The Failure Of Logic

[college kid]

That is exactly the point to make. There has to be some reward for not doing MORE to victims (lighter sentence), because otherwaise, all the rapists and burglers out there will just kill there victims. People will do what benefits them, period.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the logical thing for the burglar to do?

It is to kill both mother and child in order to facilitate his escape and minimize his chance of capture. You cannot be executed twice and once the burglar has killed the householder in the heat of the moment then the coldblooded killing of mother and child becomes a necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're stretching things quite a bit to say that killing the mother and child has become a "necessity" for the burglar, but say the burglar is a neighbor who is recognized by both of them, and who has not the slightest moral misgivings about killing/causing harm to anyone else. He is psychotic, and getting away with it is absolutely the only thing that matters to the burglar, and the only regrets he will have regarding the matter will be about getting caught.

Even if it is true that there will effectively be no further repercussions for the additional murders, since he can only be executed once, the burglar, if he is truly logical, has to consider what consequences there might be to himself beyond his current lifetime. Does he know what will happen when he dies?

[CrisBrown]

Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
A man is busy looting a house, in the night, when the householder comes down from his bedroom and confronts him. The householder is armed and a struggle ensues. The burglar kills the householder. The wife and child of the householder come downstairs and stare horrified at the burglar.

This occurs in a US state which executes for felony murder.

What is the logical thing for the burglar to do?

It is to kill both mother and child in order to facilitate his escape and minimize his chance of capture. You cannot be executed twice and once the burglar has killed the householder in the heat of the moment then the coldblooded killing of mother and child becomes a necessity.

So much for logic, you followers of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Emphasis added]

The highlighted text above pinpoints the flaw in this "thought experiment." There is no state which automatically executes for felony murder, nor for any other crime. There is no such thing as an "automatic death penalty" offense in the United States, and there hasn't been since (at least) the early 1970s.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that such "automatic" statutes were unconstitutional. In order for any state's capital punishment statute to pass constitutional muster, the state must have a separate "penalty phase" after the "guilt phase" of the trial. During that "penalty phase," the jury is presented with evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Only if the jury finds that the aggravating factors "substantially outweigh" the mitigating factors can the jury vote for the death penalty.

Given that, the burglar's most logical response is to flee the house immediately and not kill the wife and children. There are no aggravating circumstances in the husband's death. The weapon belonged to the homeowner. The homeowner initiated the violent encounter. While the burglar would still be convicted of felony murder, and he could not claim self-defense in most states because he was in the process of committing a crime, it would not be capital felony murder under these specific facts.

However, coldly picking up the gun and murdering the wife and children would meet the statutory aggravating circumstances under most states' laws. The burlar would not be executed for the murder of the husband, but he might very well be executed for the murder of the wife and children, because that was coldly premeditated, exceptionally heinous, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, the burglar would be making an illogical decision if he did to kill the wife and kids, as now he has introduced a very real possibility of a death sentence.

In fact, this was one of the rationales for the aggravating-mitigating circumstance test which the Court required. The Court noted that an "automatic death penalty" statute does create the potential for situations where a criminal "has nothing to lose" and thus no disincentive to compound one murder with another (and another, etc.).

Now, you can argue that the average burglar wouldn't know this, and thus might believe that he has nothing more to lose by killing the wife and children. However, then you run squarely into what criminal law scholars refer to as "the myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor." That is, several studies have shown that, while criminals do consider the likelihood of detection in their decision-making process, they almost never consider the severity of punishment in those decisions. There are some exceptions -- having to do with "white collar crime" -- but the typical violent offender simply does not consider the severity of punishment before committing a criminal act.

In fact, as a former criminal defense attorney, I can state with confidence that most violent offenders don't think much at all. They act on impulse: want money, rob house, see homeowner, run or fight.... There's not a whole lot of "rational" thinking in the process.

And that's not terribly surprising, because people who do think "rationally" ... duh! ... rarely commit crimes!

Sorry, but your thought experiment fails on so many levels that it's just not a valid criticism of logical reasoning.

Cris

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
I have actually written about this subject. My point was that the criminal justice system should never be set up in such a way where it would never logically reward someone for committing a crime. Kidnappers who freed their victims should get a lighter sentence then those who didn't. Murderers who killed a second time should be tortured.

Most people who argue against "logic" misunderstand the definition of the word.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dear David,

I am not critizing anything you have written in particular. Though, of course, I am familiar with your life essays (which for the uninitiated are to be found in the excellent Poker, Gaming And Life). I have an immense amount of respect for you as a poker theorist but when you philosophize you show a certain earnestness which is indicative of a not too deep acquaintance with the authorities in this field. I also feel that you, and some others posting here, have an exaggerated respect for logic in particular and reason in general.

