty person, who may deserve death, to a lifelong prison sentence?

Dixi!

Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:21 pm

Salvete
Sorry that i'm so late with this. It seems that lately i get distracted by other things to the point i forgot that it was my turn.
Anyway back to the topic: is capital punishment allowed?
The answer to this is not easy, its very tricky to say the least. Plato and others after him like Plotinus and Porphyrius were pretty much against the death penalty as against suicide. What right gives us to take another life in the interest of justice? The answer none. Lets switch over to mass murderers like Hitler, Sadam Hussein and others. By killing Sadam Hussein it will not bring back the people he had killed, neither will it bring peace. The only thing that might happen (theoritical) is that another dictator stands up who might even be worser than Sadam. Same goes for "ordinary" murderers. I use the term ordinary here to seperate muderers from mass murderers even though they are one and the same. Instead of legally killing a (serial) killer, we could use him to track other serial killers because he can get in their mind, etc...
We don't have the right to kill another man. There is no way we can even begin to justify it as it will leave scares on our psyche. Only psychopaths can kill and don't feel remorse about it, but even so, those people are bound to feel something for their victim(s). The question if capital punishment should be allowed is a false one in my opinion. It implies that we can justify murder while we are supposed to be a society with morals and ethics. We can debate it as much as we want, iy will lead to nowhere.
It comes down to this: mankind is not so much different from any other animal. We are violent in nature and we exhibits it every time in one way or another. Wars, sports shows that we can be a violent species. Why else would we kill another man for pleasure or for money? Why else would we wipe out entire species'? Because we have a violent nature and society supresses that. In my opinion, the current question is not the right one. I can't come up with any good question while others spook through my head like: Can we justify murder? Are we a bloodthirsty species? etc...
I guess i go sit down, take a sip of my ale and let the rest of the speakers speak.
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:19 pm

Salvete philosophi

Human beings, as Stoics point out, are social animals. And as Stoics we are committed to engage in society and act by every means to improve upon its foundation. We cannot therefore afford to blind ourselves with any delusions, misperceptions or high ideals that would stifle pragmatic solutions to the ills of society. As Livy has said, Praeterita magis reprehendi possunt quam corrigi .

Romulus Orcus has offered a common notion. ?We don't have the right to kill another man.? This statement is entirely false. Certainly in Nature there is no prohibition from killing in self-defense or for survival. Rights and limitations on rights is something determined by society. Society determines whether or not a person has a right to kill another human being and under what circumstances. Certainly soldiers have this right when performing in the line of duty, under legal orders, in the defense of their country. Likewise police officers in the line of duty, under strict guidelines, have this right. Individuals also have this right, under strict judicial guidelines, in self-defense of their person or that of another. The application of capital punishment, likewise set by strict judicial guidelines, is a right determined by society for its own self-defense.

Ti. Coruncanius correctly pointed out that ?the early codes of law and early religious writings all sanction capital punishment. Cultures have decided that this form of punishment should be used given certain circumstances.? This addresses the fact that rights are made as conventions of a society. However, such an argument, on the face of it, does not justify any enlightened society accepting capital punishment today. No mother has ever agreed to allow their children to do what ?all the other kids are doing,? and no nation can afford to make the same error as other nations have in the past. But there are reasons behind societal acceptance of capital punishment, and Coruncanius makes a good point in that the collective moral wisdom of all philosophical and religious traditions have come to recognize that under certain circumstances the execution of certain individuals, for certain offenses, is justified and morally right. He referred to ?circumstances that are considered so dastardly by a society are punishable by death include instances of violent killings or working against and endangering the society.? That I agree is a key factor. Capital punishment is not intended to be used in case of crimes committed by an individual against another individual, but in cases where the nature of the offense attacks the very fiber of a society.

