Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Assume Nothing

Ethics and Morality

Recommended Posts

So then war is ethical since it is not against the law? I can't say I agree with you on that point.

Riku was just driving the point away from war and into the civilian justice system, because pulling up war is not only irrelevant in civilian courts but that it's an lazy excuse to dismiss an argument.


"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. The fact that war is an acceptable form of killing another person directly contradicts his statement "I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life," and supports my argument that the death penalty is barbaric and immoral.

 

Edit: I should have posted that part earlier, but that's what I was hinting at.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. The fact that war is an acceptable form of killing another person directly contradicts his statement "I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life," and supports my argument that the death penalty is barbaric and immoral.

 

Edit: I should have posted that part earlier, but that's what I was hinting at.

I get what you're saying. I should have added unlawfully somewhere in that statement.

 

Anyways, I believe war can be justified, but the methods of war can be unethical.


lighviolet1lk4.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use a different definition myself than unlawful. I would go with 'without mitigating circumstance such as duress or self defense'. Same thing, but its a bit more robust. I also feel like war is a whole other can of worms. War is also at least two entirely separate issues. There is war where you are repelling an invasion, which I would consider to be self defense, and war where you are invading someone else (this gets called peace keeping a lot for some reason). There is also what I would consider true peace keeping, where a 3rd party military is invited in to act as a deterrent and enforcement to keep two other sides from warring. In other words, to keep the peace (how people ever manage to apply this to an occupational force is mind boggling for me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. The fact that war is an acceptable form of killing another person directly contradicts his statement "I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life," and supports my argument that the death penalty is barbaric and immoral.

 

Edit: I should have posted that part earlier, but that's what I was hinting at.

I get what you're saying. I should have added unlawfully somewhere in that statement.

 

Anyways, I believe war can be justified, but the methods of war can be unethical.

I agree with your statement on war; but I'm still against capital punishment.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morals are the agreed upon actions considered to be good or bad in a society. Your average person will be reasonably moral while there is an incentive in a society to do so such as not to make enemies or get ostracized by the rest of the community. Thats all it is.

 

On an individual level morals are the actions you personally consider to be good or bad. These sources can be religious, philosophical, or social.

 

Also another thing about morals is that if you look at them they are all commands not arguments thats why you cant change peoples minds about what their morals because its not an argument its a command (often made to look like an argument).

 

 

Lets take an example:

 

Animals are living creatures who feel pain and enjoy life, therefor you OUGHT TO NOT EAT animals.

 

 

The bold is the "argument" the underline is the command the argument is meant to support. Simply put by definition of argument, an argument cannot support a command only a proposition such as "This water has healing powers" you can argue why it does have healing powers.

 

However when you argue why you ought to or not to do something it has no meaning you cant get someone to do something by pure logic, its a fallacious argument or otherwise irrelevant argument to support it. Typically its a threat of force or some incentive to listen to the command. Such as not getting punished by the government, the church or an angry mob.

 

 

 

 

The death penalty is cruel, and should never be used as a form of punishment.

 

 

This translates to "I have a philosophical/religious/social reason for being against the death penalty" therefor "You ought not kill." In this case sees_all1 probably is directing the command to the government.

 

But what I'd want to get across is its not an argument its a command, they either listen or they don't. Its not about the "argument" you present its about the incentives to follow that command, which is always fallacious.

 

I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life.

 

Riku is simply saying here that if you kill someone you ought to kill yourself or be killed by someone else. Again this is a command at the end follow by a threat of force. Either kill yourself or we will do it for you. This is similar to stoning "immoral" women in Muslim countries

 

This isnt a logical argument only incentive based (dont kill anyone if you dont want to die).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's more cruel to knowingly allow serial killers another chance to kill again than to use the death penalty, as cruel as it still may be. The problem arises with proof, but what we need to focus on are the many cases where it's clear who the offender is - they'll even taunt the public about it in order to embed their "legacy" into our minds as they walk to their refuge. And the saddest part... they "won". Thus why the premise behind capital punishment is that it deters the incentive and willingness to commit atrocities more than any other sort of lawful operation we can come up with, unless there are any takers? Anyone want to argue psych clinics steer the bad guys away?

