Altruism

[Sommerswerd]

Or the next Ghandi, whose demonstration of peaceful revolution for independence ended up blessing the world with two hostile nations glowering over a long and contested border who both have nuclear weapons.

Well I noticed this point Tim, and I found it to be a very clever... a little deep into the philosophical weeds... but still, it made me think, because it seems d@mned accurate.

Speaking of this point, I would like to ask which one of these comments counts as invoking Godwin's Law? This one?

Among those saved may be the next power mad sociopath to seize power and commit genocide.

Or this one?

I personally don't think considerations of helping a future Ghandi or Hitler are worth taking into account when it comes to helping out people altruistically.

It's all elementary of course, because even if you think neither did, the Law has still been invoked by my mention of it

And speaking of lawyers... (Godwin is one) You guys have really given me some great conversation fodder regarding lawyers...

Doctors Lawyers, for instance, don't generally look at a patient client and make their decisions whether to treat represent them, or not, based on the likelihood of they're being, or becoming, Ghandi some nice virtuous person or Hitler some scumbag fill-in-the-blank-with-the-worst-type-of-criminal-you-can-think-of.

So think about that the next time you complain about lawyers defending "people they know are guilty." Afterall, how does the lawyer know? The scumbag fill-in-the-blank-with-the-worst-type-of-criminal-you-can-think-of, today may one day become the next Ghandi, if only you can get him out of this particular predicament. Right?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well I noticed this point Tim, and I found it to be a very clever... a little deep into the philosophical weeds... but still, it made me think, because it seems d@mned accurate.

It is damnably accurate. While I do not use it to justify inaction, or advocate using it to justify inaction, as an indictment of claiming 'the long term greater good' as justification for action it has proven to be bulletproof.

Speaking of this point, I would like to ask which one of these comments counts as invoking Godwin's Law? This one?
Or this one? It's all elementary of course, because even if you think neither did, the Law has still been invoked by my mention of it

I would like to point out that I specifically did not attach any name to the potential genocidal dictator. In retrospect I wish I had said Pol Pot.

And speaking of lawyers... (Godwin is one) You guys have really given me some great conversation fodder regarding lawyers... So think about that the next time you complain about lawyers defending "people they know are guilty." Afterall, how does the lawyer know? The scumbag fill-in-the-blank-with-the-worst-type-of-criminal-you-can-think-of, today may one day become the next Ghandi, if only you can get him out of this particular predicament. Right?

I would rather not have gone to prison, but since I can see no way that I could have learned what I learned from going to prison in any other way I am glad I did not have an effective lawyer.

 

[Borachio]

I don't ever recall complaining about lawyers defending clients who they know are guilty.

From what I've heard, though, they aren't supposed to. If they know for sure their client is guilty, the best thing they can do is advise the client to plead accordingly, since that's in the client's best interests. Or withdraw from the case.

I've no doubt lawyers sometimes find themselves defending a client they suspect is guilty. (Though they should suspend those suspicions). But then their job is to present their client in the best possible light.

Much the same as a doctor.

And yeah. I noticed that Mr Nothin sidestepped Godwin's Law. But I don't hold with that bunk. So I mention Hitler at every possible opportunity. He's far too useful a touchstone to ignore. A bit like Ghandi. (Why have we suddenly decided to spell Gandhi "Ghandi"? I blame Tim.)

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Your lawyer will never ask if you are guilty, as it is completely irrelevant to the performance of his job...a job which our system of justice rests upon him performing to the best of his ability.

 

[Borachio]

What if the client, unasked, tells his lawyer that he's guilty but wants to plead innocent?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What if the client tells his lawyer that he's guilty but wants to plead innocent?

Depends. The lawyer can use this as a teaching moment for the client and point out that offering unsolicited information, even to your lawyer is counterproductive, so telling the lawyer he was guilty when the lawyer did not ask is going to have consequences, ie get another lawyer. Or the lawyer can recognize that there is no legal way to admit guilt; the judicial system is used to determine guilt and the defendant is in fact not the system so their opinion on their guilt is irrelevant.

