Waxing philosophically, huh? Are you suggesting that the hypothetical penalizing of thought crimes is a substantive alternative to creepiness? Please clarify.
Well yes, of course. To take these issues a step closer to reality, there are several layers of intent that the conscious mind realizes before thoughts become actions. An intermediate level, of course, is speech. If you were to say, "Even though creeps deserve to be murdered we must protect their civil rights" you might arouse apprehension. To say, "El Presidente has a limp penis" puts you on even shakier grounds in some countries where you get a cigarette, a blindfold, and a blast of ammo.
Your triple digit IQ, sir, is a welcomed asset and will soon attract a following of the few MENSA level users that check in occasionally. Could you share your thoughts on this issue from a philosopher's point of view?
Deontological and utilitarian positions are focused on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of actions themselves (the intrinsic 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in the case of the former, and the latter being in the consequentialist camp). We'd have to look to virtue ethics (in ancient times, though also revived in various guises more recently by figures such as MacIntyre) to find a focus on cultivating the 'good mind' in order to produce a 'good citizen', but even there the focus isn't on policing thoughts.
But do we need a particularly philosophical argument? Can't we just stick to some very obvious points: that desires are involuntary, that the most reliable indicator of someone's dominant desire is how they act, and that if we were to incarcerate everyone who entertains a fantasy about some heinous action then we'll have to lock up the entire population? What motorist hasn't fantasized about harming another motorist at some point? What sexually aware individual hasn't fantasized about sexual activity with someone that would be so out of their league in real life that the only way to enact the fantasy would be rape? (And is that then a rape fantasy, even if in the fantasy the other party is willing and the activity mutually enjoyable?) I don't even see this as a matter of protecting human rights; it's just common sense that all sorts of stuff goes on in people's heads and they don't have a lot of say in that, but they do have a choice on whether or not to act on it, just as those who wish harm upon 'thought criminals' should not themselves be penalized for something they haven't acted upon.
Well done, sir. You have eloquently described the subconscious playbook that my mind uses to mediate between my id-ridden (and never fulfilled) animal desires and my problematic superego. I would also say that "earthiness" keeps said superego at bay allowing less interference which enables more efficient thought. Your response to my wise-ass attempt to frame the problem was an impressive piece of prose, and an enlightening point-of-view.
When was this website created, and do we have record of the first post?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Waxing philosophically, huh? Are you suggesting that the hypothetical penalizing of thought crimes is a substantive alternative to creepiness? Please clarify.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
I'm mocking proponents of penalizing thought crimes.
--
The_Loitering_Creep
6 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Well yes, of course. To take these issues a step closer to reality, there are several layers of intent that the conscious mind realizes before thoughts become actions. An intermediate level, of course, is speech. If you were to say, "Even though creeps deserve to be murdered we must protect their civil rights" you might arouse apprehension. To say, "El Presidente has a limp penis" puts you on even shakier grounds in some countries where you get a cigarette, a blindfold, and a blast of ammo.
Your triple digit IQ, sir, is a welcomed asset and will soon attract a following of the few MENSA level users that check in occasionally. Could you share your thoughts on this issue from a philosopher's point of view?
Politics sucks.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Deontological and utilitarian positions are focused on the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of actions themselves (the intrinsic 'rightness' or 'wrongness' in the case of the former, and the latter being in the consequentialist camp). We'd have to look to virtue ethics (in ancient times, though also revived in various guises more recently by figures such as MacIntyre) to find a focus on cultivating the 'good mind' in order to produce a 'good citizen', but even there the focus isn't on policing thoughts.
But do we need a particularly philosophical argument? Can't we just stick to some very obvious points: that desires are involuntary, that the most reliable indicator of someone's dominant desire is how they act, and that if we were to incarcerate everyone who entertains a fantasy about some heinous action then we'll have to lock up the entire population? What motorist hasn't fantasized about harming another motorist at some point? What sexually aware individual hasn't fantasized about sexual activity with someone that would be so out of their league in real life that the only way to enact the fantasy would be rape? (And is that then a rape fantasy, even if in the fantasy the other party is willing and the activity mutually enjoyable?) I don't even see this as a matter of protecting human rights; it's just common sense that all sorts of stuff goes on in people's heads and they don't have a lot of say in that, but they do have a choice on whether or not to act on it, just as those who wish harm upon 'thought criminals' should not themselves be penalized for something they haven't acted upon.
--
The_Loitering_Creep
6 years ago
Comment Hidden (
show
)
0
0
Well done, sir. You have eloquently described the subconscious playbook that my mind uses to mediate between my id-ridden (and never fulfilled) animal desires and my problematic superego. I would also say that "earthiness" keeps said superego at bay allowing less interference which enables more efficient thought. Your response to my wise-ass attempt to frame the problem was an impressive piece of prose, and an enlightening point-of-view.
Thank you very much.