cybercoma Posted July 31, 2012 Report Share Posted July 31, 2012 Unfortunately, they are sometimes neccessarySometimes necessary, but once written must always be used. That's just bad policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted August 7, 2012 Report Share Posted August 7, 2012 (edited) You and I have a different definition of Utilitarian, MF! I use it in the context of being concerned with what will work. You are defining it as something we decide to do or not do, according to the worth of the result. To make things more confusing for you, neither of your comparative statements really conflict with each other since the motivation still is the consequence.. and utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. The consequence therein, being the net effect of some value of happiness, or pleasure or simply mutual preference, depending on the type of utilitarianism. Edited August 7, 2012 by mentalfloss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 8, 2012 Report Share Posted August 8, 2012 (edited) Nobody goes out and commits a crime expecting to be caught or thinking of the consequences. studies have shown criminals do think about the consequences, it doesn't always deter them...crimes of passion such as murder consequences have no effect... Edited August 9, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 studies have shown criminals do think about the consequences, it doesn't always deter them... crimes have passion such as murder consequences have no effect... I wondered about CC's premise too, Wyly. It sounds like CC is saying that all criminals are really very simple and stupid if they never think about the consequences. A cross-section of perps would show that to not be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I wondered about CC's premise too, Wyly. It sounds like CC is saying that all criminals are really very simple and stupid if they never think about the consequences. A cross-section of perps would show that to not be the case. I came across a study done in australia where there was increase in consequences for using a gun in a robbery...interviews with those convicted verified they did consider the extra jail time before using a gun but most choose to do so regardless... I suppose whats happening is they don't think they're going to get caught... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 I came across a study done in australia where there was increase in consequences for using a gun in a robbery...interviews with those convicted verified they did consider the extra jail time before using a gun but most choose to do so regardless... I suppose whats happening is they don't think they're going to get caught... Good point. There is also a theory that if the penalty for murder is not sufficient or the chances of being caught are not that high many armed robbers will deliberately kill any witnesses, like attendants at a gas bar, store clerks or employees at fast food outlets. I don't pretend to know all the answers. Certainly there are no perfect ones, since the actions of any criminal or even any human being are always a variable. However, it just seems common sense that if it is difficult to catch a criminal who commits a certain type of crime the only possible deterrent is a very severe punishment. The lower the chances of being caught the higher the sentence severity. What else might work? As a rule, criminals are NOT stupid! They can be incredibly smart! They just lack the same moral inhibitions as the rest of us. They are NOT all just products of poor families either. Some are but I'll bet many less than what some apologists claim. I've always thought that belief to be incredibly patronizing and demeaning to poor folks anyway. Whatever. Despite all the debate and different programs, the problem in Toronto seems to be getting worse and not better. Once again, from a 'Utilitarian' viewpoint there are no successes apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 9, 2012 Report Share Posted August 9, 2012 Is the problem in Toronto actually getting worse though? Do crime rates bare that out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleClassCentrist Posted August 13, 2012 Report Share Posted August 13, 2012 Is the problem in Toronto actually getting worse though? Do crime rates bare that out? Maybe just a spike in it. Toronto made news again recently for the urination assault that was filmed. Some guy pissed on a homeless boy who had passed out with people laughing in front of the Eaton Centre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 13, 2012 Report Share Posted August 13, 2012 Is the problem in Toronto actually getting worse though? Do crime rates bare that out? I listened to crime stats last week being quoted on a Toronto radio talk show, Smallc. Crime rates are indeed down across the country. However, most times the rest of the story is never mentioned. That statement is true as an average of ALL types of crime, EVERYWHERE in Canada! The complete story is that crimes of violence have spiked up, particularly in certain areas like Toronto. This makes sense, when you think about it. One would hardly expect Canmore to be as much a hotbed of gangbangers as we see in Toronto's Regent Park or at Jane & Finch. Big cities breed a totally different culture with very different problems. Again, as far as the reporting of crime stats, this is why I am always suspicious of such stats delivered through the MSM. Too often the sources have an agenda and play games with the context, emphasis or whatever. Hence the old adage: "Figures lie, and liars figure!" The classic example is the old " 4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin" claim. It may take weeding through hundreds of doctors to come up with 4 with that preference. At that point you take those 4 plus 1 more and you can make that claim legally in your advertising. It is the exact truth but the context and methodology delivers something totally false to a target audience. Yet it has a veneer of statistical science that helps to get the more credulous to believe it. This corruption is indeed a sad thing, since properly done stats of course are very, very useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 13, 2012 Report Share Posted August 13, 2012 The classic example is the old " 4 out of 5 doctors prefer Aspirin" claim. It may take weeding through hundreds of doctors to come up with 4 with that preference. At that point you take those 4 plus 1 more and you can make that claim legally in your advertising. I agree with your view of stats, but the above I have to call. No company can advertise 4 out of 5 approve by finding 4 Docs who do. They would violate the FTC (US) and the Competition Bureau here in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted August 13, 2012 Report Share Posted August 13, 2012 I agree with your view of stats, but the above I have to call. No company can advertise 4 out of 5 approve by finding 4 Docs who do. They would violate the FTC (US) and the Competition Bureau here in Canada. I did say it is an OLD example, guyser! You are picking at my model and not my point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.