tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post2131225784727496821..comments2024-02-29T03:34:23.190-05:00Comments on Who Were the Sea Peoples?: It's All or Nothing!gcallahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-78245837782184860512011-07-05T02:14:07.983-04:002011-07-05T02:14:07.983-04:00Thank you, Ryan.Thank you, Ryan.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38175525959190116862011-07-04T16:02:47.905-04:002011-07-04T16:02:47.905-04:00Dr. Callahan, thank you for the thoughtful reply t...Dr. Callahan, thank you for the thoughtful reply to my blog post. My blog is more generally a personal repository for whatever I might be thinking at the moment. I don't really push other people to read it as it's just a collection of personal thoughts of sorts; rough as it may be. So I apologize for not being as clear as concise in said post as I probably could have been. But I'm flattered that you happened to read it as, even though I often disagree with you, I have a great deal of respect for you. I've made a subsequent post addressing some of the issues you had raised.<br /><br />http://crossofcrimson.blogspot.com/2011/07/callahan-finds-his-inner-singer-part-ii.htmlRyan Willshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15997541504170761916noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-30196243428954175032011-07-03T11:31:17.925-04:002011-07-03T11:31:17.925-04:00"Your tone implies this is obvious, but I’m n..."Your tone implies this is obvious, but I’m not seeing it."<br /><br />Jeff, I wasn't saying this was obvious or even trying to argue for it in that post -- I was just pointing out a distinction between my position and the libertarian one. For a defense of my position, see Alasdair MacIntyre, _Rational Dependent Animals_.gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-38522146994433057232011-07-02T15:30:48.682-04:002011-07-02T15:30:48.682-04:00Via Bob's quote, I was simply pointing to a ra...Via Bob's quote, I was simply pointing to a range of potential punishment responses that a strict libertarian could consistently sign onto. I wasn't trying to claim a death sentence would be a truly just punishment. I have a hard time thinking it would be.<br /><br />To try again, in your Obligation II post, you claim that since a strict libertarian could not agree with you that the callous opera fan's offense should be legally punishable, strict libertarianism is mistaken. Maybe it is mistaken; but, why do you feel a (legal) enforceable obligation is a moral requirement in this case? Your tone implies this is obvious, but I’m not seeing it. <br /><br />He has certainly failed to uphold a general moral obligation to provide aid. He should probably be punished in some way. But, strict libertarianism allows for a very wide range of punishment options from slight to severe. So, why do you feel that legal punishment has to be the response? Is it because there’s not true justice without it? Are you skeptical as to how reliable libertarian punishments would be in practice?<br /><br />Or, are you merely saying something like: C’mon, libertarians, you’re so caught up in your ideology you’re not even putting a monetary fine on the list of potential punishments? Your ideology is foolishly restricting options before weighing all of the pertinent information needed to inform justice!<br />Are any of these close?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-27521319725715876612011-07-01T17:40:10.168-04:002011-07-01T17:40:10.168-04:00"It would effectively be a death sentence...&..."It would effectively be a death sentence..."<br /><br />So a libertarian death sentence is non-coercive, while if the state fines the guy that is? This is a very curious line I've seen libertarians take several times: These state punishments are cruel and immoral, and anyway we could punish the guy far more brutally without a state!<br /><br />Why should anyone diassemble the state in favor of this death by social consensus?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7225373.post-64667155813834735382011-06-29T18:06:40.305-04:002011-06-29T18:06:40.305-04:00I'm curious to know, as Bob was here, why you ...I'm curious to know, <a href="http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2011/06/obligation-ii.html?showComment=1307929320478#c1722949105262452345" rel="nofollow">as Bob was here</a>, why you believe a “legal obligation to help someone in mortal danger” is a moral requirement. Note: I’m not asking why you think there is a general moral obligation to do so, I’m asking why you think there should be a *legal* (enforceable) obligation to do so. Considering a case like your <a href="http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2011/06/obligation-ii.html" rel="nofollow">callous opera fan</a> there are many methods of libertarian-compatible punishment that could be very harsh. As Bob notes, “Nobody ever has to talk to the guy again, he can be fired from his job, people can even refuse to sell him food. It would effectively be a death sentence[.]” Are these methods simply insufficient to meet the demands of properly understood justice? Are they impractical, i.e. you think they would never actually be enforced? Is it not *really* punishment until he's forced to provide compulsory fines, suffer imprisonment, etc.?<br /><br />You seem to want to paint “strict libertarianism” as having to reject any kind of punishment, where I see your disagreement is really about the proper method of punishment. Tell me where you think I’m misrepresenting you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com