This woman does not deserve compassion *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Jul 15 2008 at 12:38 pm | Filed under: Crime and punishment
Susan Atkins is the woman who, as part of the Manson murders, stabbed Sharon Tate and her eight month fetus to death, drank Tate’s blood, and then used that same blood to write “Pig” on a door. Following her trial, she was sentenced to death, a sentence automatically commuted into life imprisonment when California did away with the death penalty.
Atkins, however, is finally receiving her death sentence, not from the State of California, but from God: she is dying from a brain tumor. What horrifies me is the fact that her doctor and prison officials are seeking a compassionate release for her so that she can die outside of prison, rather than within it. Why in the Hell does she deserve this type of courtesy? She was part of one of the most horrible murders in 20th Century American history. She was supposed to have died in the electric chair, and now she’s being offered the chance to die in comfort. I don’t like it.
Given that the request comes from the prison doctor and prison officials, however, I do wonder if they simply don’t want to have to impose on the prison system the burden of caring for her and dealing with ramifications of her death. Just as parishes in old England tried to get rid of poor people, so their welfare would not become the parish’s responsibility, I suspect that the California prison system wants Atkins off its hands and just placed as a general burden on the California taxpayers.
UPDATE: The parole board unanimously denied the requested “compassionate” release.
Email This Post To A Friend
47 Responses to “This woman does not deserve compassion *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sort of crushed for time this week (hope your vacation was a really good one) so I’ll just point you to what I just recently wrote about Jesse Helms.
Basically, she deserves compassion because we all would hope for compassion for ourselves, and holding on to hating her while she dies (rather horribly, I lost a love to brain tumor years ago) doesn’t serve our own purposes well.
I’m not suggesting, Charlie, that she should be tortured to death or denied treatment. I do believe, though, that this woman should die as she has lived most of her life — in prison, where she was placed for committing acts of almost unspeakable brutality. It shows a huge lack of compassion to her victims to accord her special treatment merely because she is dying of natural causes.
>>I suspect that the California prison system wants Atkins off its hands and just placed as a general burden on the California taxpayers.>>
I agree with you, but it’s a taxpayer’s burden anyway, so which way will be cheaper?
I agree with Charlie. This is not about money but about keeping one’s soul (remaining human).
Given that the request comes from the prison doctor and prison officials, however, I do wonder if they simply don’t want to have to impose on the prison system the burden of caring for her and dealing with ramifications of her death.
Release her out onto the streets, have the US President sign an unnamed pardon for anyone that kills her, and let things take care of itself.
Basically, she deserves compassion because we all would hope for compassion for ourselves
Actually, according to the Meta-Golden, if I killed a fetus and a woman, who are both much weaker than I am physically as well as mentally, then I deserve to be treated no better than that by those stronger than me. And there will always be someone stronger and weaker than me. That is the Hierarchy of Humanity.
I do not hope for compassion if I ever did such things. I would hope somebody kills me, because either I’m insane enough to be unable to control my rages or the darkness has already overwhelmed my soul and conscience. Either way, the person I am now would rather prefer death than an undying state in which innocents and those weaker than I suffer solely because I did not have the strength to keep myself in check.
Then again, that’s me, and I’ve found, not exactly to my surprise, that most of civilization’s members do not think like me.
I agree with you, but it’s a taxpayer’s burden anyway, so which way will be cheaper?
My way, obviously.
This is not about money but about keeping one’s soul (remaining human).
When you drink human blood and you are not dying of hunger or thirsty, when in fact you killed a living human being for that blood, then people like me would almost be guaranteed to consider you to have already lost your soul by your own actions.
You are now living in an undying state, where the only people that will be harmed is those weaker than you. Your ‘soul’ has already left to be with God, since it could no longer tolerate your actions or what you have become. An undead thing that would be best destroyed for the good of all humanity.
I don’t want to hijack the comments, Book, but this does tie into a prior discussion we had (can’t find it!) about the use of the death penalty. One of the arguments on the pro-death penalty side is that there is no chance of a criminal such as this getting released later in life.
