Charles Manson vs. Ross Ulbricht - the crime of bad thoughts

[fractional slacker]

Charles Manson had some, what might be argued as, bad thoughts, for sure. Is that a crime? I don't think so.  Is expressing those thoughts verbally a crime? I don't see how. Yet he was sentenced to life in prison for the actions of others.  

 

Ross Ulbricht had some, what might be argued as, bad thoughts, as well. Is that a crime? I don't think so. Is expressing those thoughts by setting up and hosting a website a crime? I don't see how. Yet he was sentenced to life in prison for the actions of others. 

 

Can you, with any consistency,  claim Manson's thoughts as criminal but consider Ross' thoughts as not criminal?

[Agalloch]

Thoughts seems an odd euphemism? As far as I understand Ulbricht attempted to hire someone to commit murder? That's not a thought, that's an action.

 

As for Manson, he didn't just have thoughts, or commit the non-crime of incitement for others choices; he proactively indoctrinated and commamded the actions of others.

 

Also, where's the comparison? They're both genuinely immoral people.

[labmath2]

I think the more appropriate question goes something like this, in the absence of coercion, under what circumstances can you be held accountable for the actions of others?

 

I can think of at least three ways to influence the actions of others: money, argument or persuasion, and suggestions or brainwash. Are you culpable in all three?

[fractional slacker]

Thoughts seems an odd euphemism? As far as I understand Ulbricht attempted to hire someone to commit murder? That's not a thought, that's an action.

 

As for Manson, he didn't just have thoughts, or commit the non-crime of incitement for others choices; he proactively indoctrinated and commamded the actions of others.

 

Also, where's the comparison? They're both genuinely immoral people.

 

Your post SEEMS an odd non-argument. I understand you once forgot to pay taxes on some income. That's not a thought, that's an action.

 

All kidding aside.  Where's the comparison. The point is Charles and Ross never initiated force, their only "crime" was having and then sharing thoughts.  How is sharing a thought immoral?

I think the more appropriate question goes something like this, in the absence of coercion, under what circumstances can you be held accountable for the actions of others?

 

I can think of at least three ways to influence the actions of others: money, argument or persuasion, and suggestions or brainwash. Are you culpable in all three?

I like the first question. It's a bit on the abstract side. That's why I used examples.

 

True, one can influence others. But who is ultimately responsible for immoral actions - the influencer or the influencee?

[fractional slacker]

Let's mix in some contemporary Dylan Roof (DR) for funsies in this Empiricism vs. Rationalism dilemma/conflict.

We know DR said he did not like black folks for a number of reasons. He said that right before murdering 9 black folks.
The narrative/history is obsessed by his thoughts and words using all manner of derogatory terms to condemn and describe them.
But are DR's thoughts relevant? Are DR's thoughts and speech equal to or possibly worse than his actions?

Thought experiment.
Had DR given the most eloquent and persuasive opposite arguments/opinions before committing murder, would the families and history have a different view on what DR did?

[labmath2]

Let's mix in some contemporary Dylan Roof (DR) for funsies in this Empiricism vs. Rationalism dilemma/conflict.

 

We know DR said he did not like black folks for a number of reasons. He said that right before murdering 9 black folks.

The narrative/history is obsessed by his thoughts and words using all manner of derogatory terms to condemn and describe them.

But are DR's thoughts relevant? Are DR's thoughts and speech equal to or possibly worse than his actions?

 

Thought experiment.

Had DR given the most eloquent and persuasive opposite arguments/opinions before committing murder, would the families and history have a different view on what DR did?

Now you are taking this conversation to its next level. It has both philosophic and economic consequences. Does why matter? Historically speaking, i think it does. There is nothing to be learned from an event without a cause and effect. I am not so sure this is true philosophically. The case of the mentally ill certainly seems ti siggest that it does, but with much emphasis on personal responsibility, how seems to matter more. In economics, i don't think aystrians care at all.

[Agalloch]

Your post SEEMS an odd non-argument. I understand you once forgot to pay taxes on some income. That's not a thought, that's an action.

 

All kidding aside.  Where's the comparison. The point is Charles and Ross never initiated force, their only "crime" was having and then sharing thoughts.  How is sharing a thought immoral?

Ulbricht didn't forget to hire someone to commit murder. He thought he had sucessfully hired someone to commit murder. Forgetting something is neither thought nor action.

