A revolution in thought

[GdB]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I agree, but it seems to me someone who writes "The science is airtight, so [theory challenging current orthodoxy] is wrong. That is how science works" clearly disagrees, because I think discounting opposing theories a priori is a denial of the first position.

It seems to me that you reacted like a bull on a red cloth on a phrase that could be interpreted as you do, when taken out of context. Your pejorative use of the word 'orthodoxy' here shows this again.

Yes, there are parts of science that are completely established in their domain. Opposing them, as peacegirl does here, is absurd. To name a few:

• The changes in eclipse times of Io are fully explained (there is no conundrum)
• The eyes process incoming light
• The retina contains no efferent nerve endings
• Information cannot be instantaneous

She isn't aware how rock solid these points are. She seems to think science is made by a few discoverers, and then all other silly scientists are bleating sheep that follow their great intellectual heroes. Therefore she thinks that Lessans' could have a place between the heroes, because there are not so many of them, and in the end, even a discoverer (like Rømer) can err.

There is methodologically unjustified dogmatism in science, of course. But we do not need any of that parts of science for knowing that peacegirls claims are absurd, even without reading the book.

Do you really think you need to read the book to judge that the idea of efferent vision, including its instantaneousness, is wrong?

[thedoc]

It seems to be a particular waste of time, when someone, rather than arguing the points stated, will argue about how they were stated.

Asking for clarification would seem to be more productive.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems to be a particular waste of time, when someone, rather than arguing the points stated, will argue about how they were stated.

Asking for clarification would seem to be more productive.

Point taken.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

Point taken.

Let me say, for the record, that I don't believe you were starting it, but you did feed the troll just a bit. On an internet forum you must be careful of those who just post to start a fight, and not because they have something to add.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? For me this is something I do as I am having coffee.

The time it takes to have a cup of coffee doesn't add up to very long.

Actually, if I push too much harder I'll die of stress, so you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So if you do more than post a few posts a day you will die of the stress of it all? No wonder I my coffee breaks are more productive than a month of your activities.

Well, if that is the case, then it seems I have joined a lost cause.

You know this is not just about a few posts a day. Trying to market this book takes a huge amount of time. Yes, if I give up this thread I can make more time to tweet.

I have to have balance in my life. I can't just live for the book. I can do a little bit each day but that's all I can do. Hopefully, the tweets will go viral and the book will begin to get attention without me having to be there all the time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, what you just said sure did hurt your efforts. You just said that you can knowingly hurt this effort despite the fact you know you will never be blamed, and despite the fact you are convinced will is not free. This should be impossible if the book is correct! What happened? Did you feel you would be blamed and did this allow you to justify behaving irresponsibly?

No Vivisectus. I am not doing anything to hurt anyone purposely, so my conscience is not bothering me.

That is true but in this case I am doing nothing harmful.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? You believe you can prevent every last murder and other awfulness, you are not doing so because of *insert excuses* and that is not harmful?

You are very confused, just like you were on the right-of-way system. I will do whatever I can to bring this knowledge to light, but if people are not willing to listen, this book may be way ahead of its time and no matter what I do it would be for naught. I could try and try and try and try, but to no avail if the universe isn't ready to accept this knowledge. I will continue to do my best to help, even take you up on some of your suggestions, but for you to accuse me of being responsible for the evil in the world because I'm not trying hard enough to prevent it, is misplaced blame.

I am doing everything I can to help with the resources that I have. A lack of action or lack of intent to harm can still harm someone, granted. What makes it negligent is if something you failed to do that caused harm to someone was your responsibility.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That cannot be the case, because it means you can still cause harm without it being your responsibility

Harm can still be caused without it being my responsibility, yes, but I am not going to beat myself up because I haven't found the "right" way in which to bring about this new world any faster.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

- which means harm is still caused, retaliation will still occur after all a first blow has been struck), and the problem of evil remains unsolved.

True. Until this discovery is understood by science, and applied globally, there will still be harm done to others. I can only do my part, which is limited unless I get some help. I hope tweeting will help spread the word.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Also, you are in fact not doing all you can at all. Besides from your time spent here, nothing meaningful has been done to promote this book. Your site is still the same. You have written no articles, have not increased your online presence, and you were completely unaware of some interesting new developments that took me one coffee break to find.

