Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

punishing an innocent person is morally wrong

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.

Do you include that god's innocent son?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 2:50:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.

Really? Then why did your God, if you believe in the God of Abraham, kill so many innocent people?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 2:59:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
If objective morality is true, God must be maximally moral.

Objective morality is true.

Therefore God must be maximally moral.

The God as depicted in the Bible is not maximally moral. Therefore God is not the God depicted in the Bible.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:59:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If objective morality is true, God must be maximally moral.

Objective morality is true.

Therefore God must be maximally moral.

The God as depicted in the Bible is not maximally moral. Therefore God is not the God depicted in the Bible.
Answer my question and stop your pathetic attempts at evasion.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:03:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:59:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If objective morality is true, God must be maximally moral.

Objective morality is true.

Therefore God must be maximally moral.

The God as depicted in the Bible is not maximally moral. Therefore God is not the God depicted in the Bible.

It would appear that I missed your last line in my previous response.
Please tell us which of the already created gods you worship, or have you invented your own?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

How does God's existence make this statement objective true, anyway? Wouldn't such a thing depend entirely on the mind of God to exist, hence, ultimately be rendered subjective? If a powerful, invincible tyrant declares that red-headed people are evil and shapes the world to this proclaimed truth, does that make it an objective truth to those who are subject to the established, inescapable tenets of said world?

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 3:28:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Objective morality, if such a thing exists, would be based on the existential imperative that what now exists, seeks to continue existing. Not on any individual and subjective concept of "God". So, even if we could agree that unjust punishments are objectively immoral, doing so would have nothing to do with our subjective conceptions of "God".

Your proposition is flawed on two counts: the assumption of an objective morality, and the assumption that such must then have come from a god.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:08:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:28:18 PM, PureX wrote:
Objective morality, if such a thing exists, would be based on the existential imperative that what now exists, seeks to continue existing. Not on any individual and subjective concept of "God". So, even if we could agree that unjust punishments are objectively immoral, doing so would have nothing to do with our subjective conceptions of "God".

Your proposition is flawed on two counts: the assumption of an objective morality, and the assumption that such must then have come from a god.

They keep getting told that and keep not understanding it.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.

Wow you're getting lazier and lazier with your "logic".
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Punish: The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

Innocent: not guilty of a crime or offense.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so? If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally? My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument. And it isn't wrong by definition because the statement is only concerned with whether it's morally wrong. If it IS morally wrong by definition then it's a moral fact and therefore morality must be objective. The unanimity underlying the truth of the statement is based on our ability to be rational and basic, innate rationality is the basis for all moral knowledge.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

How does God's existence make this statement objective true, anyway?

God's existence is a requirement if the statement is objectively true. Not the other way around.

Wouldn't such a thing depend entirely on the mind of God to exist, hence, ultimately be rendered subjective?

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

If a powerful, invincible tyrant declares that red-headed people are evil and shapes the world to this proclaimed truth, does that make it an objective truth to those who are subject to the established, inescapable tenets of said world?

If moral facts could change they would subjective, not objective.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
bulproof
Posts: 25,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 5:02:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Punish: The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

Innocent: not guilty of a crime or offense.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so? If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally? My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.


And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument. And it isn't wrong by definition because the statement is only concerned with whether it's morally wrong. If it IS morally wrong by definition then it's a moral fact and therefore morality must be objective. The unanimity underlying the truth of the statement is based on our ability to be rational and basic, innate rationality is the basis for all moral knowledge.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

How does God's existence make this statement objective true, anyway?

God's existence is a requirement if the statement is objectively true. Not the other way around.

Wouldn't such a thing depend entirely on the mind of God to exist, hence, ultimately be rendered subjective?

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

If a powerful, invincible tyrant declares that red-headed people are evil and shapes the world to this proclaimed truth, does that make it an objective truth to those who are subject to the established, inescapable tenets of said world?

If moral facts could change they would subjective, not objective.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
What is the god that you have invented?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Punish: The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

Innocent: not guilty of a crime or offense.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so?

For the same reason that hurting someone without justification is seen as wrong. The difference is that a statement such as this is not logically inconsistent, whereas, yours has that caveat built into it. It's the equivalent of a loaded question.

