Jonesy wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Jonesy wrote:
The parties did not believe it was wrong? You know what the parties believe? Care to explain how you know that?
And like it matters whether they believe it is wrong or not? You gotta be kidding me. I wanna hear you tell that to I judge? "I believed it was ok to sell machine guns judge, so please be lenient."
And you see no evidence of any harm, oh well then just let them go. with your attitude how are you not in prison?
Most people act according to their sense of what is "right". Criminals -- selfish people -- usually believe their crimes are "right" because of some or other perceived injustice, or because they feel some sense of entitlement (or basically because they are selfish).
But this does matter. Since everyone believes they are right, how can the law meaningfully punish those who commit wrong? The answer is to create a system of right-and-wrong which appeals to our universal human sense of justice. Simply put, you will never convince a person that he is wrong for a transaction which harms no other person. You have yet to even convince me, and I've not participated in such a transaction. However, you may convince a person that he is wrong for murder (it happens).
You seem to be advocating that the violation of any law that does not harm another is alright. Then you ask how we can meaningfully punish one who commits wrong but believe they are right.
Laughable, you send them to prison for a long term. And you seem to think that this guy thought what he was doing was ok, which is FALSE, he knew it was a criminal act. "Walker agreed but told his friend that he did not want to deal directly with the undercover agent because converting and selling the gun could bring him "fed time" -- a federal prison sentence, court records say."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/26/AR2009062604108.html
You've made several false assumptions.
First of all, you say what my position "seems to be", when I've actually articulated quite explicitly what my position is, and how it differs from the strawman you've created for me. I will not explain again; you're free to read the things you skimmed the first time whenever you'd like.
Secondly, you assume that every person believes that violation of a law is inherently wrong. This is a falsifiable theory, and it is falsified here by the presence of myself, who does not believe there is inherent immorality to violation of the law, but believes rather that morality is an objective standard which exists above and outside the law.
A person may know he is breaking the law, but if he does not believe the law is right, he may likely not think he is wrong for so doing. Remember, Jonesy is not a lawbreaker, and presumably doesn't think like one either.
