So by what you are all saying:
This woman could or could not have lied (evidently all she has to do is say she was stressed or convinced and it becomes acceptable).
Following this, the state paid to house this victim. By state I really mean tax payers.
Now the state should take on some sort of payment to the victim.
Basically the woman lied (but can say she was CONVINCED) and we pay to house him and then we pay since he wasn't the perpetrator.
Again, the logic of somehow finding a reason behind all this would lead to a cycle. Obviously if the man doesn't blame the woman, he's not using whatever fricking messed up things that are in his head "convince" him that he should. The woman however, did.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by breathesgelatin
I'll respond to your arguments piece by piece.
Well, in a cynical world, yes, I suppose so. We would hope not, wouldn't we? I've done a lot of work on the theory of lying, which is based on hypothetical situations (which if I had to critique contemporary ethics, would be one of my major points). But the definition I'm using for lying is what you're going to see across the philosophical and ethical literature on lying--that if you have false knowledge and tell the truth, it's not a lie. I suppose people can structure defenses on that, yes, but they can structure defenses around a lot of other definitions, too.
I can agree with you that someone needs to pay. I think the state should, and I think in a civil trial the woman might well be found liable (and appropriately so, perhaps). I was just stating that the case (as I see it) for a criminal case against it seems rather weaker.
I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here--all I'm arguing is that we have no way of proving (given the evidence we're presented with) that the woman is criminally culpable. Culpable in other ways, sure. I admire the man for his forgiveness. What he experienced is incomprehensible to me and a total injustice. He should be compensated for that. If he's not, there's something wrong. Perhaps the woman did lie--if so, that's horrible. But maybe not. Anyway, if she did, there's a proper way for the man to deal with that--through the criminal justice system. I don't see how that's a cycle.
My philosophical orientation is to look at justice as a continuing project rather than a cut-and-dried issue. In this case, people have clearly been harmed. There are ways to sort it out, however, whether or not the woman lied. It doesn't have to be some endless cycle of retribution that you keep referring to.
|