If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally?

You're wrong by definition, not morally. You can derive the correctness of the statement completely from within it (analytical as opposed to synthetic), meaning that it doesn't have any concern with the truth of the real world. Your statement is just like this, as well, and since it doesn't take consideration of the world to evaluate it's fault, how can this reflect moral truth about the world? In the statement I gave previously, you have to analyze how you feel about a given scenario; the answer is not answerable from within the confines of the statement.

My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

I realize that, and I understand that you're going for moral truth value, here, but its being masked by the blatant analytical truth value. Again, rephrase the statement so that it's not internally contradictory.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument.

OK, but this is a strong factor as to what we consider to be right and wrong in an objective sense.

And it isn't wrong by definition because the statement is only concerned with whether it's morally wrong. If it IS morally wrong by definition then it's a moral fact and therefore morality must be objective. The unanimity underlying the truth of the statement is based on our ability to be rational and basic, innate rationality is the basis for all moral knowledge.

This is pretty well covered by a response, above.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

How does God's existence make this statement objective true, anyway?

God's existence is a requirement if the statement is objectively true. Not the other way around.

Does the "objectively" true statement 2+2=4 equally necessitate God's existence?

Wouldn't such a thing depend entirely on the mind of God to exist, hence, ultimately be rendered subjective?

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

How do you go about affirming this antecedent?

If a powerful, invincible tyrant declares that red-headed people are evil and shapes the world to this proclaimed truth, does that make it an objective truth to those who are subject to the established, inescapable tenets of said world?

If moral facts could change they would subjective, not objective.

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:20:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:03:30 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:59:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If objective morality is true, God must be maximally moral.

Objective morality is true.

Therefore God must be maximally moral.

The God as depicted in the Bible is not maximally moral. Therefore God is not the God depicted in the Bible.

It would appear that I missed your last line in my previous response.
You also missed the short bus to braincells USA......
Please tell us which of the already created gods you worship, or have you invented your own?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 6:57:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Punish: The infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense

Guilt: The fact of having committed a specified or implied offense or crime.

Innocent: not guilty of a crime or offense.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so?

For the same reason that hurting someone without justification is seen as wrong. The difference is that a statement such as this is not logically inconsistent, whereas, yours has that caveat built into it. It's the equivalent of a loaded question.

It would only have a caveat if the word "morally" wasn't in the statement because "wrong" would be ambiguous between logically wrong and morally wrong. Since the statement specified "morally wrong" it's not a loaded question and there are no caveats.

If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally?

You're wrong by definition, not morally. You can derive the correctness of the statement completely from within it (analytical as opposed to synthetic), meaning that it doesn't have any concern with the truth of the real world.

I'm not sure this is accurate. An analytic statement is one where it's true by virtue of its meaning. Examples of analytic statements include: triangles have three sides (where triangle means "three sides"). All bachelors are unmarried (where bachelor means "unmarried"). The correctness of the statement 2 + 2 = 9 is discerned by way of reasoning, not by virtue of its definition.

Your statement is just like this, as well, and since it doesn't take consideration of the world to evaluate it's fault, how can this reflect moral truth about the world?

It does take consideration of the world to evaluate its fault.

In the statement I gave previously, you have to analyze how you feel about a given scenario; the answer is not answerable from within the confines of the statement.

the statement is only true because it conveys a concept that accurately corresponds with reality.

My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

I realize that, and I understand that you're going for moral truth value, here, but its being masked by the blatant analytical truth value. Again, rephrase the statement so that it's not internally contradictory.

It is not an analytical truth value. The statement says "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." If I said "punishing an innocent person is logically wrong" then you'd be correct.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument.

OK, but this is a strong factor as to what we consider to be right and wrong in an objective sense.

I'm not as sure.

And it isn't wrong by definition because the statement is only concerned with whether it's morally wrong. If it IS morally wrong by definition then it's a moral fact and therefore morality must be objective. The unanimity underlying the truth of the statement is based on our ability to be rational and basic, innate rationality is the basis for all moral knowledge.