All you ever do is sit here and complain how everyone is a bunch of meanies for not liking your book.

I have been busy all summer taking care of my granddaughter. I don't have all the time you think I have. That being said, I do like your suggestions Vivisecutus. Do you want to be my promoter?

I am doing all that I can to help spread the word.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this is all you are capable of, then we are doomed indeed.

We're not doomed. I will never give up and I will use try to develop a better online presence.

There is so much more to learn in order to make it effective.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is really cool: you can learn something here. Master it. Dig into it. Read everything you can about it and then experiment. It will make promoting this book a valuable experience for you and you will end up with a new skill. Even if it does not work it will not be a waste of time: you will have learned something interesting.

Very true.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You seem to have this amazing capacity to turn opportunity into a waste of time. Why not try the opposite?

You're right!

What is that supposed to mean?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If that were true - and I refuse to believe that this is truly the limit of your abilities, as you do not actually seem mentally handicapped - then this cause is deader than the dodo and will sit here on the internet for a few years among thousands upon thousands of other crackpot manifestos, never to be heard of again.

That worries me. If I die tomorrow my kids will be here to carry the ball. But your words make sense and are giving me the impetus to try and master social media. I bought an entire program to learn wordpress so I don't have to pay out so much money. I have not yet had the time to study it. I only wish you and others would support me by giving me a decent review, even if you don't believe the eyes are not a sense organ. People don't have to give a terrible review for that reason. They can just state what his premises were without being judgmental. The more positive reviews I get, the more interested people will become.

[thedoc]

I was sitting out on my deck this evening looking at the stars, and I saw an airplane in the sky, before I heard it.

LESSANS WAS WRONG!

After a few minutes I saw 2 more flying over, before I heard them.

LESSANS WAS WRONG.

Shortly after that I saw another airplane in the sky, before I heard it.

LESSANS WAS WRONG.

[Vivisectus]

The time it takes to have a cup of coffee doesn't add up to very long.

Item the first: a typing course for Peacegirl to seed things up a bit.

You know this is not just about a few posts a day. Trying to market this book takes a huge amount of time. Yes, if I give up this thread I can make more time to tweet.

Now that is downright dishonest: you don't actually TRY to market your books! All you do is write a few posts. And maybe a tweet. And apparently, for you that equals pushing things to the very limit of your endurance - in fact you will DIE OF STRESS if you do anything more. Good grief what utter weaksauce.

I have come up with more pertinent information to help this cause during 2 coffee breaks than you have in the last 2 years. That has to tell you something.

For the past 2 years there has been no development, no new skills added, no articles generated, no interesting developments found in the world that match your message, no research discovered that could match the book... nothing but pointless debate on the internet. You still have the exact same arguments, and they have been proven to be utterly ineffective. Oh yeah and 30 followers on twitter and the faint hope that your tweet will catch the public imagination and go viral. I think you have a slightly better chance of getting struck by lightning in your basement.

We need fresh input, new skills, new angles, a bit of interest. It will be interesting and rewarding for you even if it does not work and every time you do it you will add a new skill to your arsenal. Why not liven things up a bit? It is not like there's anything to lose at this stage. I am your only self-proclaimed convert, and frankly, I am already considering a schism. You cannot prove your pudding and eat it.

[peacegirl]

The time it takes to have a cup of coffee doesn't add up to very long.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Item the first: a typing course for Peacegirl to seed things up a bit.

I know how to type Vivisectus. I was the fastest typist in my high school typing class. The teacher took me to all of his classes to show my speed. I've slowed down since then but I still type faster than most. Looking up information takes more time than a cup of coffee. If you googled and found certain answers while drinking a cup of coffee, good for you, but this will never be enough in a case like this.

You know this is not just about a few posts a day. Trying to market this book takes a huge amount of time. Yes, if I give up this thread I can make more time to tweet.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Now that is downright dishonest: you don't actually TRY to market your books! All you do is write a few posts. And maybe a tweet. And apparently, for you that equals pushing things to the very limit of your endurance - in fact you will DIE OF STRESS if you do anything more. Good grief what utter weaksauce.

