| Author |
Message |
    
malone
Citizen
Username: Malone
Post Number: 299
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 5:46 pm: | 
|
Long Branch has used eminent domain extensively to take the land closest to the beach for all of those condo developments down there. |
darrensager
Citizen
Username: Darrensager
Post Number: 256
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Tom, with more than 12,000 messages posted, do you work outside the home or just post comments on MOL all day long? I was just wondering and I mean nothing negative by it. I'm just curious because it averages that you've posted about 11 times a day for the last three years. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12070
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:14 pm: |
|
It's embarrassing that I post so much. The fact is I'm stealing a bit too much time from both my job and my family life. I'm working on dealing with my addiction.
|
Fruitcake
Citizen
Username: Fruitcake
Post Number: 259
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:51 pm: |
|
Tom is being too humble. In fact, he is a master animal trainer and has a roomful of trained chimpanzees posting night and day. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 586
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Tom, not to ruffle your feathers, but I would say probably a 4th of your posts are simple links to articles. I know that is your style but does it count? I kind of equate that with Straw's "boring" posts. Of course, here lately it seems ole Themp and Foj have taken over the title of top poster without using their own words. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12071
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 7:16 pm: |
|
I'll take whatever I can get to make my "effective post count" lower. My wife wonders about me. But don't touch that dial, Dave.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 946
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Noglider,
You stated that deontology is a rule-based ethical model.
Our Constitution permits the taking of private property, with just compensation.
The State of Connecticut passed a set of rules authorizing Connecticut municipalities, like New London, to take property for economic redevelopment purposes.
The city of New London did so.
Everyone followed the rules.
Ergo, the taking of the Kelo property is ethical under the deontological model.
If your point was otherwise, please elaborate.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12077
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 9:59 pm: |
|
Whether something is ethical is more than a test of whether it follows under some system of rules or another. It may be against your rules to breathe smoke, but it may be against my rules not to blow smoke in your face. Our rules conflict. Both, by your definition, are ethical, but that doesn't make them equally good.
Our constitution permits the taking of property with compensation, so we could say that the law of the land is that eminent domain is ethical, but I would hope that those who do it do so carefully and gravely.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 947
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Noglider,
If ethics is more than a test of whether some "thing" follows some system of rules or another, what is the deontological model of ethics?
One of us is misunderstanding the other.
TomR |
Lester Jacobs
Citizen
Username: Lester
Post Number: 81
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Eminent domain is in some ways responsible for the deplorable state of some of our cities. Look at Newark for instance. Somebody told me that land where a lot of poor people lived was siezed after the riots for urban renewal projects. Problem was that all these people needed someplace to live after being evicted from their homes. Many ended up in Irvington, the Oranges, and other more stable parts of Newark which in turn led to the downfall of those towns. Liberals never learn. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12078
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:53 pm: |
|
Ah, perhaps there are two definitions of the word "ethical"! One is that it fits into some sort of set of rules and beliefs. The other is that it is right and just. You assert that eminent domain is ethical by the former definition. I agree. I assert that it is unethical, at least in some cases, because it can be a method of abusing the few or the weak to benefit the many or the powerful, at least sometimes.
Here's an article that relates ethics to law. Did you have an ethics class in law school? A friend of mine going through law school had to take one and was appalled that his fellow students didn't understand what the relevance was to law!
http://www.lcf.pnc.com.au/whatethics.htm
I haven't read this entirely, but it looks good. I notice it's from Australia, and I don't know if that makes it any less pertinent to our laws or ethics.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4265
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
That's preposterous. "Somebody told you?" and from that you derive the best practices for urban planning?
Somebody told me those buildings were burned to the ground. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3000
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 11:47 pm: |
|
Somebody told me that the people who are poor choose to be poor. That person is confused about a lot of things. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 948
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:27 am: |
|
Noglider,
I've made no assertions regarding the ethics of eminent domain proceedings.
I constructed an argument premised upon your statement that the deontological model of ethics was rule-based, and drew, what I think, is the only logical conclusion.
