I don't see it as justice, I see it as vengeance. Being part of a society is accepting my responsibility in the social contract; this seems to me to be a universal consideration. I'm not a "criminal" in the sense of mine being a life of crime; rather it has been one lacking in direction. My society is now Gaia - in less ideal terms America as a citizen and not a criminal - but if it is to be "us" versus "them" in such a regard, I vote for justice and not vengeance.
And justice is, as I see it, an understanding of imbalance rather than a call for complete exclusion. It is one thing to feel as I do that the system of jurisprudence contains ethical paradox; it is quite another to foster an understanding such that paradox is eliminated. This I do with my naive philosophy.
Ever read Mitch Rapp? Sam Harris? A fictional CIA operative and an atheistic Horseman, what is the connection? That at the level of the individual moral will, torture can be justified; in terms of ethical standard, however, torture is something we must all grow beyond. In a fictional scenario, playing head games with a terrorist in order to locate the nuclear warhead counting down to destruction is a literary device of black and white that introduces shades of gray into the moral perspective of the reader. Because I am a strategist, if it were a case of a Mitch Rapp being on my anti-terror squad; I'm going to tell him to do what he considers necessary. I'm not advocating torture, I'm advocating experienced operation. Life is full of "unpleasant realities;" my mind ain't one. I'm not afraid to take a stand based upon experience.
Thing is, there's a lot of "if" in my previous paragraph. As an atheist operating under the identity of houseofcantor, I'm not a counter-terror specialist, I'm a naive philosopher who is simply not afraid of the Abyss because I know that I am the monster; yet I have no need to go Godzilla. Rather, I have a desire to question.
Is vengeance required? That is the American ROI in jurisprudence - vengeance - that I consider it wrong does not make me right. It makes me continually evaluate my own code of ethics.
And justice is, as I see it, an understanding of imbalance rather than a call for complete exclusion. It is one thing to feel as I do that the system of jurisprudence contains ethical paradox; it is quite another to foster an understanding such that paradox is eliminated. This I do with my naive philosophy.
Ever read Mitch Rapp? Sam Harris? A fictional CIA operative and an atheistic Horseman, what is the connection? That at the level of the individual moral will, torture can be justified; in terms of ethical standard, however, torture is something we must all grow beyond. In a fictional scenario, playing head games with a terrorist in order to locate the nuclear warhead counting down to destruction is a literary device of black and white that introduces shades of gray into the moral perspective of the reader. Because I am a strategist, if it were a case of a Mitch Rapp being on my anti-terror squad; I'm going to tell him to do what he considers necessary. I'm not advocating torture, I'm advocating experienced operation. Life is full of "unpleasant realities;" my mind ain't one. I'm not afraid to take a stand based upon experience.
Thing is, there's a lot of "if" in my previous paragraph. As an atheist operating under the identity of houseofcantor, I'm not a counter-terror specialist, I'm a naive philosopher who is simply not afraid of the Abyss because I know that I am the monster; yet I have no need to go Godzilla. Rather, I have a desire to question.
Is vengeance required? That is the American ROI in jurisprudence - vengeance - that I consider it wrong does not make me right. It makes me continually evaluate my own code of ethics.
![[Image: twQdxWW.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FtwQdxWW.jpg)