Please stop judging me; you are not in my shoes Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have come up with more pertinent information to help this cause during 2 coffee breaks than you have in the last 2 years. That has to tell you something.

Sure it does; it says that I am not the only one responsible for spreading this knowledge. It belongs to everyone who sees the veracity of what he's saying. It can't just be on my shoulders. So instead of blaming me, help me, and do your part, whatever that is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

For the past 2 years there has been no development, no new skills added, no articles generated, no interesting developments found in the world that match your message, no research discovered that could match the book... nothing but pointless debate on the internet. You still have the exact same arguments, and they have been proven to be utterly ineffective.

Maybe ineffective, but that doesn't mean the claim is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Oh yeah and 30 followers on twitter and the faint hope that your tweet will catch the public imagination and go viral. I think you have a slightly better chance of getting struck by lightning in your basement.

You are right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We need fresh input, new skills, new angles, a bit of interest. It will be interesting and rewarding for you even if it does not work and every time you do it you will add a new skill to your arsenal. Why not liven things up a bit? It is not like there's anything to lose at this stage. I am your only self-proclaimed convert, and frankly, I am already considering a schism. You cannot prove your pudding and eat it.

You are way premature to determine whether the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What gratifies me is the fact that you found something to support what Lessans said all along, because you were one of the antagonists. Just goes to show how things can change. Please scroll back to the last post, which I finished answering.

[LadyShea]

I only wish you and others would support me by giving me a decent review even if you don't believe the eyes are not a sense organ. People don't have to give a terrible review for that reason.. They can just state what his premises were without being judgmental. The more positive reviews I get, the more interested people will become.

A review is judgmental by definition. It is a person's opinion of the work. You are asking for book reports not reviews.

If I die tomorrow my kids will be here to carry the ball.

What makes you believe that when they have done absolutely zero to help you? Will they have more time or money or interest after your death?

[peacegirl]

I only wish you and others would support me by giving me a decent review even if you don't believe the eyes are not a sense organ. People don't have to give a terrible review for that reason.. They can just state what his premises were without being judgmental. The more positive reviews I get, the more interested people will become.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A review is judgmental by definition. It is a person's opinion of the work. You are asking for book reports not reviews.

I don't care what you call it LadyShea. Most people would never be able to give a fair account of this book because they're not equipped, so I am asking people who know me to give a book report so that Amazon shows some responses. The book will never spread if people don't retweet or give reviews. If the majority are negative reviews, it may also hurt the possibility that people will want to know more unfortunately. If you cannot give anything positive, then please don't write anything. I took a chance asking people here to give a positive review; maybe not a 5 star, but certainly not a one or two star. A three star would be neutral but it may not be enough to turn the tide.

If I die tomorrow my kids will be here to carry the ball.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you believe that when they have done absolutely zero to help you? Will they have more time or money or interest after your death?

You certainly are standing in judgment of my children. Once again, you are judging them prematurely as if to say they aren't interested because they don't believe in it. You don't know my kids, just like you didn't know my father but you sure had a lot of negative things to say about him. This knowledge may catch on quicker in a different day and age than at this time in history. I'm not sure, but if that's true my kids would probably want to help, being older and having time to spare. Right now, they are busy with their own lives. They have their own children to support. I don't think that the book will die when I'm gone. It is already written and that will not die. If the knowledge is valid (and I say "IF" because it hasn't been confirmed yet by science) then it will survive because truth always wins in the end!

[Vivisectus]

I know how to type Vivisectus. I was the fastest typist in my high school typing class. The teacher took me to all of his classes to show my speed. I've slowed down since then but I still type faster than most. Looking up information takes more time than a cup of coffee. If you googled and found certain answers while drinking a cup of coffee, good for you, but this will never be enough in a case like this.

The point of which is that more needs to happen, right?

You know this is not just about a few posts a day. Trying to market this book takes a huge amount of time. Yes, if I give up this thread I can make more time to tweet.