You initially posited that there were two schools of thought on ethics: utilitarian and deontological. Utilitarian ethics being that which accomplishes the most good for the most people; and deontological ethics being a rule-based model.
As I wrote above, under either model, the Kelo taking can be deemed ethical.
However, you recently bring up a third possible model, which, for convenience, we'll call the "right and just" model, and state that there are, perhaps, two definitions of ethics; which seemingly ignores your prior assertion that there exists the utilitarian school of ethics.
Are we now not up to three definitions or "schools" of ethics?
In any event, doesn't using the new and improved definition of ethics as being that which is "right and just" just beg the question as to whom determines what is "right and just"?
It's kinda like your smoking analogy above.
You want to blow smoke in my face, well, its rude, but until April 15, its permissable.
I don't want to breathe smoke, well, I guess I'll I have to put up with it. (Until April 15).
That's not a question of ethics; its a matter of law.
Ethics?
I dunno.
I figure if I do what I think is the right thing to do, no matter what my decision, somebody is going to declare me to be the philosopher king; and somebody else is going to cast the first stone.
And yes, I was required to take an ethics course in school. (Thank you Prof. Blecker).
It struck me at the time, and still to this day, as akin to teaching a cow to deficate. You can feed Elsie whatever you choose, but she's going to do what cows do.
TomR
BTW, why DID you bring ethics into this thread? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12089
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:37 am: |
|
Am I really that unclear? I hope someone else will answer.
No, there are two models basic of ethics, as I understand it, and of course, I've only taken a single undergrad course. Whether something is right or wrong is decided from either model or a combination of both. If I deem a certain act as wrong and unjust, that's just one person's opinion, based on my understanding and view of ethics as I have learned them. It doesn't represent a third model.
I'm not making a judgement on the Kelo case. Perhaps you thought I am.
Why did I bring ethics in? Um, I don't follow. Don't ethics have a key role in law?
|
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 373
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:30 am: |
|
Somebody told me those rebuilding efforts in Newark were federal programs. Somebody also told me that Nixon was president at the time. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 512
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:57 am: |
|
Reingold-
Thanks for the welcome! Nice picture....new? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 513
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:59 am: |
|
Notehead-
People don't choose to be poor, many are already poor and continue to make poor choices. MY liberal social worker of a wife confirmed this belief for me.... |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 514
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:02 am: |
|
Tom Reingold-
Just a humble FYI, I DO have a Philosophy degree-not claiming to be an expert though...
Historically, morals/ethics come down to 2 main schools of thought-right/wrong vs. pleasure/pain...
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12091
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:10 am: |
|
Yeah, my daughter took that picture last night and urged me not to use it.
Can you speak to the notions of utilitarianism and deontology? Is the latter equivalent to a pleasure/pain type of system?
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 515
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 12:41 pm: |
|
Tom,
I am still trying to figure out this picture thing myself!
Frankly, I never heard the term "deontology" until yesterday, but I did do some homework on the matter. Yes, there is actually a third moral perspective as you speak with Immanuek Kant as its biggest proponent-doing things for the sake of one's duty....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
From what I recall pleasure/pain has no play in such a moral system but I do stand corrected (let me do some more homework)..
-SLK
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 949
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Noglider,
I hadn't assumed that you had made any ethical judgement on the results of the Kelo case.
I jumped in on this thread after you had brought up the distinction between the utilitarian and deontological models of ethics.
My query was simple, and remains the same.
"Using either the utilitarian or deontological models, wouldn't the ED proceedings in New London be considered ethical?"
As for your query, ethics has no more, nor less, of a key role in law than it does in any other area of human endeavor.
Every man should conduct his affairs in the manner he deems to be ethical. Sometimes, he'll be declared the philospher king; sometimes, he'll be stoned; and most of the time, no one will notice.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 12095
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
TomR,
Your last paragraph made me laugh out loud. Thank you.
I agree with the one before it, too.
My answer to your question is, "I don't know."
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page