{"id":10604,"date":"2011-06-24T14:08:37","date_gmt":"2011-06-24T14:08:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/06\/24\/farrell-tookie-hannity-and-colmes-and-bad-arguments\/"},"modified":"2011-06-24T14:08:37","modified_gmt":"2011-06-24T14:08:37","slug":"farrell-tookie-hannity-and-colmes-and-bad-arguments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/06\/24\/farrell-tookie-hannity-and-colmes-and-bad-arguments\/","title":{"rendered":"Farrell, &#8220;Tookie,&#8221; Hannity and Colmes, and Bad Arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">My <a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2011\/06\/capital-punishment-again.html\" target=\"_self\">last post<\/a> ended with a reference to &quot;Tookie&quot; Williams.&#0160; Here is a post from the old Powerblogs site dated 29 November 2005:<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">I just viewed the Stanley &quot;Tookie&quot; Williams segment on <em>Hannity and Colmes<\/em>. Williams, co-founder of the L.A. Crips gang, and convicted of four brutal murders, faces execution on December 13th in&#0160;&#0160; California.&#0160; <a href=\"http:\/\/crime.about.com\/od\/deathrow\/a\/tookie2.htm\" target=\"_self\">Here<\/a> is a description of one of his crimes.&#0160; <\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">What struck me was the low level of the debate. Actor Mike Farrell, as part of his defense of Williams, and in opposition to the death&#0160; penalty in general, remarked that &quot;we shouldn&#39;t lower ourselves to the <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">level of the perpetrators of violent crime.&quot; The implied argument, endlessly repeated by death penalty opponents, is something like this: Since killing people is wrong, the state&#39;s killing of people is also <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">wrong; so when the state executes people, it lowers itself to the level of the perpetrators of violent crime.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Now this argument is quite worthless. If it were any good, then, since incarcerating people is also wrong, the state&#39;s incarceration of people is wrong. And so on for any penalty the state inflicts as<\/span><br \/><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">punishment for crime.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">The trouble with the argument is that it <em>proves too much<\/em>.&#0160; If the argument were sound, it would show that every type of punishment is impermissible, since every type of punishment involves doing to a <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">person what otherwise would be deemed morally wrong. For example, if I, an ordinary citizen, demand money from you under threat of dire consequences if you fail to pay, then I am committing extortion; but&#0160; there are situations in which the state can do this legitimately as when a state agency such as the Internal Revenue Service assesses a fine for late payment of taxes. (Of course, I am assuming the moral&#0160; legitimacy of the state, something anarchists deny; but the people who give the sort of argument I am criticizing are typically liberals who believe in a much larger state than I do.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So the &#39;argument&#39; Farrell gave is quite worthless. But Hannity let him escape, apparently not discerning the fallacy involved. Farrell and Hannity reminded me of a couple of chess patzers. One guy blunders, <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">and the other fails to exploit it.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But that&#39;s not all. Alan Colmes jumped in with the canard that people who are pro-life should also be opposed to the death penalty, as if there is some logical inconsistency in being pro-life (on the abortion issue)&#0160; and in favor of capital punishment for some crimes. I refute this silly &#39;argument&#39; <a href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/maverick_philosopher\/2009\/10\/fetal-rights-and-the-death-penalty-consistent-or-inconsistent.html\" target=\"_self\">here<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Even more surprising, however, is that Sean Hannity then committed the same mistake in reverse, in effect charging Farrell with being inconsistent for being pro-choice (which he grudgingly admitted to <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">being after some initial prevarication) and anti-capital punishment.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">What people need to understand is that the two issues are logically independent. There is nothing inconsistent in Farrell&#39;s position. He could argue that the fetus simply lacks the right to life while&#0160;&#0160; &quot;Tookie&quot; and his ilk possess the right to life regardless of what they have done. Nor is there anything inconsistent in Hannity&#39;s position. He could argue that the fetus has the right to life while a miscreant <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">like &quot;Tookie&quot; has forfeited his right to life by his commission of heinous crimes.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So the logical level is low out there in the Land of Talk and I repeat my call for logico-philosophical umpires for the shout shows. But I&#0160; suspect I am fated to remain a <em>vox clamantis in deserto<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>My last post ended with a reference to &quot;Tookie&quot; Williams.&#0160; Here is a post from the old Powerblogs site dated 29 November 2005: I just viewed the Stanley &quot;Tookie&quot; Williams segment on Hannity and Colmes. Williams, co-founder of the L.A. Crips gang, and convicted of four brutal murders, faces execution on December 13th in&#0160;&#0160; California.&#0160; &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/06\/24\/farrell-tookie-hannity-and-colmes-and-bad-arguments\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Farrell, &#8220;Tookie,&#8221; Hannity and Colmes, and Bad Arguments&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,113,153],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10604","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-crime-and-punishment","category-logica-utens","category-morality-and-legality"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10604","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10604"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10604\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10604"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10604"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10604"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}