Ethical and legal question about CSS and JS codes.

[Paulie_D]

You’re implying they can’t go hand in hand.

No, they can , and for the ‘majority’ they do, but a sociopath (as I understand it, in simplistic terms) has no understanding of right or wrong. Nothing is “wrong” to them…they do what they want with no conscience to worry them.

Certainly, the actions are against the law but to, to them, it wasn’t “wrong” because they have no understanding of the term.

Based on the above, any punishment, to them would be “unjust” and thus should be avoided.

[Anonymous]

I agree with Paulie_D. I believe there are some truly Amoral criminals and don’t feel what they do is wrong. They are aware there are laws against what they do, so they avoid getting caught. If Lizzy Borden did kill her parents, I believe she might fit the definition of amoral.

Jeffrey Dahmer was an interesting study in my mind. I believe he did not want to do what he did, but couldn’t help but do it. I don’t recall any other criminal in history that regretted his/her deeds as he did.

Manson was just bitter because he wasn’t picked to be a musician. Well, that and the fact he’s nuttier than a squirrel turd.

[nixnerd]

I just want to jump in real quick and give my two cents for the sake of clarity. There are a few concepts being grouped here that aren’t necessarily inextricably linked.

1. What is lawful and what is good are two separate things. It is unlawful in my city to jaywalk… that doesn’t necessarily make it immoral.

2. The truth and someone’s beliefs are two separate things. Now, I have my beliefs, but far be it from me to impose those upon anyone else. What I do know is: I have radically different beliefs on the act of murder than a serial killer. Who is right and who is wrong? I obviously have my opinion. I can’t prove definitively one way or the other, but I know one thing: One of us IS wrong. The truth and the good exist outside of me and the serial killer.

[nixnerd]

There are a few concepts being grouped here that aren’t necessarily inextricably linked.

To this point, I don’t agree with David Hume on almost anything. However, in “An Enquiry of Human Understanding“, Hume sufficiently casts a shadow of doubt on the association of ideas by calling into question our notions of causation.

[nixnerd]

…you should definitely be hosting your own files. Linking to somebody else’s server would be considered wrong (since you’re using somebody else’s paid service instead of your own). Not to mention the fact that hosting it yourself is much safer (imagine if that person’s server went down?).

Oh and I agree with @TheDoc here. +1!

[chrisburton]

a sociopath (as I understand it, in simplistic terms) has no understanding of right or wrong

Where did you learn that? I encourage you and Michael to read this article from the Oxford Journal on right and wrong relating to psychopathy.

Conclusion of the article:

We conclude that psychopaths make the same kind of moral distinctions as healthy individuals when it comes to evaluating the permissibility of an action embedded in a moral dilemma. Consequently, these results support the hypothesis that normal social emotional processing does not appear necessary for making these kinds of moral judgments. Normal emotional processing is likely to be most important in generating an appreciation of these distinctions and in guiding actions (Huebner et al., 2008). Psychopaths know what is right or wrong, but simply don’t care. Given that legal distinctions often turn on whether crimes are committed knowingly (e.g., Model Penal Code), these results could have bearing on court decisions concerning the nature of moral knowledge – i.e. instead of strictly focusing on criminal actions carried out knowingly, we should also focus on whether such knowingly immoral and illegal actions are carried out caringly. Equally important, these results may shed light on treatment, pushing clinicians to distinguish between the sources of deficit regarding morally relevant decisions and actions.

[Paulie_D]

Fascinating & enlightening.

As I said, “simplistic”…and apparently wrong. :)

[Anonymous]

Psychiatry and Psychology have as much value as Astrology does. Two “esteemed” PhD’s in Psychology are often in a court room, one for the Prosecution and one for the Defense, and both give conflicting opinions as to the mental state of the accused. If psychoanalysis were a real science they would agree. Two math professors will each agree that the unit circle is x2 + y2 = 1, but Psychologists and Psychiatrists rarely agree because what they do is relegated to personal bias, opinion, and who feels like they are being paid the most to skew the facts, as opposed to science.

Sigmund Freud, the founding father of psychoanalysis died by assisted suicide, or direct suicide depending on the source. Suicide is defined as the result of a mental illness in Psychology, so the father of Psychology was a crackpot (in more ways than one) by his fields own definition.

