I'll respond to your arguments piece by piece.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
So everyone just can say that they were convinced their lie was the truth then? They were CONVINCED.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
At the end of the day, even if you neglect that, someone has to pay for all the time and money that was spent on this victim - even if she did it accidentally. I assume that even if you kill someone accidentally, it's not just OK.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rudey
Whatever it is, based on all this faulty logic, this man can do awful things to this woman and we can just say it's understandable and it can keep occuring over and over until everyone on this earth is damaged - all because of this one woman. But I guess if this man chooses not to do that, then that means that the logic has failed and it's not understandable if someone has broken out of the cycle.
|
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.
Threaded Mode