I find the following post an interesting cop’s view to the subject. I wonder, if we asked the cops/law enforcement who dealt with this case, would they agree with the prison doctor? http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/07/andrea-yates-part-ii.html
P.S. Is there a way to search bookwormroom.com? I swear I looked for the Search button and couldn’t find it, which should forever’n'ever disqualify my comments from being taken too seriously.
There isn’t a search button, lfl, although we’re working on it.
I guess there are just people for whom I have no compassion. This was not a two-bit drunken murder in a bar. This was a woman who committed acts of inhuman savagery and then boasted about them later. My soul is unmoved by her dying. I’ve known better people to die in worse circumstances than hers.
One of the arguments on the pro-death penalty side is that there is no chance of a criminal such as this getting released later in life.
Actually, that should be “one of the arguments for pro-DP is that life imprisonment does not guarantee that sometime later, some politician, rule, calamity, or pardon will not release the criminal later on”.
The people that propose anti-DP will NEVER, ever, be the ones that execute the people they promised “would never be released”. That goes against personal responsibility, as well as honor, fidelity, and loyalty. No law that goes against such qualities will ever be a just law.
If you kill them now, you are taking responsibility for their death and its consequences. Even if those consequences mean an innocent man dies.
Yet these anti-DP people seem to think “life imprisonment” is better than DP, on their consciences.
If you put an innocent man in prison for life, this does not absolve you of your personal responsibility in contributing to his unjust imprisonment. You gave him less appeals force because everyone, including the judge, can now say “man, this guy is going to be in jail for life, we’ll have plenty of time to deal with whatever appeals he is dishing out at us”.
The “convenience” of life imprisonment to suave people’s “guilt” complexes in not being able to take personal responsibility for their actions towards another is only “convenient” to those living in luxury and liberty.
People so afraid of death that they would sell their souls and the souls of countless other American citizens solely to get rid of a guilty conscience are not people I admire.
The people that propose anti-DP will NEVER, ever, be the ones that execute the people they promised “would never be released”.
Addendum: If those people are released that they promised wouldn’t be.
I’ve thought that we apply capital punishment to show to the families of the victim that society holds the victim in such high regard that we demand the life of the murderer.
When society refuses to fulfil its obligation of justice, it is in effect saying that the life of the murderer is more important than the victim.
We are talking about callous, pre-meditated murder here.
Has she shown remorse for her crime?
There was a woman in Texas that was executed for murder a few years ago. She had become a Christian in prison and was a model inmate, but this didn’t affect the obligation of the state.
Maybe the people recommending her release should read Bugliosi’s “Helter Skelter” again.
I had always wavered on the death penalty. This one example has finally hardened my position. I am adamantly for the death penalty.
Even as I wavered on an emotional level some of the arguments were compelling like: life without the possibility of parole.
It now seems that “without possibility” is non-operative. I should have known that would eventually happen.
Since the Department of Corrections is now changing the game only one conclusion is possible. The only way to ever insure that no criminal convicted of heinous crimes will ever be released again is to institute the death penalty.
Without possibility automatically implies, for any reason.
Seems to me she already received more than her share of mercy when her sentence was commuted and she was gifted with another 30 or so years of life she didn’t deserve. But I’m not unfeeling. If her family wants her to spend her remaining days with them, I’m all in favor of allowing them to share her cell with her.
Peace is not the absence of war, peace is the presence of justice.
A society without justice is a society without peace. You cannot have justice without enforcement of the law. You cannot have enforcement of the law without penalties for breaking the law. When you value the life of the transgressor more than you value justice, you have no justice.
When your “compassion” drives out justice, it is no longer compassion – it’s indifference. You have no right to “compassion” when you are not the one who was harmed.
I think you’re missing the point. She’s going to die. (So are all of you, and me; she’s just facing it with a little more certainty of the date.) She’s going to die rather horribly (I’ll forgo the urge to tell you about the last coherent moment I shared with the girl I lost to a brain tumor; imagine it yourself, and then figure it was worse than that.)