The study cited above is simply an alternative explanation, not a definitive one. Therefore, it doesn’t toss out other explanations. Psychiatrists and Psychologists have the unusual ability, for a science, to come up with different diagnoses (explanations) depending on what a court, or other prosecutorial body, is needing to condemn. Of course, if the accused is wealthy and can buy both Psychiatric Isles, then he/she will certainly come out as being a victim. We saw this most recently with the “affluenza” case of Ethan Couch — who drove drunk and caused a crash, killing four people and injuring two. He was the victim because he was brought up in a wealthy household and was never given boundaries by his parents. (I do hope I can continue typing now as the tears for dear Ethan are welling up in my eyes.) If Ethan wasn’t responsible because of his parents, put them in jail! It sure as hades wasn’t the victims faults, yet they were the only ones who paid a price, the ultimate price, and for dear Ethan. That courtroom would be a good study for the definition of bonafide nuts!

The one thing I can agree with psychologists on with regards to the criminal mind is that it is the result of genetic, environmental, or biochemical processes. That being the case, it seems rather draconian to condemn people in such a cut and dry fashion as the courts do if those committing serious crimes cannot help it. The dilemma is what can be done with them other than imprisonment?

Best Regards.

[chrisburton]

Psychiatry and Psychology have as much value as Astrology does.

[…] were a real science they would agree

Psychologists and Psychiatrists rarely agree because what they do is relegated to personal bias, opinion, and who feels like they are being paid the most to skew the facts, as opposed to science

With all due respect, I feel like those are things Ken Ham would say. Do you honestly believe that for “real science” to occur there should be no disagreements?

The study cited above is simply an alternative explanation, not a definitive one. Therefore, it doesn’t toss out other explanations.

What you just described is called a theory. Scientific theories are mostly carried out with research and evidence to sustain their idea.

[Anonymous]

Greetings Chris,

I’ve as much use for Ken Ham as I do Bill Nye (who isn’t a real scientist by the way, he just plays one on TV) and a host of others in their respective fields. All sides are generally too biased to see any common ground and/or any alternative possibility. Both sides profess to have the flawless answers, yet neither does, nor can. There is too much closed mindedness on both sides for me to take seriously either.

Do you honestly believe that for “real science” to occur there should be no disagreements?

I do where a person’s life and liberty are concerned, don’t you? If some careless drunk kid who thinks he’s privileged to drive drunk because his parents are wealthy kills someone, I believe he should pay the same price as someone who has a psychoanalyst for the prosecution stating that their drunk driving was due to a lack of care for others.

Psychiatry should no more be allowed into a courtroom than a witch doctor in an operating room. Psychiatry is given the weight it is because of the Prison Industry in America and the CAAC (Convict At All Costs) mentality, whether guilty or not.

The study cited above is simply an alternative explanation, not a definitive one. Therefore, it doesn’t toss out other explanations.

What you just described is called a theory. Scientific theories are mostly carried out with research and evidence to sustain their idea.

Yes, Psychoanalysis is just chocked full of theories (opinions) and the only real discoveries with regard to the human mind has been made in the medical field. Why should unproven theory be used in any incidence where a person’s life and liberty or possible treatment are at stake? The reason is it makes money for the Prison Industry.

Again, real science will agree that black is black and white is white. Real science agrees that E=M/C2. Real science could not say in one case that drunk driving is the result of a deficient mind and in another, where wealth is involved, state that it is the result of being affluent. When does E not equal mass divided by the speed of light? Never, just ask a mathematician. When is drunk driving the result of mental illness? How much money do you have so I can direct you to the right Psychoanalyst with the right answer for your needs?

Best Regards.

[__]

Yes, Psychoanalysis is just chocked full of theories (opinions)

There is a huge and critical difference between a “theory” and an “opinion.” Anyone (scientists included) can have an opinion, whereas (as @chrisburton pointed out) a theory has “research and evidence to sustain their idea.”