This is pretty well covered by a response, above.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

How does God's existence make this statement objective true, anyway?

God's existence is a requirement if the statement is objectively true. Not the other way around.

Does the "objectively" true statement 2+2=4 equally necessitate God's existence?

No, not as far as I can tell, anyway. I haven't really thought about it. William Lane Craig believes that an intelligent designer is the best explanation as to why reality is mathematically ordered though.

Wouldn't such a thing depend entirely on the mind of God to exist, hence, ultimately be rendered subjective?

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

How do you go about affirming this antecedent?

If we can measure things in terms of moral or immoralness there must exist an objective standard that we're measuring against. Since objective morality hasn't changed, and since God must be the basis of moral objectivity, his standards must necessarily and essentially be true.

If a powerful, invincible tyrant declares that red-headed people are evil and shapes the world to this proclaimed truth, does that make it an objective truth to those who are subject to the established, inescapable tenets of said world?

If moral facts could change they would subjective, not objective.

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The title of this topic.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 7:48:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

'Is punishing an innocent person morally wrong?' That's a loaded question and you're trying to force a specific answer. Would you care to rephrase? I would suggest "Is harming an innocent person morally wrong?"

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:04:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 6:57:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so?

For the same reason that hurting someone without justification is seen as wrong. The difference is that a statement such as this is not logically inconsistent, whereas, yours has that caveat built into it. It's the equivalent of a loaded question.

It would only have a caveat if the word "morally" wasn't in the statement because "wrong" would be ambiguous between logically wrong and morally wrong. Since the statement specified "morally wrong" it's not a loaded question and there are no caveats.

It doesn't matter that you stated "morally"; the contradiction that highjacks the statement. Again, please rephrase it so it's not internally contradictory.

If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally?

You're wrong by definition, not morally. You can derive the correctness of the statement completely from within it (analytical as opposed to synthetic), meaning that it doesn't have any concern with the truth of the real world.

I'm not sure this is accurate. An analytic statement is one where it's true by virtue of its meaning. Examples of analytic statements include: triangles have three sides (where triangle means "three sides"). All bachelors are unmarried (where bachelor means "unmarried"). The correctness of the statement 2 + 2 = 9 is discerned by way of reasoning, not by virtue of its definition.

Mathematics is an independent system from the world. We can derive mathematical truths strictly from within that system without regard to how it relates to the word. The statement "the sum of two and two is tautological with nine" is a false statement by virtue of internal definition, alone. We created the system of math, so we defined the numbers and operations that are in effect.

Your statement is just like this, as well, and since it doesn't take consideration of the world to evaluate it's fault, how can this reflect moral truth about the world?

It does take consideration of the world to evaluate its fault.

If you disagree with the above, how so?

In the statement I gave previously, you have to analyze how you feel about a given scenario; the answer is not answerable from within the confines of the statement.

the statement is only true because it conveys a concept that accurately corresponds with reality.

My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

I realize that, and I understand that you're going for moral truth value, here, but its being masked by the blatant analytical truth value. Again, rephrase the statement so that it's not internally contradictory.

It is not an analytical truth value. The statement says "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." If I said "punishing an innocent person is logically wrong" then you'd be correct.

And I understand that, but the presence of one can affect the other. This is why you have to create a statement that isn't driven by internal contradiction.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument.

OK, but this is a strong factor as to what we consider to be right and wrong in an objective sense.

I'm not as sure.

Does the "objectively" true statement 2+2=4 equally necessitate God's existence?

No, not as far as I can tell, anyway. I haven't really thought about it. William Lane Craig believes that an intelligent designer is the best explanation as to why reality is mathematically ordered though.

Why is moral truth treated differently?

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

How do you go about affirming this antecedent?

If we can measure things in terms of moral or immoralness there must exist an objective standard that we're measuring against. Since objective morality hasn't changed, and since God must be the basis of moral objectivity, his standards must necessarily and essentially be true.

I don't believe that's true. We each have our own standard by which to make comparisons. And how have you determined that objective morality hasn't changed??

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The title of this topic.