Another statement made by Orcus holds that, ?There is no way we can even begin to justify it as it will leave scares on our psyche.? He has a point. But, with consideration of the statement made by Coruncanius, not to hold certain crimes as exceeding common criminality will also leave ?scars on the psyche? of a society. Murder, in itself, as terrible as it may seem, is not so ?dastardly? a crime as to threaten society. A vast majority of murders are committed against family members in a fit of rage, others can be taken as essentially accidental or at least without intent. People who commit such crimes are capable of rehabilitation or treatment, and we should consider them to be members of society still and treat them accordingly. Common crime is a product of social conditions, and if we want to lessen crime we should seek to lessen the causes of crime by improving society. Improve upon equality in economic opportunity, social integration, education and standards of living. Rehabilitate and reintegrate those criminals who can be rehabilitated. Cure those who require it, treat those who cannot be cured. Others may need to be set off in a controlled society, such as in a prison, for whatever length of time is deemed necessary. What then is to be done with the others who, by their very acts, set themselves outside of society and can not be either rehabilitated, cured or treated, and who would pose a threat to members of society, including to those who may be incarcerated in a controlled society? And what about those whose crimes do threaten society or its core values? If we place their punishment on the same level as punishments meted out for common criminality, then we do an injustice to those members of society who commit common crimes, ostracizing them into another status outside of society where they are less likely to be rehabilitated and accepted back into society; we do an injustice to society itself, as we have seen in recent years, granting the perpetrators the fame of notoriety that only inspires others to commit the same crimes, while at the same time accepting an idea that such crimes somehow result from society itself rather than that they are intolerable acts against society.

The purpose of capital punishment is to permanently eliminate certain individuals whose presence cannot be tolerated in any segment of society, and where to do otherwise would jeopardize the core of society. Those who commit a concerted campaign of genocide should be eliminated. By the same token those who commit murder as a deliberate attempt to eliminate any group of people warrant a death sentence. It does not matter if their targeted group is a certain race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, age group, occupation, or any other category. If an individual targets another solely because they belong to some identifiable group within society, then they threaten all of society and should be eliminated. With the same reasoning, I think rapists who target people of a specific group warrant a death sentence. Rape is a form of torture, committed to impose power on a defenseless individual, and anyone who commits torture is imho more depraved than any murderer. They should be eliminated. Those who attempt to commit terrorism or mass murder as did Timothy McVey obviously pose a threat to society and deserve to be executed. Those who commit exceptionally ?dastardly? crimes, by luring a victim with forethought, torturing, raping, or maiming them in the process of committing murder, deserve to be executed. Those who assault and murder police officers or other civil servants directly act against the core of society, threaten society, and should thus be eliminated. The key element in applying capital punishment, de iure, is where the crime directly assaults the fiber that holds a society together. And not to set off an ultimate punishment to apply in such instances also poses a threat to society.

As a former soldier, I would not hesitate to kill an enemy who threatened my country, I would not hesitate to kill a fellow soldier whose actions threatened the survival of my unit, nor would I hesitate to lead fellow soldiers into combat, knowing that we might all be killed, when the situation required it. As a Stoic, committed to improving society, I do not hesitate from eliminating those who threaten the core of society, no more than I would hesitate at weeding my garden. There is a cold, cruel world awaiting the naïve, and at times there are cold measures that must be used to address it.

Valete
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Tue Apr 20, 2004 5:07 pm

As a good (g)host, I will pass the word to Atticus now, before defending myself.
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Tue May 11, 2004 12:15 pm

Salvete omnes,

I must confess I entirely forgot about this symposium. :oops:

I must also confess that I have few time nowadays to do my penance (see "cramming"), and write a piece :(

Valete,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Wed May 12, 2004 9:24 pm

I asked atticus several times for his reply, but he doesn't answer (at least not on this forum). I'll give him until sunday, and then I will post mine.
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Mon May 24, 2004 8:21 pm

I'm sorry for my late reply, but I had some business to attend to...
School, for a matter of fact, although I strongly doubt if they can teach me anything... except maybe English :wink: .

To the point:

Death penalty... Capital punishment...
I must say I feel a shiver down my spine when I read these words. Why?

Well, it still sounds silly to me to punish a killer for his kill by killing him. Especially in these words... When society has passed into a stadium of Humanity it should realize that killing another man is not a solution, neither for egoïstic purposes, neither for altruïstic purposes.
Killing someone because he has killed someone else is a form of vengeance. I understand the feeling of vengeance, but not the act of vengeance. Only when vengeance disappeares out of a society it can come to Humanity, to a peaceful coherent group.

A man should have no right to kill another man. As said elseware we still can use criminals, no matter what they have done (wrong).

On the practical side:
One 'human' execution (if an execution can ever be 'human') costs more than a lifelong sentence, countries with the death penalty have very high crime rates (it doesn't prevent other criminal acts), innocent people who are executed are not very likely to come back, etc...