I’m saying you can choose, at this moment, whether to be bound to this or to be free. You can’t save her, whether you want to or not; you can save yourselves.
You need to be careful of harboring hate. Bald Headed Geek referred us to the truly vile and dispicable dancing on Tony Snow’s grave over at the Daily Kos.
Susan Atkins may not *deserve” any compassion but you still need to grant it. She can no longer harm anyone and while we seek justice, we need to reject vengence.
When I said, ‘This is not about money but about keeping one’s soul (remaining human),” I meant our souls. I meant we can keep our souls from hate and vengeance.
People can free her body but not her soul. Her acts are already performed; her soul (like everyone’s) is in the hands of God.
I know that’s not what you’re doing, Ellie, but what you wrote makes it sound as if Atkins’ and Snow’s lives were comparable, and we know they’re not. I also don’t believe that my feeling about the inappropriateness of granting Atkins clemency is analogous to the hatred the Kos crowd dumped on Snow’s grave.
As it is, while I don’t harbor hate towards Atkins — it’s not keeping me awake at night, that’s for sure — I still feel that, to use Suek’s concept, justice cannot be served if she’s granted a totally undeserved clemency given the enormity of her acts, and the verdict rendered against her by our judicial system. If we don’t draw lines somewhere, why should we punish anyone for anything? A functional and fair society demands justice and consistency.
This woman does not deserve compassion, and we do not deserve to become like her.
What the minority view is saying here, is hate is carried inside you in a spot where love belongs. Since one wipes out the other, they cannot co-exist. You should try with all your might to ban hatred from your heart. For anyone, no matter what the provocation.
I am not saying that you, BW, carry that burden, only to “beware” of it.
If I promise to “love” Susan Atkins more than she “loved” Sharon Tate, would that mean I don’t “hate” her?
I can’t speak for others, but my position has nothing to do with love or hate– only justice.
It would be hateful to ask that she be denied morphine, or denied access to a hospital, or denied messages of sympathy (whether or not she deserves them).
As a Christian, I hope she accepts the forgiveness offered by Jesus. That is love.
But asking that she serve her sentence is not hate.
This is what Sharon Tate’s sister thinks:
Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, the last surviving member of her immediate family, sent a letter to the board opposing Atkins’ release.
“She is a cold-blooded woman who to this day has not displayed any remorse,” wrote Tate, who lives in the Los Angeles area.
According to the story, she is in a hospital outside of the prison.
I would defer to the victim’s family.
Killing a killer does not make one like the killer who kills an innocent.
I think you’re missing the point.
Perhaps we are missing your point, but I’m not sure what it changes in the end about our views.
she’s just facing it with a little more certainty of the date.)
She is not “just” facing it with a little more compared to me. Her situation and actions have been rather different than my own, I would have to say. She is facing far more than I ever did, because she did far more than I ever did.
She’s going to die rather horribly
I’m not sure you understand the meaning of “horribly”.
you can save yourselves.
I do not value my soul so highly that I would allow her to threaten more innocents simply to assuage my guilt over condemning her to death.
What good is a soul when it takes numerous innocents to feed and sustain it? That’s not a soul, that’s a murder machine and not particularly something I value.
You need to be careful of harboring hate. Bald Headed Geek referred us to the truly vile and dispicable dancing on Tony Snow’s grave over at the Daily Kos.
Comparing Tony Snow to this woman is like comparing Washington to Valerie Plame and Benedict Arnold to Libby Scooter.
She can no longer harm anyone and while we seek justice
Suicide bombers are going to kill themselves or die very soon, but that doesn’t mean they can’t “harm anyone”. Nor does it mean once you release this person from jail, she won’t harm others.
This woman does not deserve compassion, and we do not deserve to become like her.
So, in order to “not become her” we must release someone like her into the civilian population of lamps and see who dies and what not? Get a grip.
If she’s that bad, then that means you had better not release her or give her ANY clemency.
What the minority view is saying here, is hate is carried inside you in a spot where love belongs.
