Win / KotakuInAction2
KotakuInAction2
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

who do we blame

No one. To understand THIS you need to be familiar with Schopenhauer. When you say "blame" what you're really doing is conflating "justice" with "revenge". REVENGE is morally indefensible, it's a continuation of Cain's bloody cycle.

Justice is NOT about righting some cosmic scale that is set wrong by harmful acts.

The morally defensible objective of justice is to make moral laws as tangible and immutable as natural laws. The prohibition of murder should be as inexorable as gravity.

The person who kills, must die. Not for the sake of the dead but for the sake of the living who will see it done and know that for cause there is effect.

Justice is deterrence, not revenge.


On this there is one caveat that departs from liberalism, and that is that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONDEMNED TO ACTUALLY BE GUILTY. Only that they are perceived as guilty by the community and that justice is done swiftly and known to all.

Actually the WORST possible situation is not the conviction of the innocent, but rather the exoneration of someone everyone "knows" is guilty. When OJ Simpson was ruled innocent, it made the state look impotent and the law toothless. Blackstone's formulation is an insidious poison utterly assured to destroy the legitimacy of every Caesar who decides to adopt it.

201 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

who do we blame

No one. To understand THIS you need to be familiar with Schopenhauer. When you say "blame" what you're really doing is conflating "justice" with "revenge". REVENGE is morally indefensible, it's a continuation of Cain's bloody cycle.

Justice is NOT about righting some cosmic scale that is set wrong by harmful acts.

The morally defensible objective of justice is to make moral laws as tangible and immutable as natural laws. The prohibition of murder should be as inexorable as gravity.

The person who kills, must die. Not for the sake of the dead but for the sake of the living who will see it done and know that for cause there is effect.

Justice is deterrence, not revenge.

We do not BLAME the person. We simply execute them.


On this there is one caveat that departs from liberalism, and that is that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONDEMNED TO ACTUALLY BE GUILTY. Only that they are perceived as guilty by the community and that justice is done swiftly and known to all.

Actually the WORST possible situation is not the conviction of the innocent, but rather the exoneration of someone everyone "knows" is guilty. When OJ Simpson was ruled innocent, it made the state look impotent and the law toothless. Blackstone's formulation is an insidious poison utterly assured to destroy the legitimacy of every Caesar who decides to adopt it.

201 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

who do we blame

No one. To understand THIS you need to be familiar with Schopenhauer. When you say "blame" what you're really doing is conflating "justice" with "revenge". REVENGE is morally indefensible, it's a continuation of Cain's bloody cycle.

Justice is NOT about righting some cosmic scale that is set wrong by harmful acts.

The morally defensible objective of justice is to make moral laws as tangible and immutable as natural laws. The prohibition of murder should be as inexorable as gravity.

The person who kills, must die. Not for the sake of the dead but for the sake of the living who will see it done and know that for cause there is effect.

Justice is deterrence, not revenge.

We do not BLAME the person. We simply execute them.


On this there is one caveat that departs from liberalism, and that is that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONDEMNED TO ACTUALLY BE GUILTY. Only that they are perceived as guilty by the community and that justice is done swiftly and known to all.

Actually the WORST possible situation is not the conviction of the innocent, but rather the exoneration of someone everyone "knows" is guilty. When OJ Simpson was ruled innocent, it made the state look impotent and the law toothless.

201 days ago
1 score
Reason: None provided.

who do we blame

No one. To understand THIS you need to be familiar with Schopenhauer. When you say "blame" what you're really doing is conflating "justice" with "revenge". REVENGE is morally indefensible, it's a continuation of Cain's bloody cycle.

Justice is NOT about righting some cosmic scale that is set wrong by harmful acts.

The morally defensible objective of justice is to make moral laws as tangible and immutable as natural laws. The prohibition of murder should be as inexorable as gravity.

The person who kills, must die. Not for the sake of the dead but for the sake of the living who will see it done and know that for cause there is effect.

Justice is deterrence, not revenge.

We do not BLAME the person. We simply execute them.


On this there is one caveat that departs from liberalism, and that is that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONDEMNED TO ACTUALLY BE GUILTY. Only that they are perceived as guilty by the community and that justice is done swiftly and known to all.

Actually the WORST possible situation is not the conviction of the innocent, but rather the exoneration of someone everyone "knows" is guilty. When OJ Simpson was ruled innocent, it made the the deterrent look impotent.

201 days ago
1 score
Reason: Original

who do we blame

No one. To understand THIS you need to be familiar with Schopenhauer. When you say "blame" what you're really doing is conflating "justice" with "revenge". REVENGE is morally indefensible, it's a continuation of Cain's bloody cycle.

Justice is NOT about righting some cosmic scale that is set wrong by harmful acts.

The morally defensible objective of justice is to make moral laws as tangible and immutable as natural laws. The prohibition of murder should be as inexorable as gravity.

The person who kills, must die. Not for the sake of the dead but for the sake of the living who will see it done and know that for cause there is effect.

Justice is deterrence, not revenge.

We do not BLAME the person. We simply execute them.


On this there is one caveat that departs from liberalism, and that is that IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE CONDEMNED TO ACTUALLY BE GUILTY. Only that they are perceived as guilty by the community and that justice is done swiftly and known to all.

201 days ago
1 score