Black and White Thinking VS Greyscale Thinking

Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

12 Jan 2013, 7:23 pm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

I believe insanity goes by the M'Naghten rule which means in order to be considered insane one would have to know right from wrong. To go into this further it is stated "at the time of committing the act, the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong." If our moral standards have so many grey areas and this is really true then I have to ask how is it possible for any of us in society to determine what right and wrong are? If none of us can know right from wrong because of all of these grey areas then I have to ask does the M'Naghten rule apply for society and possibly the whole world? Do we as a species labor under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong? Can the pronoun "he" apply to the human species? If my questions are a resounding yes, then I have to ask is our society and possibly the whole world insane as defined by the M'Naghten rule? If this is yes, then I have to ask how would it be morally righteous to convict anyone of anything at all? If one does not know right or wrong based upon the legal definition of insanity then how can one intentionally do right or how can one intentionally do wrong? Does this mean the whole world is one gigantic Looney bin?



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,149
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

12 Jan 2013, 8:48 pm

If someone can naval gaze so deep that they can justify a shooting rampage at a school that doesn't work. If the person has a legit medical condition where reality was gone when they did it and reality's likely not coming back any time soon that's where insanity works, ie. severe schizophrenia, etc.. Being able to pontificate and rationalize to one's self that there's no wrong no right, what if I'm a butterfly dreaming to be a man, what if I'm really in a different life and when I wake up I'll be somebody else.. someone eh totally differentah.... it doesn't work.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

14 Jan 2013, 1:38 pm

No, one cannot apply the M'Naghten Rule in such a fashion.

The trial of a criminal accused is a trial of the instant case. A trier of fact is limited to consideration of the specific accused that is before the court, and evidence that speaks to the specific circumstances of that individual, and the times that are relevant to the case in front of the court.

To attempt to apply the M'Naghten Rule to a society, is to commit two errors. First, the M'Naghten Rule arises from the criminal law in which an individual is accountable for actions that violate prescribed standards of behaviour that apply to that individual. But there are no rules of behaviour for societies.

Second, it is an attempt to use a rule that is intended to apply to a specific individual and apply it to a collectivity of individuals, which cannot be evaluated in the nature of a specific individual. We don't have a collective understanding of right and wrong, we have a collection of individual understandings of right and wrong.


_________________
--James


cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

14 Jan 2013, 7:44 pm

visagrunt wrote:
No, one cannot apply the M'Naghten Rule in such a fashion.

The trial of a criminal accused is a trial of the instant case. A trier of fact is limited to consideration of the specific accused that is before the court, and evidence that speaks to the specific circumstances of that individual, and the times that are relevant to the case in front of the court.

To attempt to apply the M'Naghten Rule to a society, is to commit two errors. First, the M'Naghten Rule arises from the criminal law in which an individual is accountable for actions that violate prescribed standards of behaviour that apply to that individual. But there are no rules of behaviour for societies.

Second, it is an attempt to use a rule that is intended to apply to a specific individual and apply it to a collectivity of individuals, which cannot be evaluated in the nature of a specific individual. We don't have a collective understanding of right and wrong, we have a collection of individual understandings of right and wrong.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Sorry visagrunt, I was using a hyperbole to make a point. I was trying something different. I should've been more clear and stated directly my intent. I committed the sin I accuse others of doing so I'm not perfect. My point was that some people including professionals use shades of grey as excuse for behavior that is indefensible but yet could not figure out how to avoid the indefensible behavior. When we aspies and other people do the same thing we're metaphorically bashed over the head for "not taking responsibility" or blaming external circumstances. I was using a hyperbole to lampoon those who displayed this sort of hypocrisy.

If kept strictly literal, you would be correct.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

16 Jan 2013, 12:48 am

Eh, just drop moral realism.

Also question responsibility while you're at it.



cubedemon6073
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Nov 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,953

16 Jan 2013, 9:36 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Eh, just drop moral realism.

Also question responsibility while you're at it.


You've totally missed my point. I was making a hyperbole. My point was that some people including professionals use shades of grey as excuse for behavior that is indefensible but yet could not figure out how to avoid the indefensible behavior. When we aspies and other people do the same thing we're metaphorically bashed over the head for "not taking responsibility" or blaming external circumstances. I was using a hyperbole to lampoon those who displayed this sort of hypocrisy. There are those who claim morality including the professionals and religious experts. They promote themselves as righteous and they have all of the answers when do not. They discard morality when it is inconvenient for them but bash others for breaking said morality.

In order for one to take responsibility something he did wrong and for his life one would have to know how to do that. Let's say person x does not know how or what to do. He asks expert a and expert a claims shades of grey or they avoid giving an answer. When one asks for specifics these experts in morality and the law have no answer.

If one is truthfully responsible for his life, captain of his own life and ship, and one is supposed to accept all responsibility for any wrong doing then I have to ask how is it possible to do these things if one does not know, the experts who claim to know do not know but pretend to know or they only have surface one-line, trite, bumper sticker slogans? It is like being sent to a school to learn how to navigate a ship but the instructor teaching knows nothing of how to navigate the ship but when probed further he knows little than what he portrays to know.

When I'm told the problem is not everyone else but me and I'm causing my own problem then it should be possible to tell me in specific terms what I am doing wrong. Do you get my point now. One can't take responsibility and be accountable to something he does not understand. This is what US society seems to require. I don't buy it. No, I will not drop it.

Do you get my point now of my hyperbole?

http://bible.cc/proverbs/22-6.htm

Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. I interpret this both literally and metaphorically. I see these professionals and experts who preach responsibility as elders and teachers. When they claim shades of grey this tells me that certain things are not teachable. For one to be accountable and responsible for something this something would have to be transparent. This means it either has to be teachable, discernible or derivable then how can I be responsible or accountable for something that is not transparent? How is it morally righteous to do this to a person?

If one does not understand, humbles himself and asks questions of the elders and the elders can't teach it then how is it morally righteous to hold someone responsible or accountable? This is my whole point of the hyperbole?