| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Ethics, second position, and abstraction |
| Posted by: | nj |
| Date/Time: | 16/05/2004 01:45:28 |
|
Hmm. interesting, E_lie. I will propose that retributive justice starts with an assumption that something has been lost which can't be regained. Pain and suffering, an eye (as in, an-eye-for-an-eye). If you want to approach this, and you consider vigilante justice equivalent to retributive justice, then here are a few ideas: 1. someone steals your idea, patents it, and sells the patent. The purchaser, for the sake of the example, has legal ownership of the patent, regardless of whether you or the thief is eventually identified as the developer. 2. someone hits you in your car, maiming your leg, and leaving one of your feet without a toe. 3. someone hurts your feelings, when you're in love with her/him, and then comes back, later, after neither of you is in love with each other, but you still experience the hurt you felt, sometimes, even after visiting several NLP therapists, whose methods didn't change that feeling for you. 4. someone kills your friends, and your family, and continues to threaten you. Then that person is captured by you, and rendered helpless. Despite being helpless, you don't know whether the killer is remorseless. I might have more appropriate thought experiments to offer, once I've read Rawl's book. I think that all of [1]-[4] can be immanent in your use of triple description. I'm not so sure about prescribing the symptom, maybe you could elaborate on what "prescribing the symptom" entails. -nj |