 

[Borachio]

Lol. That kind of ignores the obvious: the client is in the best possible position (99 times out of 100) to determine his guilt. He's the one who knows whether he actually did the crime. Whether he was there, and pulled the trigger, for example.

(Unless it's a matter of definition of course. He may not know the difference between culpable homicide and manslaughter (or whatever) for instance.)

If the client says to his lawyer "I was there and I shot the guy, but I want you to defend me with the story that I wasn't, and didn't shoot anyone", the lawyer can't go ahead and defend him on that basis, can he?

 

[warpus]

I think that happens all the time. "Here's what I did, use that information to try to get me a good deal or an innocent verdict".

 

[Crackerbox]

Most just don't get it. They're rather complain about the color of a font than see the real intent, the marks of GOD coded everywhere such that Humanity is altruistic by design.

Say you believe in GOD, particularly in Jesus the Annointed One. The central message is for each adherent to be a servant steeped in altruism for the Children of GOD.

But if you disbelieve in GOD, then by living in community with others, then altruism is a necessity for parenting, benevolence, justice, mercy, etc. Those lessons come from Seneca and Darwin. The evolutionary biologists point out that it's the instinct not only of human beings, but bees and ants. There is no morality without altruism.

It's undeniable. Whatever the agent of creating that desire in humans, be it Nature or GOD, it's a valid demonstrable phenomena.

Those who are solely focused upon the Self, and redefine altruism as self-serving, are actually not only negating basic human instincts, science, and spirituality, but also plain old common sense.

What do we call individuals who think solely of themselves? A sociopath.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20027920

Spoiler :

Antisocial personality disorder is a type of chronic mental condition in which a person's ways of thinking, perceiving situations and relating to others are dysfunctional — and destructive. People with antisocial personality disorder typically have no regard for right and wrong and often disregard the rights, wishes and feelings of others.

Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others either harshly or with callous indifference. They may often violate the law, landing in frequent trouble, yet they show no guilt or remorse. They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use. These characteristics typically make people with antisocial personality disorder unable to fulfill responsibilities related to family, work or school.

Focus solely upon the Self, and this is the unnatural consequence of that malady.

 

[Borachio]

Those with antisocial personality disorder tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others either harshly or with callous indifference. They may often violate the law, landing in frequent trouble, yet they show no guilt or remorse. They may lie, behave violently or impulsively, and have problems with drug and alcohol use. These characteristics typically make people with antisocial personality disorder unable to fulfill responsibilities related to family, work or school.

I can't see much to argue with in this definition of the antisocial person.

But they're really not acting in their own best interests, are they? I feel quite sorry for people who are like this. And there really are many of them. Some estimates put it as high as 10% of the population.

Alcoholics aren't selfish people, in the end (though they may begin by selfishly seeking an easy way of feeling good). They're ultimately self-destructive people.

And their behaviour has roots in self-loathing due to abusive relationships, or something else, in their early histories. People drink too much, because ultimately there's something missing from their lives. Maybe. I don't know. I'm not an alcoholic. At the moment.

(But if this goes on much longer, I shall have to turn to the bottle. I jest! I jest!)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Most just don't get it. They're rather complain about the color of a font than see the real intent, the marks of GOD coded everywhere such that Humanity is altruistic by design.

Wow. Now you're claiming to be GOD. Maybe you should notify the admins so they can change your username.

What I see is someone doing the online equivalent of obnoxiously waving a gaudy sign plastered with bible verses in my face. It's rude.

What do we call individuals who think solely of themselves? A sociopath.

There's a huge difference between someone who is rude, selfish, and indifferent to other people and someone who feels not a shred of remorse for torturing and killing. I think of Paul Bernardo (serial rapist and murderer of several teenage girls) as a sociopath, or Luka Magnotta (spent awhile posting snuff videos of kittens online, then graduated to killing at least one human we know of - and after dismembering his body, he mailed the body parts all over Canada, including to an elementary school).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Lol. That kind of ignores the obvious: the client is in the best possible position (99 times out of 100) to determine his guilt. He's the one who knows whether he actually did the crime. Whether he was there, and pulled the trigger, for example.