 

Sharing a thought is another euphemism. That's like saying screaming at your children  is sharing a thought. Describe what they actually did, they hired/convinced people to commit murder. And I'm not talking about meaningless "incitement" but direct interaction with the murderer with specific targets in mind.

 

Do you also believe Hitler and George Bush to be completely innocent of crime? Because they never murdered anyone themselves either.

 

Also, can whoever voted me down provide a reason? I thought the purpose of that feature was for unhelpful comments, not arguments you disagree with. I'd much rather have a debate than somebody anonymously pretend they've shown me.

[labmath2]

Ulbricht didn't forget to hire someone to commit murder. He thought he had sucessfully hired someone to commit murder. Forgetting something is neither thought nor action.

 

Sharing a thought is another euphemism. That's like saying screaming at your children is sharing a thought. Describe what they actually did, they hired/convinced people to commit murder. And I'm not talking about meaningless "incitement" but direct interaction with the murderer with specific targets in mind.

 

Do you also believe Hitler and George Bush to be completely innocent of crime? Because they never murdered anyone themselves either.

 

Also, can whoever voted me down provide a reason? I thought the purpose of that feature was for unhelpful comments, not arguments you disagree with. I'd much rather have a debate than somebody anonymously pretend they've shown me.

Can you elaborate on your position? You just stated that they are both guilty of a crime (immoral). Let us weigh their actions independent of the person who murdered someone else. If they performed the same actions, but there was no murder, would you still think they are immoral?

[Agalloch]

I said they're both immoral.

 

Ulbricht didn't successfully have someone murdered.

 

So I already answered that question.

 

However there's more to it than that, because I don't think Hitler or Bush would be immoral if their commands were ignored, because they use the rhetoric of the state and would be nothing but blabbering madmen using euphemism.

 

Ulbricht in the other hand was precise and honest in his attempts to have someone murdered and is unambiguously immoral.

[labmath2]

I said they're both immoral.

 

Ulbricht didn't successfully have someone murdered.

 

So I already answered that question.

 

However there's more to it than that, because I don't think Hitler or Bush would be immoral if their commands were ignored, because they use the rhetoric of the state and would be nothing but blabbering madmen using euphemism.

 

Ulbricht in the other hand was precise and honest in his attempts to have someone murdered and is unambiguously immoral.

 

That is interesting. How precise and honest does your attempt have to be. Why is Manson not exonerated since he was also a blabbering madmen who managed to convince others to commit murder. What i am trying to ascertain is at what point would you have said "now you are immoral." I will give a range to get an idea.

1. I don't like that guy someone should kill him

2. That guy is responsible for all your personal shortcomings and unless you kill him i do not think you will find a solution.

3. Here is some money for whoever kills this guy.

4. We cannot be together if you do not kill my significant other. 

5. Here are good reasons why the world will be better with this person dead.

[Better Future]

This man bad, he commit crime, lock in cage.

This man bad too, he commit crime, kill him.

 

What is bad? What is crime? How can we actually reduce suffering?

[Agalloch]

That is interesting. How precise and honest does your attempt have to be. Why is Manson not exonerated since he was also a blabbering madmen who managed to convince others to commit murder. What i am trying to ascertain is at what point would you have said "now you are immoral." I will give a range to get an idea.

1. I don't like that guy someone should kill him

2. That guy is responsible for all your personal shortcomings and unless you kill him i do not think you will find a solution.

3. Here is some money for whoever kills this guy.

4. We cannot be together if you do not kill my significant other.

5. Here are good reasons why the world will be better with this person dead.

I don't think you know what a range is. They are immoral because they're objectively immoral, not because of my personal opinion.

 

And its immoral to have someone killed. So 1 and 5 are both not having someone killed. How can the two extremes of your range not cover the point?

[labmath2]

I don't think you know what a range is. They are immoral because they're objectively immoral, not because of my personal opinion.

 

And its immoral to have someone killed. So 1 and 5 are both not having someone killed. How can the two extremes of your range not cover the point?

 

I was under the impression that 5 could include 1 through 4. It is supposed to be whatever good reasons you have to persuade someone that another persons death is good. Can you please give a reason why 2 is immoral? Can you also please give a reason why giving someone money to do something immoral is itself immoral?

[Agalloch]

Strawmen, false dichotomies, you're just throwing these logical fallacies out like they're nothing.

 

I never said 2 was immoral, I never said giving someone money to do something is immoral.