That, I'm disputing. Can you give me another example of a moral fact that isn't also explicitly contradictory?
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 8:15:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

What is "objectively true" and how is it different from true?

If this is correct, and the God in question is the Christian God, then the Christian God is objectively immoral.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2016 9:24:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 2:59:44 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
If objective morality is true, God must be maximally moral.

Objective morality is true.

Therefore God must be maximally moral.

The God as depicted in the Bible is not maximally moral. Therefore God is not the God depicted in the Bible.

If objective morality exists, I would agree with your statement.

Whether objective morality exists or not cannot be proven however. I am agnostic on the topic of objective morality.

The problem is that we would then be using the word "god" yet have no established method to determine how to define "god". It is difficult to intelligently discuss something that cannot be defined.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 7:48:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

'Is punishing an innocent person morally wrong?' That's a loaded question and you're trying to force a specific answer. Would you care to rephrase? I would suggest "Is harming an innocent person morally wrong?"

How is it a loaded question? Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Why is it *morally wrong* to punish innocent people for offenses they didn't commit?

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:02:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 8:04:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:57:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so?

For the same reason that hurting someone without justification is seen as wrong. The difference is that a statement such as this is not logically inconsistent, whereas, yours has that caveat built into it. It's the equivalent of a loaded question.

It would only have a caveat if the word "morally" wasn't in the statement because "wrong" would be ambiguous between logically wrong and morally wrong. Since the statement specified "morally wrong" it's not a loaded question and there are no caveats.

It doesn't matter that you stated "morally"; the contradiction that highjacks the statement. Again, please rephrase it so it's not internally contradictory.

It's not internally contradictory. Your line of reasoning is that it's impossible to punish an innocent person for an offense they didn't commit. Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Therefore this line of reasoning is false.

If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally?

You're wrong by definition, not morally. You can derive the correctness of the statement completely from within it (analytical as opposed to synthetic), meaning that it doesn't have any concern with the truth of the real world.

I'm not sure this is accurate. An analytic statement is one where it's true by virtue of its meaning. Examples of analytic statements include: triangles have three sides (where triangle means "three sides"). All bachelors are unmarried (where bachelor means "unmarried"). The correctness of the statement 2 + 2 = 9 is discerned by way of reasoning, not by virtue of its definition.

Mathematics is an independent system from the world. We can derive mathematical truths strictly from within that system without regard to how it relates to the word. The statement "the sum of two and two is tautological with nine" is a false statement by virtue of internal definition, alone. We created the system of math, so we defined the numbers and operations that are in effect.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with this. I just fail to see how this is analogous to my statement "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." This isn't an example of an analytical statement.

Your statement is just like this, as well, and since it doesn't take consideration of the world to evaluate it's fault, how can this reflect moral truth about the world?

It does take consideration of the world to evaluate its fault.

If you disagree with the above, how so?

Because it's not analytically false. It's a synthetic proposition.

In the statement I gave previously, you have to analyze how you feel about a given scenario; the answer is not answerable from within the confines of the statement.

the statement is only true because it conveys a concept that accurately corresponds with reality.

My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

I realize that, and I understand that you're going for moral truth value, here, but its being masked by the blatant analytical truth value. Again, rephrase the statement so that it's not internally contradictory.

It is not an analytical truth value. The statement says "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." If I said "punishing an innocent person is logically wrong" then you'd be correct.

And I understand that, but the presence of one can affect the other. This is why you have to create a statement that isn't driven by internal contradiction.

Is it possible to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit? If not, there's no internal contradiction here. Then, from that point, we can ask ourselves whether it's morally wrong to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit. I don't see the problem here.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument.

OK, but this is a strong factor as to what we consider to be right and wrong in an objective sense.

I'm not as sure.

Does the "objectively" true statement 2+2=4 equally necessitate God's existence?

No, not as far as I can tell, anyway. I haven't really thought about it. William Lane Craig believes that an intelligent designer is the best explanation as to why reality is mathematically ordered though.

Why is moral truth treated differently?

Because moral truths solely refer back to the disposition and will of one's mind.

Can something that lacks intent ever behave immorally? No. The source from which moral truths derive must be from mind and this mind must possess intent. This is why, if objective morality is true, God must exist.

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

How do you go about affirming this antecedent?

If we can measure things in terms of moral or immoralness there must exist an objective standard that we're measuring against. Since objective morality hasn't changed, and since God must be the basis of moral objectivity, his standards must necessarily and essentially be true.

I don't believe that's true. We each have our own standard by which to make comparisons. And how have you determined that objective morality hasn't changed??

Every known society punishes for theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity. This hasn't changed. If objective morality is false, how do you explain this trend?

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The title of this topic.

That, I'm disputing. Can you give me another example of a moral fact that isn't also explicitly contradictory?

torturing infants for fun is morally wrong
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:06:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:02:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:04:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:57:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 4:59:32 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

Yes it's *illogical* to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense on someone if they didn't commit an offense. Innocent people get punished for crimes they didn't commit all the time. The question is why is it *morally* wrong to do so?

For the same reason that hurting someone without justification is seen as wrong. The difference is that a statement such as this is not logically inconsistent, whereas, yours has that caveat built into it. It's the equivalent of a loaded question.

It would only have a caveat if the word "morally" wasn't in the statement because "wrong" would be ambiguous between logically wrong and morally wrong. Since the statement specified "morally wrong" it's not a loaded question and there are no caveats.

It doesn't matter that you stated "morally"; the contradiction that highjacks the statement. Again, please rephrase it so it's not internally contradictory.

It's not internally contradictory. Your line of reasoning is that it's impossible to punish an innocent person for an offense they didn't commit. Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Therefore this line of reasoning is false.

If I said 2 + 2 = 9, would I be wrong logically AND morally?

You're wrong by definition, not morally. You can derive the correctness of the statement completely from within it (analytical as opposed to synthetic), meaning that it doesn't have any concern with the truth of the real world.

I'm not sure this is accurate. An analytic statement is one where it's true by virtue of its meaning. Examples of analytic statements include: triangles have three sides (where triangle means "three sides"). All bachelors are unmarried (where bachelor means "unmarried"). The correctness of the statement 2 + 2 = 9 is discerned by way of reasoning, not by virtue of its definition.

Mathematics is an independent system from the world. We can derive mathematical truths strictly from within that system without regard to how it relates to the word. The statement "the sum of two and two is tautological with nine" is a false statement by virtue of internal definition, alone. We created the system of math, so we defined the numbers and operations that are in effect.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with this. I just fail to see how this is analogous to my statement "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." This isn't an example of an analytical statement.

Your statement is just like this, as well, and since it doesn't take consideration of the world to evaluate it's fault, how can this reflect moral truth about the world?

It does take consideration of the world to evaluate its fault.

If you disagree with the above, how so?

Because it's not analytically false. It's a synthetic proposition.

In the statement I gave previously, you have to analyze how you feel about a given scenario; the answer is not answerable from within the confines of the statement.

the statement is only true because it conveys a concept that accurately corresponds with reality.

My question is only concerned with whether punishing an innocent person is *morally* wrong.

I realize that, and I understand that you're going for moral truth value, here, but its being masked by the blatant analytical truth value. Again, rephrase the statement so that it's not internally contradictory.

It is not an analytical truth value. The statement says "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." If I said "punishing an innocent person is logically wrong" then you'd be correct.

And I understand that, but the presence of one can affect the other. This is why you have to create a statement that isn't driven by internal contradiction.

Is it possible to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit? If not, there's no internal contradiction here. Then, from that point, we can ask ourselves whether it's morally wrong to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit. I don't see the problem here.

And just because just about everyone would agree that it's wrong (by definition), doesn't mean that it's objectively wrong. Unanimity =/= objectivity.

Unanimity isn't part of my argument.

OK, but this is a strong factor as to what we consider to be right and wrong in an objective sense.

I'm not as sure.

Does the "objectively" true statement 2+2=4 equally necessitate God's existence?

No, not as far as I can tell, anyway. I haven't really thought about it. William Lane Craig believes that an intelligent designer is the best explanation as to why reality is mathematically ordered though.

Why is moral truth treated differently?

Because moral truths solely refer back to the disposition and will of one's mind.

Can something that lacks intent ever behave immorally? No. The source from which moral truths derive must be from mind and this mind must possess intent. This is why, if objective morality is true, God must exist.

If God's moral standards are necessarily and essentially true then there's nothing subjective about it.

How do you go about affirming this antecedent?

If we can measure things in terms of moral or immoralness there must exist an objective standard that we're measuring against. Since objective morality hasn't changed, and since God must be the basis of moral objectivity, his standards must necessarily and essentially be true.

I don't believe that's true. We each have our own standard by which to make comparisons. And how have you determined that objective morality hasn't changed??

Every known society punishes for theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity. This hasn't changed. If objective morality is false, how do you explain this trend?

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The title of this topic.

That, I'm disputing. Can you give me another example of a moral fact that isn't also explicitly contradictory?

torturing infants for fun is morally wrong

What about . letting your kid receive medical attention. Or receive blood . Is immoral
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 5:36:15 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:48:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

'Is punishing an innocent person morally wrong?' That's a loaded question and you're trying to force a specific answer. Would you care to rephrase? I would suggest "Is harming an innocent person morally wrong?"

How is it a loaded question? Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Why is it *morally wrong* to punish innocent people for offenses they didn't commit?

Because the question has the answer built in. It's like asking if a blue car is red. By definition, a blue car is not red much like an innocent person deserves no punishment. It is a dilemna built on semantics rather than morality.

If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:31:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:36:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:48:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

'Is punishing an innocent person morally wrong?' That's a loaded question and you're trying to force a specific answer. Would you care to rephrase? I would suggest "Is harming an innocent person morally wrong?"

How is it a loaded question? Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Why is it *morally wrong* to punish innocent people for offenses they didn't commit?

Because the question has the answer built in. It's like asking if a blue car is red. By definition, a blue car is not red much like an innocent person deserves no punishment. It is a dilemna built on semantics rather than morality.

I think you're confusing lots of different pieces here.

"punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is much different than "a person who didn't commit an offense committed an offense." Why is it morally wrong to reprimand somebody for an offense that they didn't commit?

suppose we're in a society that exised thousands of years ago. Somebody in town was murdered. The king wants justice but has no idea who committed the murder. The king says that his servant must be killed as retribution for the murder (the offense) even though his servant did not commit the murder. The king will punish an innocent person as recompense for the crime. Is it morally wrong of him to do this?

You agree that it's possible to reprimand somebody for an offense they didn't commit, right?

you're making a moral judgment by saying "an innocent person SHOULDN'T BE punished."


If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 6:52:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 5:02:56 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 8:04:54 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:57:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 6:04:40 PM, Chaosism wrote:

It would only have a caveat if the word "morally" wasn't in the statement because "wrong" would be ambiguous between logically wrong and morally wrong. Since the statement specified "morally wrong" it's not a loaded question and there are no caveats.

It doesn't matter that you stated "morally"; the contradiction that highjacks the statement. Again, please rephrase it so it's not internally contradictory.

It's not internally contradictory. Your line of reasoning is that it's impossible to punish an innocent person for an offense they didn't commit.

Let me restate. It's definitionally impossible to assign any truth value to it other than "yes" because you have included the qualifier within the statement, itself. It's like asking, "does x + y = z, where x + y =/= z". Even the previous question I suggested, "is it wrong to harm a person without justification?", is equally loaded, in hindsight. This is because I added "without justification" which defines it as wrong from the get-go.

As such, this is a loaded question in which it's impossible to issue an unintended answer to without causing a logical contradiction. Whether you intend for it or not, the logical truth of the statement overrides that of any moral truth value. This is why I've repeated asked you to rephrase the question in a way in which a definitional contradiction (for one of the answers) is not built-in.

Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Therefore this line of reasoning is false.

Yes, but only as a mistake or error, which is not subject to moral value. This only occurs when it is not known that the punished person is innocent. If the person was known to be innocent, then they would not be qualified for punishment, by definition. And if some "punishment" is enacted anyway, then it's for some other purpose masquerading as punishment.

Mathematics is an independent system from the world. We can derive mathematical truths strictly from within that system without regard to how it relates to the word. The statement "the sum of two and two is tautological with nine" is a false statement by virtue of internal definition, alone. We created the system of math, so we defined the numbers and operations that are in effect.

I'm not going to agree or disagree with this. I just fail to see how this is analogous to my statement "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong." This isn't an example of an analytical statement.

It is because it the only possible truth value for it can be derived from the definitions, alone. As stated above, this limits the ability to consider the moral value of such a statement, because the question is rigged.

It does take consideration of the world to evaluate its fault.

If you disagree with the above, how so?

Because it's not analytically false. It's a synthetic proposition.

I think this is sufficiently addressed, above.

Is it possible to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit? If not, there's no internal contradiction here. Then, from that point, we can ask ourselves whether it's morally wrong to punish an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit. I don't see the problem here.

Actually, I don't think it's technically possible. The only way punishment can be dispensed is if the punishers are mistaken, and in this case, it's only perceived (mistakenly) as punishment. In reality, even though it may be called "punishment", it's not by definition because the person would have to be guilty of the offence as a qualifier, because guilt is built into the definition of "punishment".

Here's some propositional logic (for no particular reason ;P):

p=a suspect is punished, a=action is taken against the suspect, g=the suspect is guilty

P1) p <> (a & g) :: This premise is definitional; punishment entails action towards a guilty suspect.
+P2) ~g :: Assumed Conditional Proof; the suspect is innocent.
+P3) ~a v ~g :: P2, Addition (logical rule of inference)
+P4) ~(a & g) :: P3, DeMorgan's Rule (logical rule of inference)
+P5) ~p :: P1, Equivelence & P4, Modus Tollens (more logical rules)
C) ~g > ~p :: P2-P5, Conditional Proof; if the suspect is not guilty, then the suspect is not actually being punished.

Why is moral truth treated differently?

Because moral truths solely refer back to the disposition and will of one's mind.

Can something that lacks intent ever behave immorally? No. The source from which moral truths derive must be from mind and this mind must possess intent. This is why, if objective morality is true, God must exist.

OK. This is, of course, assuming that a moral standard is objectively existent. I still reject that.

I don't believe that's true. We each have our own standard by which to make comparisons. And how have you determined that objective morality hasn't changed??

Every known society punishes for theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity. This hasn't changed. If objective morality is false, how do you explain this trend?

What about slavery? That's certainly changed. And regarding the listed examples, while they haven't categorically changed, what is considered morally right and wrong within those categories has changed significantly over time.

For example, theft as evolved to include intellectual property and plagiarism when it wasn't before (i.e., the New Testament authors did this).

Rape has certainly changed and people have found it acceptable in some circumstances (e.g. the Bible: OT, Droit du seigneur).
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

Murder will *always* be wrong, by definition (because the moral judgement is already built into the word). However, the circumstances surrounding justified killing have change significantly, for instance, in eighteenth century English law, it was considered a justifiable homicide if a husband killed a man ravishing his wife.
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

What the heck is a "moral fact"? I've never seen a clear answer.

The title of this topic.

That, I'm disputing. Can you give me another example of a moral fact that isn't also explicitly contradictory?

torturing infants for fun is morally wrong

Demonstrate how this is indisputable, thus, qualifying as a fact. I can demonstrate with overwhelming certainly that a rock exists, factually, by a number of reliable tests, of which the results can be consistently acquired without dependence on my own testimony.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 7:01:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 6:31:54 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/23/2016 5:36:15 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/23/2016 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 7:48:11 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

'Is punishing an innocent person morally wrong?' That's a loaded question and you're trying to force a specific answer. Would you care to rephrase? I would suggest "Is harming an innocent person morally wrong?"

How is it a loaded question? Innocent people are punished for offenses they didn't commit all the time. Why is it *morally wrong* to punish innocent people for offenses they didn't commit?

Because the question has the answer built in. It's like asking if a blue car is red. By definition, a blue car is not red much like an innocent person deserves no punishment. It is a dilemna built on semantics rather than morality.

I think you're confusing lots of different pieces here.

"punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is much different than "a person who didn't commit an offense committed an offense." Why is it morally wrong to reprimand somebody for an offense that they didn't commit?