It is curious you need to explain that there is much misunderstanding concerning logic to me. I am, the British equivalent, of a summa cum laude student of philosophy. I have read thousands of hours of it; formally studying the works of Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, Hegel, Heidegger, Hume, Wittgenstein, Plato, Popper, and so on.

Man is half angel; half beast.

Logic and reason will only take us so far.

Logic is not some tool that will unveil the mysteries of life to anyone.

It is only one tool that man has at his disposal.

I merely wished to point this out.

Your obedient servant,

Al Mirpuri

[CountDuckula]

[ QUOTE ]
Mike, you have my apologies.
I assumed from the tone of your post that you simply hadn't bothered to investigate anything for yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, lots of religious people assume that we atheists simply don't understand, and if we'd only study it, the light would dawn in our heads. Often, however, we know more about it than the person making the assumption.


[ QUOTE ]
I am deeply sorry for what you must have gone through. Please forgive me.

[/ QUOTE ]

No worries; I don't take offense that easily. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I was simply letting you know that I knew more than you were giving me credit for. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
*If it's any consolation (and it probably won't be) Mormonism is viewed by mainstream Christianity as a cult. They run wonderful TV and magazine ads, and the surface presentation is identical in most respects to any other church, but beneath the surface lies a real welter of serious error, and some very strange beliefs that have no foundation in scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I'm well aware of that; I'm a moderator on an ex-Mormon Yahoo! Group (a private one, which is by invitation only), and a participant in another one (public). I agree with some of what certain Christians think about Mormons, and disagree with some. And it's usually fundamentalist types that get worked up over whether Mormons are Christians or merely a cult (my opinion, though, is that a religion is simply a cult that over time, became accepted by a large number of people). Anyway, we often have some rather heated discussions between the religious Exmos and the non-religious ones, and we've had a couple of spin-off groups arise because one side or the other got fed up. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


[ QUOTE ]
To read more: web page Watchman Fellowship
web pageMacGregor Ministries

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh.... I can toss a few right back at you:

Richard Packham's site (my personal favorite)
Exmormon.org
Utah Lighthouse Ministry (Jerald and Sandra Tanner's site, with a strongly Christian perspective)

Believe me, I have done my homework, in spades! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

-Mike

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is the logical thing for the burglar to do?

It is to kill both mother and child in order to facilitate his escape and minimize his chance of capture.

[/ QUOTE ]
The logical thing to do is to leave the mother and the child alone and then to turn himself into the authorities.

My statement is just as correct as yours. Do you see why?

(Logic doesn't dictate what our objectives are. It just tells us the best way to achieve them. So whether murdering the family or turning himself in is more "logical" depends on the robber's objectives. If sparing the mother and child isn't the robber's objective, that's not a problem with logic; it's a problem with the robber.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Means-ends reasoning comes within the purview of logic.

How could it be logical to give your life up to the authorities who would then extinguish it in the name of punishment? It could be moral but logical? I think not.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
The thought experiment I presented was to show that those who are in love with logic (and opposed to religion) should not be so smug because logic can lead to all sorts of terrible consequences. Hitler was a logician of the finest order. His logic shocked the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Appropriately, you picked a terribly bad example with which to make your point. You neither showed the fallibilty of logic nor how faith would have helped anything. This was a "thought experiment" with seemingly no thought put into it whatever.

And if you deride logic so much, do you regret that you live in a home or drive a car that wasn't built by people "just winging it" or getting their inspiration for sticking the pieces together directly from the word of god without the intervention of logic?

It would be hard to guess from your post, but even religious people can be quite logical an awful lot of the time, and would find it by and large foolish to scoff at logic. You don't have to live without logic to be religious, or be non-religious to live with it.

Anybody remember the movie "Heat" with DeNiro and Val Kilmer and Ashley Judd? There's a great scene toward the beginning of the film where they're robbing an armored car and a psycho helper the robbery gang hired just for that job turns out to be a psycho and turns their robbery into the murder of a guard. They're really pissed at him, but what can they do? The Val Kilmer character looks over at DeNiro after the gunning of the guard, DeNiro nods, and then they execute the rest of the guards on the spot. Three murders costs the same as one in the eyes of the state, and if one is guilty, all are guilty. So they have no practical choice but to kill everyone. Sad and cruel logic, but practical and appropriate. Everyone was trapped in the same web, and the result was inescapable.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it is true that there will effectively be no further repercussions for the additional murders, since he can only be executed once, the burglar, if he is truly logical, has to consider what consequences there might be to himself beyond his current lifetime. Does he know what will happen when he dies

[/ QUOTE ]

No, and since he does not and cannot, it would not be logical to let that enter into the decision.