Please stop judging me; you are not in my shoes Vivisectus.

I think you could do with a fresh critical look at the difference between your words and your actions. You say it takes a huge amount of time to market the book, but what actual tasks do you spend that time on? Also, do you think it is worth considering some new approaches? There is no visible result anywhere: no reviews, no articles, no blog posts, nothing. Even if you actually KNOW about the book it is hard to find.

Sure it does; it says that I am not the only one responsible for spreading this knowledge. It belongs to everyone who sees the veracity of what he's saying. It can't just be on my shoulders. So instead of blaming me, help me, and do your part, whatever that is.

Blaming you? I am trying to get you to do something constructive. But you seem more interested in offloading responsibility. Not really in the spirit of the book, I don't think.

Maybe ineffective, but that doesn't mean the claim is wrong.

That is sort of the point: right or wrong, your approach does not work and you seem uninterested in changing it.

You are way premature to determine whether the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What gratifies me is the fact that you found something to support what Lessans said all along, because you were one of the antagonists. Just goes to show how things can change. Please scroll back to the last post, which I finished answering.

Amazing: you are someone who is advocating world-wide change, and yet you are one of the most change-resistant persons I know.

[peacegirl]

I know how to type Vivisectus. I was the fastest typist in my high school typing class. The teacher took me to all of his classes to show my speed. I've slowed down since then but I still type faster than most. Looking up information takes more time than a cup of coffee. If you googled and found certain answers while drinking a cup of coffee, good for you, but this will never be enough in a case like this.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The point of which is that more needs to happen, right?

Right.

You know this is not just about a few posts a day. Trying to market this book takes a huge amount of time. Yes, if I give up this thread I can make more time to tweet.

Please stop judging me; you are not in my shoes Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think you could do with a fresh critical look at the difference between your words and your actions. You say it takes a huge amount of time to market the book, but what actual tasks do you spend that time on? Also, do you think it is worth considering some new approaches?

Yes I do, and I welcome your input.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There is no visible result anywhere: no reviews, no articles, no blog posts, nothing. Even if you actually KNOW about the book it is hard to find.

I know. I hope to change that.

Sure it does; it says that I am not the only one responsible for spreading this knowledge. It belongs to everyone who sees the veracity of what he's saying. It can't just be on my shoulders. So instead of blaming me, help me, and do your part, whatever that is.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Blaming you? I am trying to get you to do something constructive. But you seem more interested in offloading responsibility. Not really in the spirit of the book, I don't think.

You are blaming me by saying that if I know something that can prevent all of the evil in the world, it is my fault somehow because I'm not trying hard enough. That's terrible pressure to put on anyone. Imagine telling Obama that he isn't doing enough because there is no peace yet. You are blaming me for not doing enough, even if you didn't mean it that way.

Maybe ineffective, but that doesn't mean the claim is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is sort of the point: right or wrong, your approach does not work and you seem uninterested in changing it.

That's just not true. It will take a lot of time to learn how to use social media constructively, which I don't have right now. I have some family events coming up that require my time, like a baby naming, a Bar Mitzvah, and my son's wedding. After that my time will be freed up. I want to be able to give my full attention to the project when I start. I'm not making excuses.

You are way premature to determine whether the proof of the pudding is in the eating. What gratifies me is the fact that you found something to support what Lessans said all along, because you were one of the antagonists. Just goes to show how things can change. Please scroll back to the last post, which I finished answering.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing: you are someone who is advocating world-wide change, and yet you are one of the most change-resistant persons I know.

That's what it may appear to you, but you have no idea how much effort has already gone into this mission. Please don't do what everyone does; rush to judgment about what I do or don't do. That being said, I do appreciate your change of heart and your sincere desire to help. I just don't see why no one (not even you) is tweeting to help me. It doesn't cost anything, right? All people have to say is:

Check out this book:
Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times: Seymour Lessans: 9781553953302: Amazon.com: Books

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bump.

If you're going to decline my generous offer, surely you can at least tell us why?

Why are you avoiding this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why are you avoiding this?