 

(Notice I am speaking specifically of individuals who make an "art" out of killing random people - not just aggressive confrontations that escalate into violent crimes of passion. Which are still obviously terrible, but I only think the death penalty should be reserved for those who live to put other lives at their mercy, and there is direct evidence of their offense and motive.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not true at all. The fact that war is an acceptable form of killing another person directly contradicts his statement "I say that if you take another person's life then you forfeit your own right to life," and supports my argument that the death penalty is barbaric and immoral.

 

Edit: I should have posted that part earlier, but that's what I was hinting at.

I get what you're saying. I should have added unlawfully somewhere in that statement.

 

Anyways, I believe war can be justified, but the methods of war can be unethical.

Killing in a civilian sense can also be justified, if in self-defence and within reasonable force. Should they also face the death penalty? How do you differentiate war ethically into the type where one country invades another as a direct attack against that country's sovereignty, or the type where a group of people within a country rebel against their country of origin in order to gain their autonomy, such that we can conveniently deduce which is justifiable and which is not?

 

War isn't the only justifiable way of killing somebody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's more cruel to knowingly allow serial killers another chance to kill again than to use the death penalty, as cruel as it still may be. The problem arises with proof, but what we need to focus on are the many cases where it's clear who the offender is - they'll even taunt the public about it in order to embed their "legacy" into our minds as they walk to their refuge. And the saddest part... they "won". Thus why the premise behind capital punishment is that it deters the incentive and willingness to commit atrocities more than any other sort of lawful operation we can come up with, unless there are any takers? Anyone want to argue psych clinics steer the bad guys away?

 

What if I told you that capital punishment, even according to many police officers, doesn't deter crime?


Steam | PM me for BBM PIN

 

Nine naked men is a technological achievement. Quote of 2013.

 

PCGamingWiki - Let's fix PC gaming!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if I told you that capital punishment, even according to many police officers, doesn't deter crime?

 

Then I will be just as lazy and post another cherry-picking site saying it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's more cruel to knowingly allow serial killers another chance to kill again than to use the death penalty, as cruel as it still may be.

I agree, but the alternative to the death penalty is not "let them kill again," it's keeping them in prison until they don't have a pulse.


99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

--Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, Manhattan, NY[3] "I am not convinced that capital punishment, in and of itself, is a deterrent to crime because most people do not think about the death penalty before they commit a violent or capital crime."

 

Actually a great statement. I doubt anyone really thinks about the punishment before committing a crime.

 

But then this:

 

"Strengthening families and neighborhoods, punishing criminals swiftly and surely, controlling illegal drugs, and gun control are considered much more important than the death penalty."

 

If they managed to do this, there would not be little for the death penalty.

 

I, for one, has always been for the death penalty. Mostly because of where i grew up. I know what my country was like with the death penalty. Crime rates were a lot lower. A LOT. When the death penalty was taken away the crime rate shot up, but the death penalty was not the only reason for that. There were many other factors that made the crime rate go up. Then i moved to an Arabic country where i was once again back in a country (rather a region) where corporal punishment was allowed. The crime rate is one of the lowest in the world, so of course being the ignorant person that i am, i was quick to assume that it was because of the corporal punishment, but there are also a great deal of other factors that influence the lack of crime.

 

So to make my point clear, i am now in a position where i am not for, nor against it. I believe that there is a time and a place for everything. If a serial killer is found guilty, without any reasonable doubt, of his crimes then i believe the death penalty might be a suitable punishment. If there is any doubt at all, even the slightest doubt, then it might not be a best option. But then where does one draw the line between the two? And this is something that will always keep the death penalty away from many countries.

 

As for pulling the plug and ending someone's life. For me, that's a tough one. I can easily sit here, behind my computer, my whole family healthy, saying that if one of them were to be in a state of vegetation and the day comes where i would have to pull the plug i would do it without thinking twice. Pull the plug and end their lives, because a life in a vegetated state is no life after all, right? But when that day really comes chances are i'll never get myself to the point where i can really do it, nor authorize it. at the end of the day you're still going to lose someone you really loved. At least in the vegetated state you were able to see them, and talk to them, and feel them. Even though it might break your heart, seeing them in such a state, it is better than staring at a grave stone. Selfish, perhaps.

