If it is a metaphysical "fact of the universe" then don't we know, with absolute certainty, that nothing can be known with absolute certainty?
I should probably express my statement more carefully, to distinguish between difference types of facts. When I say nothing can be known with absolute certainty, what I mean by "nothing" is concerning information regarding literal physical things in the universe. E.g. whether or not Mr Smith was present at 10 Downing street on the night in question etc. No such prohibition applies to metaphysical statements however, which the truth value of can generally be inferred through logic.
As for the rest, that's basically I distinction I make, there is "absolute certainty" and then there is "as certain as we can be". Sure, a court of law doesn't really ask for absolute certainty, but then that's basically because the law implicitly recognizes (in most cases) that it can obtain no such thing.
So the question I asked then becomes salient; given that we can't have absolute certainly (i.e. will never KNOW) if the person we convict is guilty, how can know that their execution is just or not?
Presuming that executing someone accidentally who isn't guilty is unjust, then the answer is, we can't know if any execution is just. That might mean we just have to live with it, or it might mean we should avoid executions altogether, depending on your point of view.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 12/12/09 11:58 (UTC)I should probably express my statement more carefully, to distinguish between difference types of facts. When I say nothing can be known with absolute certainty, what I mean by "nothing" is concerning information regarding literal physical things in the universe. E.g. whether or not Mr Smith was present at 10 Downing street on the night in question etc. No such prohibition applies to metaphysical statements however, which the truth value of can generally be inferred through logic.
As for the rest, that's basically I distinction I make, there is "absolute certainty" and then there is "as certain as we can be". Sure, a court of law doesn't really ask for absolute certainty, but then that's basically because the law implicitly recognizes (in most cases) that it can obtain no such thing.
So the question I asked then becomes salient; given that we can't have absolute certainly (i.e. will never KNOW) if the person we convict is guilty, how can know that their execution is just or not?
Presuming that executing someone accidentally who isn't guilty is unjust, then the answer is, we can't know if any execution is just. That might mean we just have to live with it, or it might mean we should avoid executions altogether, depending on your point of view.