Celticguy

I said once, that a person who is sentenced in the wrong is as bad as the death penalty.

Secondly I didn't mean it in that sense as to equate the two, but to say that the ACT of convicting someone in the wrong and punishing them is just as wrong. Neither should happen.

wittgenstein

There are many cases where the prosecutor knows that the defendant is innocent and even manufactures evidence. I would say that the prosecutor should be charged with attempted murder. Or if the victim ( remember in this case he is innocent) has been executed the prosecutor should be charged with murder in the first degree( the murder was thought out and planned). Unfortunately in the US guilt and innocence are peripheral to the law.Evidence has proven defendants innocent and the Texas supreme court agreed that the defendant was innocent but he was not given a new trial because no errors were made in the first trial. The law in the US is just a game. It is only slightly related to justice.

wittgenstein

"Just to expand more, what is good for yourself isn't exactly good for yourself if it's not good for the group also"
Celticguy
Your statement if not the categorical imperative is very close to it.Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." In other words theft is wrong because if everyone was a thief than civilization would be impossible and that would be bad for you. I have problems with the categorical imperative. I will give the classic and perhaps now cliche response. If everyone lied all the time contracts could not be made and civilization would fall apart. Therefore never lie. Suppose you are hiding Jews in your house in Nazi Germany. The gestapo knocks on the door and asks," any Jews in here?"
However, my objection to the categorical imperative in this thread is because it provides a biological rather a logical basis for morality.* Which is actually great because that adds to my point that ethics is based on biology.

* What aids the survival and well being of hominids is defined as moral.

Lucius

Hominids?

I think elephants and chimps and dolphins and parrots(even dogs and cats) have some ideas about ethics, survival, and well being.

Maybe I shoulda clicked on the link, but I reckon ethics, etc, are discovered, not invented.

wittgenstein

If you mean by ethics that each species values its own survival I would agree. But again that is a biological reason and not a logical one.
Perhaps some are confused by my position. I am not against ethics. I believe that wishing for the well being of ones species is a good thing. However, I disagree that the basis of my belief is from some Platonic realm , it is from the process of evolution that selected those that are altruistic because that facilitated the survival of the species.

Celticguy

I would think it's auctually different to the "categorical imperative". It says to do in the best interests of both yourself and the group, while the categorical imperative would implicate that you do whats best for the group alone.