 

My thoughts on morality and ethics. Well it's something i've never really given much thought too. I've always been a sheep following the herd. If they tell me this is wrong, i believe them and ask no questions. If they tell me this is right, i believe them and ask no questions. But sooner or later your mind starts wondering about things, and mine only really did when i was forced to live among a new culture where i was exposed to new habits, a new set of morals. It goes without saying that i realised there is no right or wrong, its all subjective. It's all dependent of your morals, which are also subjective. So if you want to ask what makes an action moral or ethic, you really need to ask yourself what you believe is moral or ethic because our opinions might be totally different, and even if they aren't different, our personalities will be and this will also influence our opinions when it comes to punishment. I now this sounds redundant so i'll try give an example:

 

Y: What he did was totally immoral.

 

X: Yes, i totally agree.

 

(Same opinion. What he did was immoral.)

 

Y: He should be locked up, and the key thrown away.

 

X: No, he should be strapped to the electric chair.

 

Y: That's just barbaric.

 

X: And his actions weren't?

 

So although they both agree that his actions were immoral, they feel different about the way he should be punished.

 

(Okay i just realised i have no idea where i'm going with this. I lost my train of thought.)

 

Edit: I have to say that i am not really for a live-sentence either. I am not really sure what prison life is like, having never been there myself, but from what i understand is that they have a bed to sleep on, daily meals, and they get to spend time working out. They're even allowed to take showers. These guys are criminals, yet they get everything for free once they go to jail. It might not be the best, heck it's far from the best, but they probably lead a much better live than many homeless people. Just doesn't seem right. The "justice system" is something i'll never be able to wrap my mind around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, but the alternative to the death penalty is not "let them kill again," it's keeping them in prison until they don't have a pulse.

 

But prison still has other inmates, guards, and the chance of escape. They're not quite out of society yet. I know prison homicides are rare, but it does happen.

 

(Warning: Not for the weak-stomached.)

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/31/1093569/autopsy-reveals-details-of-prison.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2001-04-03/news/anatomy-of-a-prison-murder/

 

Edit: I have to say that i am not really for a live-sentence either. I am not really sure what prison life is like, having never been there myself, but from what i understand is that they have a bed to sleep on, daily meals, and they get to spend time working out. They're even allowed to take showers. These guys are criminals, yet they get everything for free once they go to jail. It might not be the best, heck it's far from the best, but they probably lead a much better live than many homeless people. Just doesn't seem right. The "justice system" is something i'll never be able to wrap my mind around.

 

What's worse is some criminals verbally admit to liking it in there - some even purposely put themselves in there. Hell, some criminals are socialized into being better criminals in there.

 

Overall I just think we have a lot to work on when it comes to the most important matter of our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zierro: Hence my position that if they cannot be safely prevented from committing further crime, CP is acceptable. But once again, I've never heard of such a scenario...

 

There are some nice things about prison, sure. But it doesn't change the fact that you're still being kept in a cage for the rest of your life.

 

Personally, I'd rather have the DP than life in prison.


polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that as "I'd rather have DP than life in prison."

 

Yuck, dude.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you prefer, a country where criminals are not punished very hard in most people's views and has a low crimerate, or one with a higher crimerate, but criminals get punished for what they do?

 

The vengeance approach to justice doesn't work. Death penalty doesn't make most murders less likely. Next to nobody thinks of the punishment before committing such a crime. The only time where this would be the case is if you have an organized criminal operation going to make money. But even there, I doubt it's going to help much.

 

On the other hand, resocializing criminals does a lot in reducing. Norway, which takes a very "mild", as some might call it, approach has one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world.

 

 

As for death penalty, it's an absolute no-go. No trial can be guaranteed to be 100% correct and there have been a LOT of court errors in the past already. I don't want to know how many innocent people died by execution. Death is final and such a sentence should only ever be able to be passed if there is a 100% certainty - which there isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a slightly unrelated note, I've got a question - If capital punishment is too severe for 'just' murderers, how about convicted terrorists or similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for death penalty, it's an absolute no-go. No trial can be guaranteed to be 100% correct and there have been a LOT of court errors in the past already. I don't want to know how many innocent people died by execution. Death is final and such a sentence should only ever be able to be passed if there is a 100% certainty - which there isn't.