Psychologists and Psychiatrists rarely agree because what they do is relegated to personal bias, opinion, and who feels like they are being paid the most to skew the facts, as opposed to science

Much of the disagreement comes from the fact that most of the ideas are hard to test or prove. The mind is an unknown. It’s like trying to rewrite a device driver without access to the source code or hardware—with only the I/O and your past experience to guide your efforts. Further complicating this is the fact that the most useful I/O is not directly measurable: it must be reported on by the patient.

I would also disagree with your assumption that those psychiatrists we see in courtrooms, arguing for or against the fitness of a rich kid to stand trial, are really the “esteemed” experts in their field (or even that other psychiatrists see them that way).

Real science agrees that E=M/C²

Not really. In fact, “Real science” agrees the opposite: E=M/C² is an oversimplifciation of the theory which only holds true when the total momentum of mass and energy net zero. And then, of course, there is special relativity, where it is still unclear if it holds true at all in all circumstances.*

* (disclaimer: not an astrophysicist.)

Real science could not say in one case that drunk driving is the result of a deficient mind and in another, where wealth is involved, state that it is the result of being affluent.

This is like claiming it is impossible for a house to be painted white if owned by a poor man, but painted blue if owned by a rich man. While this is strictly true, if you’re talking about the same house (and assume it hasn’t been painted in the meantime), that fact does nothing to prove what color the house is.

How much money do you have so I can direct you to the right Psychoanalyst with the right answer for your needs?

You’re assuming that competence and salary go hand-in-hand. (You’re also assuming that all psychoanalysts are corrupt, but I think that’s your point.)

Now, I absolutely agree that psychology and psychiatry have their quacks, and that the justice system is horribly flawed as well. You can find examples of corruption in any field, even science. This is not to say that the concept of a psychological disorder is flawed, any more than the concept of justice is. But there are “good ones.” (I’ve even met “good” lawyers, if you can believe that.) : )

Astrology, OTOH, is demonstrably absurd: you don’t even need to argue about the mechanics of it. Just go back in time a few years. Astrology had centuries of accrued anecdotal “proof” of its validity, and then they had to admit that their star charts were wrong and changed the dates for everyone’s sign. If they were “right” before, they’d certainly be wrong now, or vice versa, would they not? : )

[__]

I love this forum :)

oh my yes…

[nixnerd]

I think this forum is proving one thing: Hard sciences and philosophy are and always will be at odds. Period. One approaches reality with the preconceived notion that we can know. One approaches reality by asking the more fundamental question: what can we know?

In order to research anything, you are at the mercy of your senses. Your senses are arguably relative to you and you alone. Even if the evidence is very strong that other people perceive what you perceive… you can never know. This goes back to the question you asked as a kid: “How do I know the red you see is the red I see?” The short answer is: you don’t.

I have seen many photographs of Egypt. I’ve seen pictures of the pyramids and the Sphinx and King Tut’s tomb. But guess what? I’ve never been to Egypt. I can reasonably suspect that Egypt exists. But I don’t know it exists. I’ve never seen it. Even if I had, how do I know I can trust my senses? After all, at least a few times in my life, I’ve thought I saw something that I didn’t. How can I ever fully trust a faculty that has proven itself to be wrong at best and deceptive at worst? Doing so will ALWAYS require some degree of faith and trust.

There are several philosophers from several schools of thought who question human senses and perception. Hume’s critique of the “Scientific Method” and Descartes’ “Cogito Ergo Sum” both do this.

Two philosophers from two COMPLETELY different camps can agree on one thing: Human senses/perspectives are fundamentally flawed.

Here’s a fun exercise: Forget proving whether or not God exists. Try to sufficiently prove to anyone that you exist.

*Edit: In reference to Descartes, I should say “the dialogue leading up to his conclusion of the ‘Cogito Ergo Sum.'” Since, in the end, he does conclude that he can know at least one thing. However… that was called into question by Nietzsche.

[nixnerd]

Hey @michael1961,
Did you think this thread was going to be this popular?

[__]

Is there anything wrong with copying someone’s code and using it on my own server as long as I leave their ownership/copyright information in the coding?

Human senses/perspectives are fundamentally flawed… Try to sufficiently prove to anyone that you exist.

Well; I think that’s as far as we can take this one. Next question!

[Author]

Posts