- What is retributivism, and why does Pojman think retributivism supports capital
punishment?
a. Retributivism suggests that the virtuous deserve to flourish to the degree of there virtue and the vicious deserve to suffer to the degree of there vice. Pojman thinks retributivism supports capital punishment because it suggests that the punishment should be proportional to the crime, so when committing murder, the criminal forfeits his right to life supporting CP
- Given that the evidence for capital punishment deterring crime more than life imprisonment is inconclusive, why does Pojman think capital punishment is still the “best bet”?
a. Pojman thinks Capital Punishment is still the best bet because he says to bet against capital punishment is to bet against the innocent in favor of the murderer, while to bet for capital punishment is to bet against the murder in favor of the innocent. If we value saving the innocent more than losing the guilty, betting in favor of CP turns out to be more rational despite the evidence.
Why does Nathanson say that even in theory, deterring crime is not an adequate justification for capital punishment?
a. Nathanson says that deterring crime is not an adequate justification for CP because, he suggests it would allow for any punishment as long as it deters crime. So since it is not justifiable to execute family members of murders even though it would deter crime, then it also shouldn’t be justifiable for CP even if it were to deter crime
What is the core of Nathanson’s concern about the death penalty in practice, even if it could be theoretically justified?
a. Nathanson’s concern about the death penalty in practice is even if it were to be justified, CP conflicts with both justice and respect for human life. He suggests it is not compatible with justice because it punishes innocent people and not compatible with respect because it kills innocent people. As CP sometimes convicts the innocent.
- Why does Etzioni think that less privacy makes getting the government out of our lives more feasible?
a.Etzioni thinks less privacy makes getting the government out of our lives more feasible because he says if there are social pressures to do the right thing, and if members of the community have a window into the actions of other people, then there will be less need for law enforcement. Therefore lowering certain kinds of privacy can decrease the government’s role.
Why is Etzioni not worried about what an American dictator could do with our private information?
a. Etzioni is not worried about an what American dictator could do with our information as he says it extremely unlikely. He suggests that way more would be at risk then our privacy were a situation to emerge, such as our rights and liberties.
Why is Friedman concerned about what even a democratic government can do with our private information?
a. Friedman is concerned about what a democratic government can do with our private information as he suggests that governments distinctive feature is that it can use force to compel me to do things. He then adds even though the government is democratic doesn’t mean that it will not use the data that might exploit citizens information
What type of technology does Friedman think could enable us to have privacy online, and why does he think so?
a. Fredman thinks that Encryption Technologies could enable us to have privacy online. With the use of a public key encryption, Fredman thinks encryption will let individuals control who can access there information. As encryption makes the data unreadable without the key from the sender, ultimately making everything done digitally completely private
What is Justice Holmes’ “marketplace of ideas”, and why is Heyman skeptical of it?
a. Justice Holes “market place of ideas” suggests that all ideas, including hateful ideas, should be tested for their truth by competition and scrutiny, and suggests banning hate speech prevents it from being tested. Heyman is skeptical because he assumes that the world is not equal and in reality whatever is convenient for the majority in power will come out. He especially thinks this is a problem with genocidal ideas
- According to Heyman, what changed in how the First Amendment is understood compared to early US history?
a. Heyman argues that the first Amendment was understood as to protect the right of speech, but also was balance with other rights such as the right to reputation. Overtime however, a rights based view of the first Amendment came back but was only extended to the freedom of speech and not to other values like reputation. In a since reputation was no longer seen as a right.
What is Waldron’s concept of group defamation?
a. Waldrons concept of group defamation refers to speech that degrades characterization, notice, or instructions. As Waldron suggests these amount to assault on the dignity of the persons understood as the basis of there human rights and constitutional entitlements.
How does Waldron distinguish between offensive statements and statements that attack dignity?
a. Waldron distinguishes between offensive statements and statements that attack dignity by arguing that a pamphlet saying all Muslims are terrorists is an attack on dignity. Whereas a pamphlet saying Mohammed was evil is only offensive. He says dignity is understood as an attack on a groups or individual status as a full member of society, and offence as involving a personal distress.
- What central paradigm does Simpson use to evaluate the case for limiting hate speech?
a. The central paradigm Simpson uses to evaluate the case for limiting hate speech is on a harm prevention paradigm. This suggests that hate speech can be used to cause harm, but the question is really whether legislation should be established against hate speech only as hate speech
- What is Simpson’s overall criticism of arguments that aim to justify banning hate speech on the grounds that it attacks dignity
a. Simpsons overall criticism includes that these arguments fail to adress that dignity is focused on someone’s place within the social hierarchy, and hate speech threatens standing. Simpson argues that legal enforcement cannot reliably produce recognition and trying to enforce it will risk infringement on other rights. So even though hate speech undermines dignity, it cannot automatically justify legal bans.
