Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Here.

It is often objected to retribution that it is only a development of vengeance. The truth is that in almost the most elementary human vengeance there are obscure premonitions of the moral notion of punishment. Hardly any savage but in vengeance persuades himself he has been wronged; he feels differently towards the man who falls against him and the man who hits him. The prejudice against recognizing the retributive element in punishment has arisen, I think, from a too bare identification of punishment with pain and even with the lex talionis. Retribution is not an eye for an eye. It would be no more possible or appropriate for a parent to punish his children's disobedience by disobeying them than for the child to reward its mother's devotion by feeding her or educating her. Nor is retribution the mere occurrence of pain. A murderer is not punished by the pain of having cancer, but only by a pain which is given him, and which he knows is given him, because of his guilt. The essential thing in punishment, then, is not pain but the expression of censure, which is necessarily painful and tries to approximate to the ideal pain of remorse. Hence punishment has its best chance of reforming when it is recognized as being given retributively, that is, because it is deserved. From Plato downwards it has been objected to retribution that pain added to guilt is the addition of evil to evil. But it seems self-evident that guilt with its appropriate pain of remorse is something that ought if possible to be substituted for guilt complacent and insulting. We cannot put remorse ready-made into a criminal's mind, but we can stimulate it by giving him a pain akin to that of remorse, making him feel the indignation of impartial observers. For though neither our intellectual nor our moral growth is merely imitative, both develop by the stimulus of seeing ourselves in the mirror of other minds.

(E. F. Carritt, The Theory of Morals: An Introduction to Ethical Philosophy [London: Oxford University Press, 1928], 111-2 [footnote omitted])

Here are highlights from Stage 1 of the Tour Down Under.

To the editor:

The GOP is a minority party that now controls the three branches of our government. How did this happen? (“Trump is transforming the GOP against legal immigration. Will Congress follow?” Jan. 12)

After the 2012 election, the Republican Party issued an “autopsy” that, among other things, cited immigration reform: “Among the steps Republicans take in the Hispanic community and beyond, we must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party’s appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only. We also believe that comprehensive immigration reform is consistent with Republican economic policies that promote job growth and opportunity for all.”

Republicans have apparently repudiated that support for immigration reform and found a way to succeed with their core constituencies.

Rather than becoming inclusive, Republicans try to restrict the ability of Democratic voters to cast their ballots. Reducing immigration and keeping those who may eventually vote for the opposition out of the country logically follows, as do appeals to the alt-right, the anti-immigrant group NumbersUSA and even neo-Nazis.

It’s now apparent what President Trump meant with his campaign slogan: Make America white again.

Gilbert H. Skopp, Calabasas

Unemployment for Black Americans is the lowest ever recorded. Trump approval ratings with Black Americans has doubled. Thank you, and it will get even (much) better! @FoxNews

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 16, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Propositional form X is self-contradictory (i.e., X is a self-contradiction) iff it is impossible for X to be true. In other words, X is necessarily false.

Example from everyday life: 'x is a bachelor and x is female'

Example from categorical logic: 'No S are S'

Example from propositional logic: 'p • ~p'

Example from predicate logic: '(x)(Øx ﬤ ~Øx)'

Martin Luther King Jr was born on this date 89 years ago. Nobody can be sure, but I think King would be a supporter of President Trump, in the same way that Dr Ben Carson is a supporter of President Trump. King was too principled to be part of the racial-grievance industry, the aim of which is to instill victimhood and dependency in black people. I also find it hard to believe that King would support racial preferences in employment or education. King valued character. How can you respect yourself if you know that your accomplishments are based, even in part, on your skin color or ethnicity? If you haven't read King's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (1963), you should do so soon. I will be teaching it in my Philosophy of Law course this semester.

Here.