Foo wrote:Delightful non-sequiter to this thread, but I assume here you mean strictly what you would define as universal crimes against humanity?
well anything that caused undue suffering.
Because your impossibility would fall apart as soon it's applied to a bad law.
not sure i follow your meaning. Bad law?
Foo wrote:
Of course this again depends on what you mean by understanding the nature of a crime. One could understand perfectly well all the issues surrounding the crime of copyright infingement, and still commit it.
yep i haven't really formulated in my mind what it would entail, and this is partially because it's not clear that concepts like "understand, believe, and know" actually correspond to our actual cognitive topology (i.e. they may be folk psychological terms, similar to how aether, caloric, and phlogiston are folk physical terms).
*ponders*
hmm you may have caught me out. I was thinking of a case where someone tortures another, knowing full well what the victim goes through, yet has a (pathological) desire to torture.
Would this case constitute a misunderstanding of the nature of the crime?
Perhaps I should rephrase my original statement so that it involves a "full understanding of the suffering involved in the crime, coupled with a compassionate and empathic attitude towards the victim of suffering".
Perhaps a full understanding would entail such an empathic response.
I believe it is a feature of pscyopaths that they are unable to do this. They lack natural "emotional feedback".
So the question is: would it be logically possible to commit such an act even
with such a response?
Perhaps, but if so, maybe it wouldn't be a behaviour experienced as volitional (although i believe even volitionally experienced behaviours aren't really free).