False. We hate because we love, and we love because we hate. The two are intertwined. To love something is to hate that which would destroy and take away what you love. To hate is to love something so strong not even death can keep you from seeking vengeance for what you have lost. True hate can only ever come from true hate. Any other types of “hate” are just facsimiles, for that type of hate is depleted very easily by prejudice and retardedness.
Weak people may be able to allow hate to control them and make them do unwise or dumb things, but those that propose to deal out death are many things but weakness is usually what they seek to eradicate.
If weakness is what allows hate to control a person, then you would be wiser to counsel people to become stronger, more familiar with integrity, and become filled with internal fortitude and virtue.
Whether death or prison is the solution to keeping people that should be alive and keeping people that should be dead or dying separated from the lamps, does not particularly matter to me. Although I have my preferences because I believe in the efficacy of certain future ramifications and consequences, it does not, after that, matter to me what the solution looks like on the surface.
So long as it is the solution.
When people talk about themselves, their souls, or what not, they are not talking about the solution to humanity’s ills. They are just talking about themselves. Preserving yourself is no great virtue, all in all. Compared to what you could do in this world, preserving yourself is the least significant act in your life.
True hate can only ever come from true hate.
Correction, that should be “can only ever come from true love”.
I also don’t believe that my feeling about the inappropriateness of granting Atkins clemency is analogous to the hatred the Kos crowd dumped on Snow’s grave.
It doesn’t even compare. The only reason why it would incite people to fear “hatred in people’s hearts” is if they truly believed people could hate, truly hate, so easily. They can’t.
Even the hatred of the Palestinians are weak and diluted affairs, given that they have nothing they truly love. Those that love power so much, oh those can hate and kill Israeli children with relish.
Here’s a promise though. If people want to see true hatred, then they just keep on going sabotaging the justice system and ensure that justice is never fullfilled because “we’re better than that”.
You’re not better than justice. Nobody is.
Without the rule of law, without the trust of the lambs in believing and knowing that the law will fairly and correctly protect them from criminals or internal enemies, you will see hatred blossom as it never could have. When people’s lives, families, and loves are threatened and they have no recourse in the law because the law has been corrupted to “save people’s souls and keep people’s hands clean of the blood of murderers and sadists”, then you’ll see the force of people’s hate concerning those that would destroy what the people love the most.
Look at Europe for the precursor to the manifestation of the Angel of Death and Hatred.
>>Without the rule of law, without the trust of the lambs in believing and knowing that the law will fairly and correctly protect them from criminals or internal enemies, you will see hatred blossom as it never could have.>>
Without the rule of law, you have the “Hatfields and the McCoys”. You have the tribal revenge of the middle east. The justice of the law removes the enforcement of that justice from the hands of the aggrieved. If the law ceases to perform that function, it will revert to the hands of the harmed, which we now call vigilante justice. It’s only vigilante justice because it usurps the function we’ve given the state. No state justice and what we now call vigilante justice is the only justice in town. That’s commonly referred to as the “Wild wild west”. Do we really want to go back to those times?
And as for compassion – it’s irrelevant here. Atkins is apparently going to die in a relatively short period. The question isn’t whether she should receive treatment for the disease, or relief for her pain. The question is whether she should die in a hospital bed within prison walls or in a hospital bed in a public hospital. Any difference is purely mental – in her mind and ours. She is already a prisoner of her body – that isn’t going to change, wherever the bed in which she dies is located.
To some people, compassion is about sacrificing principles for some superficial gain.
It’s about making exceptions… for our soul. Not my cup of tea. Then again, I don’t drink tea.
Without the rule of law, you have the “Hatfields and the McCoys”.
Obviously you need to go back for a refresher course in Leftist indoctrination if you can still remember the Hatfields and McCoys ; )
If you read the article it indicates she is in a public hospital.
You know, Y., I used to think love and hate were opposites and, therefore, related as you say. But they are not. The opposite of love is indifference. This is why bad press is better than no press. With no press you fade into nothingness.
>>Obviously you need to go back for a refresher course in Leftist indoctrination if you can still remember the Hatfields and McCoys ; )>>
Weelll…they _weren’t_ personal acquaintances! I’m not quite _that_ old!