It is easy, when a society still supports death penalty, it means that this society is not civilized, i.e. it has not reached the stadium of 'Humanity', the way of living peaceful next to each other.

So, let everyone comment on everyone.

Go ahead and get 'em! :)
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Mon May 24, 2004 9:04 pm

Salve Locate

A human can never obtain the level civilized behavior because of the very nature of human. A human wants more power, that's why most killings are about, a sense of power they want to obtain or sense of powerless that they want to overcome. Don't forget humans are animals a,d a,imals kill for food, not pleasure, since we most of the time don't kill for food, we kill for pleasure wether it is an animal or human.
To me, peace can never be obtained, bbecause human beings aren't peaceful beings at the core of their very being. Don't forget that wars were in a way "useful" to make sure that the population doesn't explosde so that there's overpopulation, like we are today. Diseases do the same thing, but whit modern medecine, we are seeing or will be seeing virusses and bacteria who will either be immune to our medication or where we know nothing about. For example, the Sars outbreak. Ofcourse wars where we decimate this planet is nothing something i tend to favor.
You know a friend of mine said that man can only be happy when he's in complete control and he's right in a certain way. Why death penalty? Because than we feel more powerfull than the one who is about to be sentenced to death, the one who made us powerless.
I know that this is different from what i said earlier, and i still believe in what i said earlier. We don't have the right to kill another man, but we do it anyway because of power, because of self defense or pleasure. Is it a good thing, depending on the situation where this takes place i guess.
vale
Romulus
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Mon May 24, 2004 9:18 pm

Salve Romule,

There is some truth in what you say, but you are talking abotu the first stages of human existence. When we had to struggle for survival of our species, we killed each other for food. When we had to struggle to maintain our position in a group, we killed each other to obtain a higher status.

When a society reaches humanity, people have no longer to struggle. That's the whole point, we have to eliminate the struggling for life. People must be able to allow each other to live.

About the crowding of this planet: it is a problem, but as you can see Europe is 'de-crowding', what proves me that when we reach a certain level of richness people no longer see their kids as a kind of social security. They must grow to a level of a coherent society that provides social security for its weaker members.
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Tue May 25, 2004 7:39 am

Salve Locate

I disagree with you. People will always struggle for more money, power, etc... This, i think can never be completly erased.
About the crowding of this planet: it is a problem, but as you can see Europe is 'de-crowding', what proves me that when we reach a certain level of richness people no longer see their kids as a kind of social security. They must grow to a level of a coherent society that provides social security for its weaker members.

Europe is decrowding because one: we allow immigrants to come here in mass numbers and to stay. (This is not necessarly a bad thing. They have the right to go and live where ever they want to.)
Two: the old age. Europe is a place where the senior citizens are increasing in numbers, while the young are decreasing. This is a serious problem or can be a serious problem. (Remember that article in some Belgian newspaper with the headline: Europeans are a dying race.) People living in various places, creating different things like skin colour, etc... I'm no biologian, but my guess is that the diversity among the human race is needed. People of the north are adapted to the cold, people of the south (africa, etc..) have adapted to the heat, etc... If the diversity is gone, and a new ice age comes to pass or the planet warms up, the survival of the fittest, will be the ones who have adapted to their enviroment. That's why the diversity. I'm no supporter of any right-wing political group, believe me. Although this my come of as rascist, i can assure i'm no rascist. These people have to right to settle in a more better enviroment, but if the situation in Africa or the middle east doesn't improve, we might see more of them coming to the west.
Europeans don't want many kids anymore because well it costs alot of money to raise kids, i think that this is one of the main reasons why Europeans decide not to have kids. This creates some problems on the long run. Who will take care of them, when they are not able to take care of themselves. Children are the future no matter which skkincolour they have.
vale
Romulus
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Thu May 27, 2004 5:50 pm

Salve Romule,

I don't think people struggle, I think life struggles for survival. So once the continuous battle for survival is over we can think about protecting the weaker and living together peacefully.
Animals can live close to each other when they have enough food, they start killing each other when they don't.

No comments anyone else?
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:11 pm

No more comments? Then I close the symposium here! Thanks everyone and see you on our next gathering!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Previous

Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron