 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It struck me yesterday reading of the Fritzl case and his statement that [i]"I realise now that I am not normal, and I see that somebody who did what I did cannot be regarded as normal."[/i] that were he NOT to have imprisoned his own daughter and destroyed her life he could quite easily instead have been out destroying lives in wider society.
So, would it be [u]preferable to society[/u] that he take out his [i]abnormality[/i] on one person, his own flesh and blood, for 24 years [b]OR[/b] that he didnt and instead posed a risk of rape and sexual assault to the women in his community WITH the equal chance that he might have been caught much earlier than after 24 years?
What kind of a question is that??
one of relative cost to society, which is greater?
What a ridiculous question Stoner!!
There is no choice in that question. The answer can't be that simple.
No doubt, you'll get your required result. 100 posts here we come
If Fritzl rode a bike, was it a singlespeed or geared?
Which tyres for Amstetten?
If Fritzl rode a bike, was it a singlespeed or geared?
and indeed which ever one he did, which would have a greater impact on society?
Methinks they're questions that normal people don't ask, just be glad he got caught, and feel sorry for those affected by him. Thus ends my participation.
Normal people ask philisophical questions about the world around them all the time. Even Smee.
Better to be burned or frozen to death? - discuss. Obviously a pointless question, but better than the original one.
definately frozen to death. Numbness and the slowing down of cognition will always be preferable to the hot thing that goes with the burning.
I think your proviso about the chance of his being caught undermines the plausibility of the scenario rather, but fair enough. Viewed on a strict utility basis, of the sort that NICE might use I suppose, being raped is presumably subject to some sort of diminishing scale of horror. The first time it happens is (for many people) presumably considerably worse than the the 20th. I hesitate to use the words "get used to it", but there must be some possibility of getting numbed, and coping. So, we might postulate that Fritzl raping his daughter X number of times caused less total human suffering than his raping X number fo women once each.
BUT, the lasting harm suffered is presumably magnified. It is not an unreasonable leap to suggest that the difficulty of rehabilitating someone who has been raped repeatedly is vastly greater than that of rehabilitating someone who has been raped once.
So we would need a mechanism to adjudicate between the immediate and lasting harm effects of the two scenarios.
However, this treatment of the subject is unfortunate as it treats the subjects of the rapes as part of a larger calculation of social good, as something other than ends in their own right. Postulating a choice between the two outcomes suggests a capability to influence the outcome. Exercising such a choice, if one could, would rightly be seen as morally highly problematic by most people.
Stoner - are you in Londondinium this week? We have sunshine and everything!
so this is how an economist's mind works. interesting
Exercising such a choice, if one could, would rightly be seen as morally highly problematic by most people.
I think thats where some of the others above had to get off the bus. I wasnt asking for a choice, only a view on the societal costs of two alternatives.
Stoner - are you in Londondinium this week? We have sunshine and everything!
I am indeed. Tomorrow night looking good for a beer if you're free? Been a while.
so this is how an economist's mind works. interesting
He's a lawyer, not an economist. He couldn't add up for toffee 🙂
ah, sorry, i meant you 😮
The second option would be preferable.
How many times over that 24 year period would the daughter have been raped? Thousands, each time an individual offence. Someone carrying out thousands of rapes would have been caught long before the 24 years was up.
No doubt, you'll get your required result. 100 posts here we come
I doubt it - far too serious a question, which won't possibly generate the required difference of opinions from people with entrenched viewpoints. Needs to get some hints from Smee.
one of relative cost to society, which is greater?
The point is he preyed on someone vulnerable & close to him - quite different to rape etc - so I don't think you can compare one against the other.
Perhaps you could sponsor a PhD on the subject?
The point is he preyed on someone vulnerable & close to him - quite different to rape etc - so I don't think you can compare one against the other.
He did because he could. What outlet would he have adopted if he hadnt preyed on his daughter? Golf? Or attacking strangers?
Perhaps you could sponsor a PhD on the subject?
Im sure they'll be plenty of academic analysis of all the facets of the case over the coming years anyway.
If you read the newspaper reports you will find that he is supsected of raping a number of other women in the area as well as his own daughter.
"Stoner - are you in Londondinium this week? We have sunshine and everything!"I am indeed.
Loads of sunshine here on the SW Worcestershire Alps too.
yep - it's a lovely day up here on mount malvern.
night ride tonight...
Was he not molesting the his other children/grandchildren (man, that is sooo ****ed up)?
Interesting question, though. But I feel personally, however horrific rape must surely be, for it's victims, that the pain suffered by one person, for such a long period of time, outweighs, in some sense, the ordeal suffered by anyone who is raped just once, as they at least can rebuild their lives afterward, and are not imprisoned in a cellar. One the 'outside', victims would be able to get counselling and support. Something his daughter did not.
This has been one of the most disturbing cases I've ever heard about. Granted, there is butchery of Human Beings, on a vast scale, I know. Which seems worse, in some ways. But what disturbs me most about Fritzl, is the cold, calculating manner of his acts. The fact that he planned and organised the construction of that basement, aand went to great lengths to keep things secret, from the entire outside World, really freaks me out.
And then you see pics, and he's not some crazed Charles Bronson tatooed lunatic, but an ordinary, tired looking old man.
Here's another: Was he worse than Shipman? Shipman, after all, was motivated by money. And although he did murder lots and lots of people, it could be argued that he did it in a very humane manner. Shipman's victims would not have suffered much pain, I'd imagine. Indeed, it does seem that he was concerned with not causing his victims unecessary suffering. And his subsequent suicide suggests he may have been overwhelmed by a sense of remorse.
Fritzl was motivated by sexual power. The only reward was to his ego. So far, he seems not to have shown any real remorse. Indeed, is the man who did that to his own children, even capable of any remorse? Because surely, if he were, then at some stage he would have thought 'hang on, this is a bit wrong'. He din't.
So, who was worser? Shipman or Fritzl?
That's an interesting one for the pub...
depends how quick the temperature change was actually i think.
we associate burning with being a very fast reaction: fire
and freezing with being slower, ice cubes take a few hours to form in the freezer.
if someone poured liquid nitrogen over you, I reckon that would hurt in the same way hot tar would.
a burns a burn.
if i could control the speed, i would go with freezing though.
to cook slowly (a la sunburn) would hurt, to freeze slowly, a la, stuck in the artic naked, would still suck, but i dont think you would know about it as much, wouldnt you just go to sleep (i get very tired very very quickly in the cold if i dont keep moving)
Fritzl's a monster, and needs destroying.(like you would destroy a Rabid dog)
There is only one way to answer that questions - which isn't as ridiculous as it initially sounds because of this answer:
Any civilised, decent society would have to conclude that both outcomes are as abhorrent as each other; that one life is worth as much as many lives and that any situation that purports to require you to make a decision between one versus many, must by default demand an alternative course of action to the one that that (the one versus many) decision requires.
He did because he could. What outlet would he have adopted if he hadnt preyed on his daughter? Golf? Or attacking strangers?
You are asking something really pointless to me. I'm no expert but I have heard/read that sexual abusers do not rape strangers - the motivations & psychologies are different.
he was previoulsy jailed for rape Al. So I made an assumption that he was indifferent to both crimes. Again the question is not about choice or indeed his psycholgies but on the relative impact on both his family and his community that the two alternatives would have applied.