>>I used to think love and hate were opposites…
The opposite of love is indifference.>>
Somehow I think both statements are true. Something to think about.
Certainly the absence of love is defined as indifference…
But I think hate _is_ the opposite of love…at least as comparably strong emotions.
So love and hate are opposite emotions, but love and indifference are opposite in the sense of presence of emotion and absence of emotion…
I don’t get this. A life sentence means you stay in prison until you die. People die for all sorts of reasons: old age, illness, being killed by other inmates — so what? Wouldn’t you expect illness to be the most likely way a life sentence ends? Is anybody suggesting that a terminal illness should be equivalent to a ticket out?
judyrose: That’s it! That’s the logical point that was swimming around in the back of my brain. I couldn’t grasp it, but that’s what I would have said if I’d been smart enough when I wrote the post.
The opposite of love is indifference.
That’s like saying the opposite of nihilism is patriotism.
It has nothing to do with human behavior, since human beings can switch to behaviors that are their opposites in a moment’s glance. Peace to war, tranquility to rage, satisfaction to envy.
In human emotional affairs, there are “no mutually exclusive” clauses. So it does not particularly matter what emotion is the “opposite” of what.
This is why bad press is better than no press.
Not really sure the ones the Taliban executed for propaganda reasons and those killed in Vietnam because of the media’s lies would agree with that sentiment.
Is anybody suggesting that a terminal illness should be equivalent to a ticket out?
The Left can buy absolution from White Man Imperialism and pollution with enough money and power. Why can’t they spread the joy to those in jail?
Y, if you look back at my previous posts, you’ll find that I don’t believe in a soul and I don’t really believe in an afterlife. I’m not talking about things for the good of your soul: I’m telling you, from experience, that you will suffer personally if you hold on to this sort of anger. There are lots of technical terms to go with this, in psychology and in other places; it doesn’t matter what the terms are, it’s just a fact of life, a law of nature.
This is from Wolf Howling.
I think I detect this in the attitude of some here.
Y, if you look back at my previous posts, you’ll find that I don’t believe in a soul and I don’t really believe in an afterlife.
I am and have been responding to helen’s comments. Do not assume I am continuing to refer to your comments when you have made no reply to my own comment about yours.
I’m not talking about things for the good of your soul
What else, pray tell, do you think is this obvious? Look at comment 4 on this thread for the genesis story. If you want to have an argument with helen about how you didn’t mean the soul, then go right ahead, but it has nothing to do with me.
I’m telling you, from experience, that you will suffer personally if you hold on to this sort of anger.
There is no “anger” that exists because of a stranger’s actions that had no direct effect on my own life. What you see as a reaction, which you label superficially as “anger” is called justified intolerance of injustice and evil.
Maybe if you had a person grudge with someone, you may be warranted to counsel them to calm down or let it go. But no virtuous man or woman would ever want to let go of the egalitarian distaste, disgust, and disapproval that exists whenever injustice is seen to exist.
I saw a couple of interesting points in this thread, but being rather slow, it takes me time to think some of these concepts through.
If I understand the proponents of her release, it isn’t about compassion, but more to prevent us from being consumed by hate– so that as a society we don’t lose our soul.
As a Christian, I’m given the commandment to “Love your neighbor as yourself”, which is second only to “Love God with all your heart”.
Y said that we must love something to hate another thing.
Helen said that the opposite of love is indifference.
Suek said: so love and hate are opposite emotions, but love and indifference are opposite in the sense of presence of emotion and absence of emotion…
I would disagree that love and hate are at the end of some emotional continuum. But to not love someone is not to hate them.
I think Helen is right that un-love is indifference, but the reality is that indifference requires action– to not care, and so does love require action. In fact, love is only proven through action.
The Bible tells us of many things that God hates.
Proverbs chapter 6 gives us 7 things that God hates:
haughty eyes (false pride)
a lying tongue
hands that kill the innocent
a heart that plots evil
feet that race to do wrong
a false witness that pours out lies
a person who sows discord among brothers
Later in Proverbs it says he hates cheating, those that don’t keep their word, and hates the sacrifice of the wicked (hypocrisy). There are more, but you get the idea.