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Al,

[ QUOTE ]
A man is busy looting a house, in the night, when the householder comes down from his bedroom and confronts him. The householder is armed and a struggle ensues. The burglar kills the householder. The wife and child of the householder come downstairs and stare horrified at the burglar.

This occurs in a US state which executes for felony murder.

What is the logical thing for the burglar to do?

It is to kill both mother and child in order to facilitate his escape and minimize his chance of capture. You cannot be executed twice and once the burglar has killed the householder in the heat of the moment then the coldblooded killing of mother and child becomes a necessity.

So much for logic, you followers of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Emphasis added]

The highlighted text above pinpoints the flaw in this "thought experiment." There is no state which automatically executes for felony murder, nor for any other crime. There is no such thing as an "automatic death penalty" offense in the United States, and there hasn't been since (at least) the early 1970s.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that such "automatic" statutes were unconstitutional. In order for any state's capital punishment statute to pass constitutional muster, the state must have a separate "penalty phase" after the "guilt phase" of the trial. During that "penalty phase," the jury is presented with evidence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Only if the jury finds that the aggravating factors "substantially outweigh" the mitigating factors can the jury vote for the death penalty.

Given that, the burglar's most logical response is to flee the house immediately and not kill the wife and children. There are no aggravating circumstances in the husband's death. The weapon belonged to the homeowner. The homeowner initiated the violent encounter. While the burglar would still be convicted of felony murder, and he could not claim self-defense in most states because he was in the process of committing a crime, it would not be capital felony murder under these specific facts.

However, coldly picking up the gun and murdering the wife and children would meet the statutory aggravating circumstances under most states' laws. The burlar would not be executed for the murder of the husband, but he might very well be executed for the murder of the wife and children, because that was coldly premeditated, exceptionally heinous, etc., etc., etc.

Thus, the burglar would be making an illogical decision if he did to kill the wife and kids, as now he has introduced a very real possibility of a death sentence.

In fact, this was one of the rationales for the aggravating-mitigating circumstance test which the Court required. The Court noted that an "automatic death penalty" statute does create the potential for situations where a criminal "has nothing to lose" and thus no disincentive to compound one murder with another (and another, etc.).

Now, you can argue that the average burglar wouldn't know this, and thus might believe that he has nothing more to lose by killing the wife and children. However, then you run squarely into what criminal law scholars refer to as "the myth of the rational, economic, criminal actor." That is, several studies have shown that, while criminals do consider the likelihood of detection in their decision-making process, they almost never consider the severity of punishment in those decisions. There are some exceptions -- having to do with "white collar crime" -- but the typical violent offender simply does not consider the severity of punishment before committing a criminal act.

In fact, as a former criminal defense attorney, I can state with confidence that most violent offenders don't think much at all. They act on impulse: want money, rob house, see homeowner, run or fight.... There's not a whole lot of "rational" thinking in the process.

And that's not terribly surprising, because people who do think "rationally" ... duh! ... rarely commit crimes!

Sorry, but your thought experiment fails on so many levels that it's just not a valid criticism of logical reasoning.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

There need not be a state in which one can be executed for felony murder (though it used to be the case in England in the 1950s) because this is a thought experiment.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Man is half angel; half beast.

Logic and reason will only take us so far.

Logic is not some tool that will unveil the mysteries of life to anyone.

It is only one tool that man has at his disposal.

I merely wished to point this out.


[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are non-logical ideas asserted in a non-logical way.

Even if they could persuade someone of some point, you have not found a clear way to do it, merely unfurled a list of assertions of your own which for some reason it appears you wish to be taken at face value. It is peculiarly inappropriate for someone wishing to point out the flaws or limitations of logic that, as in your "thought experiment" above, you are not choosing to use logic yourself to do so. It's either swallow what you say whole, without logic or explanation, or brush off what you say without even needing to consider it. I can't help but think this is not the choice you really want to present. At least if you want to persuade anyone of anything.

For someone so proud of his credentials and study, you don't seem to have learned how to construct an argument well at all. Or maybe you're just lazy and thought you'd just "wing it" without putting much thought into it? At any rate, surely there must be a better way of convincing people than the approach you have exibited thus far.