Because there's no relationship. You are trying to make the case that there are facts about the world that do not change therefore it's physically impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. You are equating this to real time seeing, as if this too is impossible based on the same physical laws. But there is no violation if you understand that there is no gap between light that allows us to see the object, and the object seen.

[The Lone Ranger]

Wrong.


So, explain to us why you won't take me up on my offer.


Or are you afraid?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there's no relationship. You are trying to make the case that there are facts about the world that do not change therefore it's physically impossible to create a perpetual motion machine. You are equating this to real time seeing, as if this too is impossible based on the same physical laws. But there is no violation if you understand that there is no gap between light that allows us to see the object, and the object seen.

I would say there is a marked similarity, and a very strong relationship between the idea of a perpetual motion machine and instant vision, they both violate the known laws of physics. The perpetual motion machine violates the laws of physics in that all of them fall victim to friction and the need to continually add energy to keep them going. The only examples that I can think of use gravity as an input, and even these eventually fail. Instant vision required that information get from one place to another faster than c which violates the known laws of physics, and all your claims that there is no travel or distance, is just so much meaningless rhetoric. The distance is there and nothing you or Lessans can say will make it go away. If you are going to throw your money away promoting the book, I think you would be better served by sending it to TLR for his machine design, I believe TLR would at least make some good use of that money.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I appreciate your input

Great! So let us look into what we can do here. We know we face a few challenges: a lack of resources, a lack of acceptance by mainstream science, and a lack of empirical evidence. But let us not forget we also have a few advantages.

For instance, we have the advantage that we already know what the truth looks like. There is no need for us to continually frame and re-frame hypotheses, wondering if they are suitable for the question we are trying to answer, and generally wondering if we are even asking the right kind of question to begin with! We already know that there is a truth there to be found, and we also already know what it looks like, so all we need to do is look for any research paper, news item, or other sort of independently established fact that is compatible with what we already know to be true. Any of these that we find, we add to our collection. Pretty soon we will have a growing body of emerging evidence that supports our idea.

This will help in two ways: firstly, it will help convince those that object on the basis that we have no evidence that supports us. Au contraire, we can say: not only do we have quite a bit, more and more is coming to light all the time!

Secondly, it will demonstrate that this idea is quite cutting-edge, that it is very much a current issue, that it is a movement that is growing stronger and more confident all the time. We want to impart a sense of dynamism rather than the sense that this is something dying a slow death somewhere in the unshaven armpit of the internet.

So one of the first things I would recommend is this: start trawling through current events, social experiments, psychology research papers, and any other subject matter that may yield interesting facts, and look for compatible results. We won’t need a lot to start out with, but we will have to make sure we add a little bit every month or so… after all, it is going to be a growing body of evidence.

I have given you two examples already, but we will need a little bit more, preferably including something from the field of neurology or psychology Once we have a handful of examples, we can start writing an article or two to put up on your website.

But first things first – I think we should find a few of these to put together, and then we can discuss how we want to present it.

Fortunately we won't have to re-invent the squeaky wheel: there are some good examples out there of people who are successfully spreading ideas that are facing similar challenges: we will only have to solve the unique challenges that our idea brings with it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We already know that there is a truth there to be found, and we also already know what it looks like, so all we need to do is look for any research paper, news item, or other sort of independently established fact that is compatible with what we already know to be true. Any of these that we find, we add to our collection. Pretty soon we will have a growing body of emerging evidence that supports our idea.

So you find one paper that supports your idea, and you keep it in your records, and the 10 papers that disprove your ideas, are discarded, and all this regardless of the source of the papers. That's a really good way to build support for your idea, but it's not a good way to do research to find the truth, but I forgot, you already know the truth, you're just trying to find some evidence to support it, regardless of how much evidence disproves it.

"My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts".

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Will they have more time or money or interest after your death?

Both surviving copies of the book will be in the coffin with her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Great! So let us look into what we can do here. We know we face a few challenges: a lack of resources, a lack of acceptance by mainstream science, and a lack of empirical evidence. But let us not forget we also have a few advantages.

