ruby sparks said:
Look, the point is, when you say you think beatings are ok if there is no alternative but not ok if there is, or that rape of a rapist is not a just retribution, or whether this or that is just, permissible, or acceptable, or whatever words you choose to deploy, you are in the end just telling us what Angra's personal call on the matter is (and maybe that of others who would agree with you).
One of the things that would be good would be that my words were not misrepresented. If you and others kept replying that that is just my personal call on the matter, but at least did not represent my position as something very different from what it is, that would be good.
As to whether it is just my personal call, like everyone else, I make moral assessments. But I also offered evidence in this particular thread in the form of evidence about what the human moral sense says in the vast majority of cases. Bomb#20 did that too by the way, and better.
ruby sparks said:
But you're not demonstrating an independent, real moral fact based on human intuitions as to which is better or more correct, or right, or permissible, or acceptable, etc.
If you take a look at the disagreement between people who oppose retribution and those who support it (in this thread and elsewhere), you will see that people on both sides believe they are correct, and claim or imply so. It is implicitly accepted in the context of the debate - even if they do not explicitly recognize it - that there is a fact of the matter as to which one is correct. In particular, evidence of that is abundant in the thread and others.
But for example:
Jarhyn said:
The fact is, we can get better outcomes without revenge in the picture at all.
Note that he says "the fact is".
ruby sparks said:
By all means have a moral framework, just don't kid yourself you've found actual, independent bedrock that makes you really, actually right and others really, actually mistaken. That's what's wrong with your whole approach, imo. By all means preface what you say with 'in my view'.
The people who oppose retribution do not always or generally preface what they say with 'in my view'. In general, when humans engage in moral debate, they do not preface their moral assessments with 'in my view', or any similar expressions. When you demand that I do that, I see two problems:
1. You are indicting the ordinary human practice of moral debate. It has been like this well since there are humans at least. It is like this generally in philosophy, when professional philosophers debate first-order ethics. It is like this in politics, as you can see all around today, purely for example both by rioters and those who support them as well as by those who oppose them, but furthermore, all around the globe and for different causes. Now there are some philosophers who disagree, as you can find for nearly any view. But if they - or you - believe that there is something improper in the entire framework, and that people are making some sort of epistemic error in believing that the practice is correct and that they have a reasonable chance of finding moral truth, the burden is on them.
2. Related to 1., for some reason you demand that I do this or that, but you do not not my opponents. You do not demand that they append "in my opinion" to their views. They too believe that they are actually correct and others mistaken.