Because they didn't commit an offense (ie They're innocent). The answer is built into the question.

suppose we're in a society that exised thousands of years ago. Somebody in town was murdered. The king wants justice but has no idea who committed the murder. The king says that his servant must be killed as retribution for the murder (the offense) even though his servant did not commit the murder. The king will punish an innocent person as recompense for the crime. Is it morally wrong of him to do this?

You agree that it's possible to reprimand somebody for an offense they didn't commit, right?

Of course, but I don't think making that into an absolute moral statement follows. Is it always wrong to harm innocents, Ben?

you're making a moral judgment by saying "an innocent person SHOULDN'T BE punished."

I'm not saying that. I think generally it would be wrong to harm innocents, but I can also envision circumstances when harming innocents might be the right thing to do. So, semantics aside, your premise is not an illustration of an absolute moral fact.


If the above statement is objectively true, God exists.

The above statement is objectively true.

God exists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

I'm on a short break so I can't respond to your other points yet. Basically, our fundamental disagreement is over whether "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is tautological or not.

It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty an offense.

Do you think the above statement is true by definition?
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 10:50:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 10:12:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

I'm on a short break so I can't respond to your other points yet. Basically, our fundamental disagreement is over whether "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is tautological or not.

It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty an offense.

Do you think the above statement is true by definition?

No, I don't think this one is true by definition; that's a better statement. That said, I don't think this statement is universally true.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 11:09:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 10:50:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:12:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

I'm on a short break so I can't respond to your other points yet. Basically, our fundamental disagreement is over whether "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is tautological or not.

It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty an offense.

Do you think the above statement is true by definition?

No, I don't think this one is true by definition; that's a better statement. That said, I don't think this statement is universally true.

Ok, great.

I'm still not following how this differs in meaning from "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong."

This statement expanded literally means "to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty of an offense is morally wrong."

"Morally wrong" and "immoral" are synonymous.

By taking "is morally wrong" AKA "immoral" and rearranging it to be at the beginning of the sentence doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

What we're left with is "It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty of an offense."

So I'm confused on why you still believe the sentence stated one way is definitionally true but not definitionally true stated another way if they have the exact same meaning.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2016 11:23:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/23/2016 11:09:45 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:50:52 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/23/2016 10:12:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 6/22/2016 3:10:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 6/22/2016 2:43:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong.

This is logically wrong. Punishment implies a conviction of guilt, which is logically false in said person is defined to be innocent. You are smuggling in a moral truth value under the guise of a non-moral truth value. Reword this statement in such a way that it isn't explicitly and internally contradictory.

I'm on a short break so I can't respond to your other points yet. Basically, our fundamental disagreement is over whether "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is tautological or not.

It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty an offense.

Do you think the above statement is true by definition?

No, I don't think this one is true by definition; that's a better statement. That said, I don't think this statement is universally true.

Ok, great.

I'm still not following how this differs in meaning from "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong."

This statement expanded literally means "to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty of an offense is morally wrong."

"Morally wrong" and "immoral" are synonymous.

By taking "is morally wrong" AKA "immoral" and rearranging it to be at the beginning of the sentence doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

What we're left with is "It is immoral to inflict a penalty for an offense on a person who is not guilty of an offense."

So I'm confused on why you still believe the sentence stated one way is definitionally true but not definitionally true stated another way if they have the exact same meaning.

While "punishment" implies that the person is guilty, your new statement doesn't carry that implication. The "penalty for an offence" becomes arbitrary because it's no longer tied to what the person was previously implied to be guilty of.

Old:
Crime X is punishable by penalty A. Person S is being punished for crime X with penalty A. "Punishment" implies that Person S is guilty of Crime X, or else it wouldn't be punishment, by definition. It is then contradictory to state that Person S is innocent of crime X.

New:
Crime X is punishable by penalty A. Person S is being assigned penalty A, even though Person X didn't commit crime X. (There's no assumption in this statement that Person S is guilty of crime X.)

I know this seems pretty semantic, but I do see a significant difference. Do understand me a little better, now?