I think everyone that reads this, including those that don’t believe that God exists, would agree these are good things to hate.
So we can hate these things and I don’t think our lives will suffer for it, in fact, our lives suffer when we don’t despise these things.
Taking this literally, I should hate Sharon Atkins– since there is no doubt that she took innocent life. But I don’t hate her, though I certainly do hate murder.
Which is where Y’s observation fills in a blank. If I had known Sharon Tate or the others that were murdered– if I had loved them, then I would most certainly have hated Sharon Atikins. I would have wanted her to repent, of course, just before they flipped the switch. (Now we regularly see examples of families forgiving those that have murdered loved ones, and I would like to think I would come to that position, but who knows until faced with that decision).
So my natural inclination would be to hate her, because of what she had done to someone I loved. Now I would have to work to prevent that emotional hate from turning into bitterness– which is very destructive. But hating a murderer (as a principal) is important to insure justice.
So I need to love her (forgive her)– which will counteract my emotional hate. But the kind of love here is not emotional; in fact, it would take a very large act of my will to do that. I maintain, and I think the bible backs me up, that “love is not a feeling, it’s an act of the will”. So how do I act out love?
A famous passage in the New Testament sets the standards– I Corinthians 13.
Love is:
patient
kind
not jealous or boastful
proud or rude
does not demand its own way (selfish)
not irritable
keeps no record of being wronged
never glad about injustice
always faithful
always hopeful
and endures through every hardship.
Oh, and another passage says we should do good to those that spitefully use us, and love our enemies and pray for them. How could anyone possibly love another person if these are the standards? A Christian would say only with God’s help, but that’s another topic.
How should I react to supporters of Atkins asking her to be released, only months before she will probably die anyway?
If I say no to the request am I being unkind? We agree that we should hate hands that take innocent life. At least I think we agree. But the bible also says that love is never glad about injustice. So who should I demonstrate this love to, Susan Atkins or the family of Sharon Tate?
As much as I might think myself compassionate and a really kind person, it appears that I wouldn’t– because that very act of “kindness” would be causing injustice. So to love the Tate family, I must resist my own need to feel compassionate. In fact, I have an obligation to.
That’s a very nice analysis, Brian. I’m glad you took the time to think it through and present it here. To conflate love and hate in a single thought about one actor, one terrible act, and many victims, is to do a disservice both to those emotions, and to the victims. It was very helpful to have you untangle that skein.
Thank you for allowing me to comment on your blog. It must be quite a juggling act to raise a family, pursue a profession and keep the topics, which are quite thoughtful and entertaining, coming.
Before I found this blog, I didn’t know there were any conservatives of Jewish persuasion in captivity.
My wording of my last two paragraphs weren’t very smooth.
So good job to BrianE for making use of it in his own work.
Since what I spoke of came partially from Aristotle, I’ll let him carry the torch further.
In our society, with the focus on eternal youth and on how much wiser the “children” are, it is not too surprising that this kind of behavior is much more present here than it ever was in Ancient Athens.
Human nature has been the same ever since the dawn of humanity. And if you aren’t convinced, then realize that this piece was written many thousands of years ago, even if it was translated relatively recently.
Helen likes to say that equality is the goal. Not as easy as she makes it out to be, for the very virtue of “equality” isn’t even equally distributed amongst the population.
Last time I checked, not even God could redistribute virtues from the virtuous to the sinful that need them.
Equality should not mean “you have one path in life and one path to happiness and this is it”. To die with dignity is not to be provided with comforts and honors, like release from prison, from others.
Which supports my contention that jokes exploit an underlying perception of an unspoken truth. Most other people would say that you are spoiling things by analyzing jokes and looking deep. I say that they are superficial in matters of philosophy and life.
Tony Snow
Concerning why citizens obey laws in a democratic republic as opposed to the People’s Republic of North Korea.
The corollary is also that wicked men force others to obey from fear as well.
Obama.