For instance, we have the advantage that we already know what the truth looks like. There is no need for us to continually frame and re-frame hypotheses, wondering if they are suitable for the question we are trying to answer, and generally wondering if we are even asking the right kind of question to begin with! We already know that there is a truth there to be found, and we also already know what it looks like, so all we need to do is look for any research paper, news item, or other sort of independently established fact that is compatible with what we already know to be true. Any of these that we find, we add to our collection. Pretty soon we will have a growing body of emerging evidence that supports our idea.

That's a very good idea, but how do we find these research papers, news items, etc.? They're not easy to come by as you already know.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This will help in two ways: firstly, it will help convince those that object on the basis that we have no evidence that supports us. Au contraire, we can say: not only do we have quite a bit, more and more is coming to light all the time![

Secondly, it will demonstrate that this idea is quite cutting-edge, that it is very much a current issue, that it is a movement that is growing stronger and more confident all the time. We want to impart a sense of dynamism rather than the sense that this is something dying a slow death somewhere in the unshaven armpit of the internet.

You certainly have a way with words, but you are absolutely right.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So one of the first things I would recommend is this: start trawling through current events, social experiments, psychology research papers, and any other subject matter that may yield interesting facts, and look for compatible results. We won’t need a lot to start out with, but we will have to make sure we add a little bit every month or so… after all, it is going to be a growing body of evidence.

I hope we can both keep the research. I don't trust my computer to hold all the information.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I have given you two examples already, but we will need a little bit more, preferably including something from the field of neurology or psychology Once we have a handful of examples, we can start writing an article or two to put up on your website.

I'm game. I know what I'm doing is counterproductive and is wasting precious time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But first things first – I think we should find a few of these to put together, and then we can discuss how we want to present it.

That would be fine, I just hope we can find cutting edge articles as this whole subject is taboo for the most part. We're still in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fortunately we won't have to re-invent the squeaky wheel: there are some good examples out there of people who are successfully spreading ideas that are facing similar challenges: we will only have to solve the unique challenges that our idea brings with it.

Anything that can help to bring this knowledge to the forefront is to be applauded.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope we can both keep the research. I don't trust my computer to hold all the information.

That would be fine, I just hope we can find cutting edge articles.

Anything that can help to bring this knowledge to the forefront is to be applauded.

I don't think the storage capacity of your computer will be a problem, considering the amount of material you're likely to find, that is suitable.

By "cutting edge" do you mean verifiable from reliable sources, or just something that appears to support your ideas?

I have recommended that anyone who is interested, should read the book for themselves, nothing would clarify the matter better for most people than that.

[peacegirl]

Vivisectus, this is an interesting article that discusses the just desert model of the punitive system, and the idea of bringing forgiveness into the fold as a way of helping to rehabilitate the offender. Obviously, they don't advocate giving up all blame --- since they don't have an understanding of this discovery therefore giving up all blame cannot be expected --- but they are getting warmer in recognizing the importance of forgiveness.

To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice
Nicola Lacey* and Hanna Pickard**
↵*Departments of Law and Social Policy and Gender Institute, London School of Economics. Email: N.M.Lacey@lse.ac.uk.
↵**Department of Philosophy, University of Birmingham. Email: h.pickard@bham.ac.uk.

Next Section
Abstract

What do you do when faced with wrongdoing—do you blame or do you forgive? Especially when confronted with offences that lie on the more severe end of the spectrum and cause terrible psychological or physical trauma or death, nothing can feel more natural than blame. Indeed, in the UK and the USA, increasingly vehement and righteous public expressions of blame and calls for vengeance have become commonplace; correspondingly, contemporary penal philosophy has witnessed a resurgence of the retributive tradition, in the modern form usually known as the ‘justice’ model. On the other hand, people can and routinely do forgive others, even in cases of severe crime. Evolutionary psychologists argue that both vengeance and forgiveness are universal human adaptations that have evolved as alternative responses to exploitation, and, crucially, strategies for reducing risk of re-offending. We are naturally endowed with both capacities: to blame and retaliate, or to forgive and seek to repair relations. Which should we choose? Drawing on evolutionary psychology, we offer an account of forgiveness and argue that the choice to blame, and not to forgive, is inconsistent with the political values of a broadly liberal society and can be instrumentally counter-productive to reducing the risk of future re-offending. We then sketch the shape of penal philosophy and criminal justice policy and practice with forgiveness in place as a guiding ideal.