(Unless it's a matter of definition of course. He may not know the difference between culpable homicide and manslaughter (or whatever) for instance.)

If the client says to his lawyer "I was there and I shot the guy, but I want you to defend me with the story that I wasn't, and didn't shoot anyone", the lawyer can't go ahead and defend him on that basis, can he?

The client may be the best source of information regarding what happened, but "guilt' as a legally defined state actually has little or nothing to do with what happened. Guilt is up to a judge or jury to determine based on the evidence presented.

The lawyer cannot, within the bounds of legal and ethical behavior, put the client on the witness stand with the expectation the client will commit what the lawyer knows to be perjury. So in the situation presented the lawyer can use that defense but can't have the client testify that they weren't there and didn't do it if the lawyer believes their statement that they were and/or they did.

 

[Borachio]

Guilt is up to a judge or jury to determine based on the evidence presented.

So what happens when the client pleads guilty?

Are you suggesting it's never in a client's best interests to plead guilty? (I have heard that said before.)

 

[Crackerbox]

Wow. Now you're claiming to be GOD. Maybe you should notify the admins so they can change your username.

What I see is someone doing the online equivalent of obnoxiously waving a gaudy sign plastered with bible verses in my face. It's rude.



There's a huge difference between someone who is rude, selfish, and indifferent to other people and someone who feels not a shred of remorse for torturing and killing. I think of Paul Bernardo (serial rapist and murderer of several teenage girls) as a sociopath, or Luka Magnotta (spent awhile posting snuff videos of kittens online, then graduated to killing at least one human we know of - and after dismembering his body, he mailed the body parts all over Canada, including to an elementary school).

Weird. The marks of GOD are found within human instinct. What bizarre spin doctoring.

No, dear, that's a psychopath, not a sociopath. Nice try, but epic failure.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath

Some Atheists hate the Bible; others hate Jesus; others hate the believers. It's no surprise since Jesus himself said,
“If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. But all these things they will do to you on account of my name, because they do not know him who sent me. If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have been guilty of sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. ... John 15:18-25

 

[Borachio]

You're not a naturally kind person, are you, Mr Box?

Or have you taught yourself to be this unkind?

 

[Sommerswerd]

A bit like Ghandi. (Why have we suddenly decided to spell Gandhi "Ghandi"? I blame Tim.)

I blame spellcheck

So what happens when the client pleads guilty?

The judge asks them if they understand their plea and what pleading guilty means. Then the judge decides whether to accept their plea (they almost always do) then they get convicted and sentenced without a trial.

Are you suggesting it's never in a client's best interests to plead guilty? (I have heard that said before.)

Whoever said that was wrong.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A bit like Ghandi. (Why have we suddenly decided to spell Gandhi "Ghandi"? I blame Tim.)

I take full responsibility for the ongoing consequences of my actions.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure what you mean.

But this

Guilt is up to a judge or jury to determine based on the evidence presented.

seems to imply that the accused is not going to ever plead guilty since that would preclude the judge and jury making that decision.

Which would be fine. But I didn't think that's how the system worked.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

No, dear, that's a psychopath, not a sociopath. Nice try, but epic failure.

Since no one has called you on it yet, the gratuitous and insincere use of the term 'dear' has been widely recognized as condescending and sexist. Continued use of this term while you are pretending that you are somehow qualified to provide Valka with an education that she has neither requested nor demonstrated any particular need for is likely to be deemed unacceptable.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure what you mean.

But this

seems to imply that the accused is not going to ever plead guilty since that would preclude the judge and jury making that decision.

Which would be fine. But I didn't think that's how the system worked.

They are fully entitled to plead guilty. If it is overwhelmingly apparent that they are going to be found guilty it is in their best interests to plead guilty whether they actually are or not.