The greatest crimes are not those committed for the sake of necessity but those committed for the sake of superfluity. One does not become a tyrant to avoid exposure to the cold.
Meaning, basic security and liberty are not the goals which promote extreme actions. The greatest crimes are committed for the “greater good”. That of equality, fraternity, utopia, or what not. Master Race and all that. Islamic Caliphate and all that.
Something that is not necessary to the human condition, that is what inspires real evil and crime.
This was the particular section of the Nicomachean Ethics, precursor to Aristotle’s Virtue Theory (an Ethical theory) that demands that virtuous men and women hate what they ought to hate and love what they ought to love. Not in excess or by whim or even by law, but according to virtue.
I do not source my ethics from the Bible or any other Revealed Truth text. Which is why it doesn’t take much attribution or textual citations for me to justify saying that you should not love a murderer of innocents.
Virtue—what an under appreciated concept in this society.
Now I will state that I am way over my head here, but here’s my problem with defining a moral or ethical system without recognizing a Supreme moral arbiter.
At the core, I believe, is whether man is distinct from other animals. We cringe when the weak or aging are culled from packs in the animal kingdom, but recognize they are acting “conformably to their nature.”
But we act with free will and sometimes reason for ends that are good or evil. But if we are merely animals with more developed brains, why should we concern ourselves with abstract principals such as good or evil?
Aristotle recognized a fundamental flaw in human character, but I’m sure those engaging in those acts he deemed “evil” would have disagreed. They were merely acting in their self interest. If Aristotle had only reason to convince those committing evil of their evilness, he would have certainly failed. His appeal must be to another “reasonable” group to force conformity. Both groups claim virtue. In the end, power, whether applied ruthlessly or not, is the only path to conformity.
Was Aristotle appealing to an innate sense of virtue? Where did this innate sense come from? I would say God.
I did misstate my assertion that I would have to love Atkins to overcome my hate—to prevent bitterness. Forgiveness is an act of love. But I do not think one can be forgiven without an ackowledgement of the wrong committed. This ‘repentance’ by the aggressor and forgiveness by the victim (or victims family) is a form of personal justice. (This does not absolve society from its obligation for justice.) In this case, Atkins has shown no remorse, making it even harder to forgive her (which I don’t think is possible since forgiveness is a mutual act), so at best I must overlook the offense. Here’s where societies obligation is at it’s greatest- to prevent the loss of the sense of justice.
I think we are seeing a crumbling society due to our perverted sense justice.
Brian E…
That looks like a very readable translation of Aristotle…could you be kind enough to post the specifics on the source? I’d appreciate it….!
I forgot attribute that quote. It is from this article on Virtue found here
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm based on Aquinas’ concept of virtue.
The quote of Aristotle’s came from Y’s post.
While I don’t believe in Revealed Truth concerning God, I do believe that God exists, just not as just a more omnipotent version of humanity.
Without a higher power, and God is a higher power, the Meta-Golden Rule could not function.
if at some point you have power over EVERYTHING, then what decides whether what you do is just or not, except yourself?
The Meta-Golden Rule says that justice is composed of a step amongst a hierarchy of power and strength. Justice is treating people weaker than you are, by what they deserve, and justice is those with power treating those without as much power as those weaker individuals treated people even weaker than they.
Thus if Palestinians say Jews have sinned against them with bombs and technological prowess, then what have the Palestinians done to those weaker than they, the women and children of Israel and Palestine, that makes them deserve being treated better by the Israeli air force? The Israeli Air Force should find the largest concentration HIzbollah and Hamas paraders and bomb them with napalm, white phosphorous that burns through their bones, and huge scatter mines. That’s what Palestinians have done to Jews, when the situation was reversed. When Palestinians had more power than Jews.
If there is no God, no higher power, then at some point you can say that you can further justice by becoming the most powerful being in the universe. Because then you will be able to define justice, since you won’t have to fear or consider the consequences of what those more powerful than you will do to you.
That, obviously being wrong, must also mean God exists. Cause if he doesn’t exist, if no higher power exists, if human beings can become that higher power, then ethics does not exist either.