Key words
punishment retribution criminal justice ethics political theory forgiveness
Previous Section

Next Section
1. Introduction

What do you do when faced with wrongdoing—do you blame or do you forgive? When confronted with crime, especially offences that lie on the more severe end of the spectrum and cause victims terrible psychological or physical trauma or death, nothing can feel more natural than blame. We may feel a range of hostile, negative emotions, such as hate, anger, resentment, indignation, disgust, contempt and scorn towards the perpetrator. We may judge them harshly, condemning their character. We may want them punished and to suffer in turn for what they have done. Moreover, we may feel entitled to these sorts of emotions and attitudes, as reactions which are deserved by the offender. Indeed, in the UK and the USA, increasingly vehement and righteous public expressions of blame and calls for vengeance have become commonplace in wider society.1 On the other hand, people can and routinely do forgive others, even in cases of severe crime.2 Evolutionary psychologists argue that both vengeance and forgiveness are universal human adaptations that have evolved as alternative responses to exploitation, and, crucially, strategies for reducing the risk of future re-offending.3 We are naturally endowed with both capacities: to blame and retaliate, or to forgive and seek to repair relations. We have a choice. Which should we choose?

Contemporary penal philosophy has witnessed a resurgence of the retributive tradition, in the modern form usually known as the ‘just deserts’ or ‘justice’ model.4 On this model, punishment is hard treatment visited on the offender in response to, by reason of, and in proportion to his or her ‘desert’ or blameworthiness. Blameworthiness, in turn, demands that the offender have the capacity for responsible agency: minimally, cognitive and volitional capacities such that they knew what they were doing when they committed the offence, and exercised choice and a sufficient degree of control in doing so. According to this tradition, punishment is only justified if the condition of responsible agency is met, and it is further limited by the requirement that it be proportional to blameworthiness.5 Hence our propensity for vengeance is to that extent tempered, rather than left wholly unchecked. Nonetheless, in forging a strong association between the justification of punishment and the appropriateness of blame, the choice made is clear—according to this model, when confronted with culpable wrongdoing, we should blame, not forgive.6

Our aim in this article is to explore the possibility that this choice—to blame, not forgive—which is garnering increasing consensus within penal philosophy, is inconsistent with the basic political values of a broadly liberal society, and stands in need of challenge. For these values demand that respect and equality ideally accrue to all. They therefore require responses to crime that aim—even if they do not always succeed—to restore offenders as full participant members of our society and repair the rupture to all that criminal offending creates. If indeed forgiveness functions to repair relations (while reducing the risk of future re-offending) then these values suggest that we ought—so far as possible—to replace blame with forgiveness as a guiding ideal within penal philosophy and criminal justice policy, and promote practices within criminal justice institutions that move away from blame and towards forgiveness within the vast spectrum of possible real-world responses.

This suggestion may at first glance appear so radical as to beggar belief. We hope that, as the article progresses, the contours of what it would mean, in theory and in practice, will become clear and credible.

cont. at: To Blame or to Forgive? Reconciling Punishment and Forgiveness in Criminal Justice

[peacegirl]

Here's another one from the same authors that I will keep in my documents. None of these suggestions are even close to the ultimate solution, but this does show that people are interested in finding new ways to address the problems that are eroding our present penal system.

From the Consulting Room to the Court Room? Taking the Clinical Model of Responsibility Without Blame into the Legal Realm
Nicola Lacey and Hanna Pickard*
↵*Nicola Lacey is Senior Research Fellow All Souls College Oxford and Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory, University of Oxford. Email: nicola.lacey@all-souls.ox.ac.uk. Hanna Pickard is a Wellcome Trust Biomedical Ethics Clinical Research Fellow at the Faculty of Philosophy and All Souls College, University of Oxford, and also a therapist at the Oxfordshire Complex Needs Service, Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. Email: hanna.pickard@all-souls.ox.ac.uk.