 

What about video-taped evidence or a confession? If there's any sort of lingering mystery at all, I surely wouldn't want someone to be punished, let alone killed.

 

Personally, I'd rather have the DP than life in prison.

 

Same here. TIFers just can't make it in the big house.

 

On a slightly unrelated note, I've got a question - If capital punishment is too severe for 'just' murderers, how about convicted terrorists or similar?

 

What is a "just" murder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as I can avoid being raped, I would rather spend 40-50 years reading and writing behind bars than being killed at 22.


phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest jrhairychest

What would you prefer, a country where criminals are not punished very hard in most people's views and has a low crimerate, or one with a higher crimerate, but criminals get punished for what they do?

 

The vengeance approach to justice doesn't work. Death penalty doesn't make most murders less likely. Next to nobody thinks of the punishment before committing such a crime. The only time where this would be the case is if you have an organized criminal operation going to make money. But even there, I doubt it's going to help much.

 

On the other hand, resocializing criminals does a lot in reducing. Norway, which takes a very "mild", as some might call it, approach has one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world.

 

 

As for death penalty, it's an absolute no-go. No trial can be guaranteed to be 100% correct and there have been a LOT of court errors in the past already. I don't want to know how many innocent people died by execution. Death is final and such a sentence should only ever be able to be passed if there is a 100% certainty - which there isn't.

 

I disagree. Most of this is from a quote from myself from a different article so forgive me but it puts the point I made across.

 

Norway already has a low crime rate. It also has a much lower population than the UK (4.8m against 60m+ in two countries of roughly equal size). Norway also has different values to countries like the UK and seems more community spirited. That went the way of the Dodo years ago in the UK thanks to the labour government and it’s mass immigration policies, its softness on crime and its inability to organise a pissup in a brewery. That shows no signs of improvement yet. Norway is also not hamstrung by the decisions on its policy by the EU, as it’s not a member so it doesn’t have the same issues. It can deal with things how it sees fit. It’s apples and oranges.

 

Rehabilitation costs money and it isn’t guaranteed to work. Then what? You rehabilitate them again? A simple bit of maths could say “what is the offending rate of a criminal in prison on the rest of society?” – 0%. Rehabilitation sounds all well and good but in reality it’s the cheaper option to prison. Ask those people whose lives have been made a misery by the dregs of society what they want to happen to offenders - They’d choose prison I’ll guarantee you. The UK is a retributive society. It always will be. Polls as recent as 2010 shows that at least half the UK population supports the death penalty, more in specific murder crimes. That should say quite a lot. It is not the attitude by our liberal politicians simply because they’ve never really understood what society has to put up with. Most are wealthy and live away from the undesirable elements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given I'm not a sociopath, inherent to the fact I've not yet killed anyone, I can't possibly know what I'd want or not want if I did become one.

 

Personally, I'm not a great fan in 'eye for an eye'. It's like saying, "I think you did wrong there, so I'm going to do that same thing just to prove I'm in the right."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for death penalty, it's an absolute no-go. No trial can be guaranteed to be 100% correct and there have been a LOT of court errors in the past already. I don't want to know how many innocent people died by execution. Death is final and such a sentence should only ever be able to be passed if there is a 100% certainty - which there isn't.

 

What about video-taped evidence or a confession? If there's any sort of lingering mystery at all, I surely wouldn't want someone to be punished, let alone killed.

 

There were instances where the "murderer" confessed yet was not guilty

 

Personally, I'd rather have the DP than life in prison.

 

 

Same here. TIFers just can't make it in the big house.

 

On a slightly unrelated note, I've got a question - If capital punishment is too severe for 'just' murderers, how about convicted terrorists or similar?

 

What is a "just" murder?

 

I think he means a single murder as opposed to someone who commited mass murder. I still don't agree, there is always a risk of it being wrong. Especially for "terrorists", there have been quite a few who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time basically.

 

 

What would you prefer, a country where criminals are not punished very hard in most people's views and has a low crimerate, or one with a higher crimerate, but criminals get punished for what they do?

 

The vengeance approach to justice doesn't work. Death penalty doesn't make most murders less likely. Next to nobody thinks of the punishment before committing such a crime. The only time where this would be the case is if you have an organized criminal operation going to make money. But even there, I doubt it's going to help much.