Next Section
Abstract

Within contemporary penal philosophy, the view that punishment can only be justified if the offender is a moral agent who is responsible and hence blameworthy for their offence is one of the few areas on which a consensus prevails. In recent literature, this precept is associated with the retributive tradition, in the modern form of ‘just deserts’. Turning its back on the rehabilitative ideal, this tradition forges a strong association between the justification of punishment, the attribution of responsible agency in relation to the offence, and the appropriateness of blame. By contrast, effective clinical treatment of disorders of agency employs a conceptual framework in which ideas of responsibility and blameworthiness are clearly separated from what we call ‘affective blame’: the range of hostile, negative attitudes and emotions that are typical human responses to criminal or immoral conduct. We argue that taking this clinical model of ‘responsibility without blame’ into the legal realm offers new possibilities. Theoretically, it allows for the reconciliation of the idea of ‘just deserts’ with a rehabilitative ideal in penal philosophy. Punishment can be reconceived as consequences—typically negative but occasionally not, so long as they are serious and appropriate to the crime and the context—imposed in response to, by reason of, and in proportion to responsibility and blameworthiness, but without the hard treatment and stigma typical of affective blame. Practically, it suggests how sentencing and punishment can better avoid affective blame and instead further rehabilitative and related ends, while yet serving the demands of justice.

Key words
blame desert justice agency punishment rehabilitation responsibility treatment
The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.
—Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Previous Section
Next Section
1. Introduction

Within contemporary penal philosophy, the view that punishment can only be justified if the offender is a moral agent who is responsible and hence blameworthy for their offence is one of the few areas on which a consensus prevails. In recent literature, this precept is associated with the retributive tradition, in the modern form usually known as the ‘just deserts’ or ‘justice’ model. On this model, punishment is hard treatment which is visited on the offender in response to, by reason of, and in proportion to his or her blameworthy conduct.1 Blameworthy conduct, in turn, demands that the offender have the capacity for responsible agency: minimally, cognitive and volitional capacities such that they know what they are doing when they commit an offence, and exercise choice and a sufficient degree of control in doing so. Turning its back decisively on the rehabilitative ideal characteristic of penal philosophy in the 1960s, this tradition forges a strong association between the justification of punishment, the attribution of responsible agency in relation to the offence, and the appropriateness of blame.

In this article, we offer an alternative model that challenges the strong association between punishment and blame, while nonetheless retaining the emphasis on the offender’s capacity for responsible agency. The model draws on the nature of effective clinical treatment of patients with disorders of agency that involve wrongdoing or cause harm, such as certain personality disorders, impulse-control disorders and addictions. Core diagnostic symptoms of such disorders include actions and omissions that are criminal or morally wrong.2 But evidence-based treatment for these conditions typically depends on clinicians adopting a stance towards patients of ‘responsibility without blame’.3 This clinical stance implicitly employs a conceptual framework in which ideas of responsibility and blameworthiness are clearly separated from what we shall call ‘affective blame’, together with the capacity to implement this framework in practice.4 Affective blame, as we define it, is the range of hostile, negative attitudes and emotions that are typical human responses to blameworthiness. It can include, for instance, hatred, anger, resentment, indignation, disgust, disapproval, contempt and scorn, and can be manifest in any number of ways, including seeking retaliation, retribution, and vengeance, rejection and banishment from the community, and the withdrawal of basic respect. In the face of culpable wrongdoing or harm, we often feel such hostile, negative attitudes and emotions are justified and appropriate: that we are entitled to feel and act in these ways, because of what the person in question has done—they deserve it.5 In keeping with the justice model, the clinical model judges patients responsible and indeed accountable for wrongful or harmful conduct to the extent that they possess the relevant cognitive and volitional capacities in relation to it. But in contrast, it resists any corresponding tendency towards affective blame. Put simply, according to the clinical model, blameworthiness, understood as responsibility and accountability for wrongdoing, does not entail the ‘worthiness’ of affective blame.

http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/conte...6-2acf85951d85

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why are you avoiding this?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bump.

I refuse your generous offer. Now you can stop bumping this post.