 

On the other hand, resocializing criminals does a lot in reducing. Norway, which takes a very "mild", as some might call it, approach has one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world.

 

 

As for death penalty, it's an absolute no-go. No trial can be guaranteed to be 100% correct and there have been a LOT of court errors in the past already. I don't want to know how many innocent people died by execution. Death is final and such a sentence should only ever be able to be passed if there is a 100% certainty - which there isn't.

 

I disagree. Most of this is from a quote from myself from a different article so forgive me but it puts the point I made across.

 

Norway already has a low crime rate. It also has a much lower population than the UK (4.8m against 60m+ in two countries of roughly equal size). Norway also has different values to countries like the UK and seems more community spirited. That went the way of the Dodo years ago in the UK thanks to the labour government and it’s mass immigration policies, its softness on crime and its inability to organise a pissup in a brewery. That shows no signs of improvement yet. Norway is also not hamstrung by the decisions on its policy by the EU, as it’s not a member so it doesn’t have the same issues. It can deal with things how it sees fit. It’s apples and oranges.

 

Rehabilitation costs money and it isn’t guaranteed to work. Then what? You rehabilitate them again? A simple bit of maths could say “what is the offending rate of a criminal in prison on the rest of society?” – 0%. Rehabilitation sounds all well and good but in reality it’s the cheaper option to prison. Ask those people whose lives have been made a misery by the dregs of society what they want to happen to offenders - They’d choose prison I’ll guarantee you. The UK is a retributive society. It always will be. Polls as recent as 2010 shows that at least half the UK population supports the death penalty, more in specific murder crimes. That should say quite a lot. It is not the attitude by our liberal politicians simply because they’ve never really understood what society has to put up with. Most are wealthy and live away from the undesirable elements.

 

Okay, just to clear at few things at first: It's not proven conlusively yet whether capital punishment, rehabilitation or whatever works better. I am a firm believer in rehabilitation, but that doesn't mean I can't be wrong.

 

I'm not sure if rehabilitation actually costs more money than a life prison sentence. I doubt it, but to be quite honest I'm not going to search statistics on it.

 

Of course somebody in prison for life won't be able to commit a crime - yet only very few people would even receive a life sentence, and if you're going for rehabilitation you wouldn't let someone like that simply walk free after some time either.

 

I don't doubt victims would choose prison, but for me the ultimate goal of laws and justice is to lower the crime rate, not to dish out vengeance. Often enough victims don't get their joy back from the offender being punished either.

 

And I disagree with saying the UK will always be a retributive society. A lot of things can happen in the future.

 

edit: Maybe I should also add that I personally believe that humans are completely determined, which is one of the reasons why I disagree with vengeance - I can honestly say I do not know how I would stand on this without that belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ought to clarify; when I use the term just, I mean it as 'only' - in the context that they merely committed a homicide, as opposed to committing genocide or mass murder/killings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I'm not a great fan in 'eye for an eye'. It's like saying, "I think you did wrong there, so I'm going to do that same thing just to prove I'm in the right."

 

While I won't deny that it's hypocrisy by definition of the word, it is also taking advantage of the fact that people are generally self-centered and it implores them to realize the negative repercussions of the thing they've been dealing out to others. Sometimes it can be a great problem-solver and sometimes it just makes matters worse, and this fact comes to life when you read the links Furah and I exchanged.

 

I think it's just a matter of personal preference of what constitutes as true moral integrity. I think it's justifiable to get your hands dirty if it's done for the greater good, whereas some see it as betraying your own code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it's just a matter of personal preference of what constitutes as true moral integrity. I think it's justifiable to get your hands dirty if it's done for the greater good, whereas some see it as betraying your own code.

Surely, locking people up until nature eventually takes its toll is also "done for the greater good". The problem is, capital punishment relies on a 'Do as I say, not as I do' philosophy (due to the inherent hypocrisy of the punishment), and generally, I don't think that approach works for people once they reach the age of eleven and start questioning the legitimacy of the figures of authority telling them to 'Do as I say...'

 

As for being self-centered, and I realise we're going on a tangent, but can't people be self-centered for the right reasons as well as the wrong reasons, and for good causes as well as bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.