# Even Spider-Man is morally wrong...



## kenposcum

I had a long talk with one of my instructors a few years ago about vigilanteism and stopping bad people if you knew they were bad.  For instance, suppose you had a female friend (or a male friend, I suppose) who was raped.  She didn't go to the cops right away, due to psychological trauma, and instead she went to you to cry.  The situation makes it clear to you that this guy had a clear modus operandi: too perfect a predator in terms of setting up his situation.  He's probably done it before, will probably do it again.
I was of the opinion that someone should go intercept this guy and cut his ears off.  But my instructor said, no.  That's wrong.  Violence is only justified when it is to be used to prevent violence against oneself or another, AT THAT MOMENT.  Thusly, to cut this perv's ears off is wrong, because it is seeking the violence-doer in order to inflict violence upon him, not justly responding in an emergency with violence to quell violence.  
So in a strict moral sense, even Spidey is wrong because he is seeking out those that committ violent criminal acts and inflicting violence upon them (sure, he's no Punisher, but you understand the point).  It is a step beyond the idea that "Unprokoved violence is wrong."  Sure Mr. Evil Rapist provoked me with his actions, but I didn't WITNESS it (and don't say that it didn't happen, because...in my hypothetical, you KNOW in your heart that it happened) therefore an expression of violence to mitigate this person's violence is wrong.
So what do you think?  Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world.  Violence is always wrong:  true or false?:asian:


----------



## cdhall

I just became a Christian last year but I think that even Jesus said that he would not strike back against an attacker.  And come to think of it, he didn't.

So I think that as a Christian I have to say that violence is always morally wrong.

But I'm not perfect and I would really prefer to stuff some SOB who was trying to attack me. :karate:

As far as Spidey goes, yes.  He is hunting down criminals instead of helping the police.  He's a vigilante.  I like Batman because he hunts them down when/because the authorities can't or won't but that is also not a Christian thing.

This Christianity business is confusing.  I'm hoping to make it to Black Belt and then meditate on whether I want to teach or continue after that.  I have a lot invested so far and there are the benefits of exercise and self-defense that I think have some merit.

I guess my answer is that violence is morally wrong but I prefer to use it in self-defense and sometimes in retaliation nonetheless and that Spidey is a vigilante but maybe not to Batman's extent.


----------



## ace

U are rite as far as the law is consernd


But Eye for an Eye
If someone hurt someone i cared about.
It's game over & light Out! 

:armed:


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by ace _
> 
> *U are rite as far as the law is consernd
> 
> 
> But Eye for an Eye
> If someone hurt someone i cared about.
> It's game over & light Out!
> 
> :armed: *



Just to play "devils advocate" what if the person you went to go kick ***, happened to be better than you at some MA and in turn kicked your ***, or injured you seriously? Then you would be in a situation as well.


7sm


----------



## Blindside

No cops anywhere?

I go after the guy, stalk him, ambush him, he'll never see me, and ideally never see the muzzle flash.  

Heck, the US is contemplating a war based on a first strike policy, the parallels to this scenario are pretty damn good. 

Lamont


----------



## ace

It would not be a game!!!!!!!




:angry: I came from the streets
Before i walked in the Dojo!

U would let this hapen!!
??????????????????


Eye for an Eye

:2xbird:


----------



## Nightingale

with regards to Christianity...  I learned this in a Christian theology class I took in college...

The phrase "Turn the other cheek"  has to be taken in historical context.  At that time period, in that society, slapping someone across the face was an insult, equivalent to spitting on someone or giving them "the finger" today.   In light of this context, "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as a directive to ignore petty insults and not make mountains out of molehills.  That passage in the bible doesn't address the concept of self-defense at all.




> from http://www.gac.20m.com/self-def.htm
> 
> "But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also"
> 
> Jesus specifically mentions the right cheek here , even  though a blow from a right-handed person would normally fall on the left cheek. This probably means that the blow is delivered with the back of the hand, since then it would indeed fall on the right cheek. We know for certain that such a blow was considered particularly insulting. The injustice that is willingly accepted here is therefore not so much a matter of body injury as of shame. (H.N. Ridderbos. "Matthew": Bible Students Commentary. Zondervan. p. 113)




Its an interesting website.  Check it out. it discusses self-defense and gun control in a biblical context.


----------



## Despairbear

> _Originally posted by kenposcum _
> 
> *So what do you think?  Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world.  Violence is always wrong:  true or false?:asian: *



Always? Well I do not think it is possable to say ANYTHING is always right or wrong. As to morality, who's morality? That of the victim or that of the responder (you)? My morality will be vastly different than others here and vice versa. What would I do? Well that is for me to know and question myself about, it can lead to a deep introspection of one's personal philisophy. People who respond a situation with instant violance may need to examine their motives. Vengance? Retaliation? Posturing? Justice? Obligation? What drives you?


Despair Bear


----------



## authoreyes

this is a very interesting discussion....

i have often pondered issues like this...

i have a friend who is a devout pacifist who believes that violence always breeds violence..he and i have often had discussions like this and his view is that you and i (our actions which require explanation for justification) are irreguardless in the greater sense of humanity. therefore, an example must be set to break the chain of violence or else regardless of motive, etc..an act of violence will continue to be perpertrated...now, i dont know if i could always be that level headed when the situation is not just a distant philisophical discusion....however, id have to say that vigilantiasm is definetly not the answer in my opinion because as others have stated, almost anyone can find cause to justify their actions and without any kind of law there would eventually be some form of chaos.


----------



## authoreyes

blindside, good parallel about the US...


----------



## Damian Mavis

If you knew for sure that he was going to commit this act again then you are preventing him from doing it whether you wait to catch him in the act or cut him off before he even gets to that point by doing something now.  It's a tough call though.  I personally know where pedophiles and child rapists live in my own city.  It's a constant struggle to not get involved and do something stupid.

Damian Mavis
Honour TKD


----------



## jkn75

> _Originally posted by kenposcum _
> 
> *So what do you think?  Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world.  Violence is always wrong:  true or false? *


:soapbox: 
If calling the cops is pointless, who do you call when you are being robbed? hear a scream? hear a gunshot? want to break up a loud party next door? 

Next:
In your scenario, violence wouldn't always be wrong. There is violence everyday but some is directed to defend against or used to punish a perpetrator. In society, there has to be a way to keep order, hence we have laws. That's why most people don't go up to sex offender's houses, lock them in and burn it down, no matter how great the desire. If someone does, they are punished. In a society without someone to keep order, we have anarchy. Or we have what we have in Mad Max, who can quickly and efficiently intimidate and/or kill those who have wronged them or have the valuables? They rise to power and leave bodies in their wake. Whatever you think about the legal system, be happy it is there.

Justice is difficult to define and it's often hard in our society to see what is just. Justice also interplays with what is moral and even more so, into a person's own idea of what is "right". These are difficult subjects and there are no absolutes. Violence cannot always be wrong just because the basis of what is wrong is not absolute.


----------



## Radhnoti

I believe that someone suffering for wrongs they've perpetrated becomes a deterrant for others who may be contemplating a similar crime in our society.
Same reason I support the death penalty, if there's no fear of consequences for socially unacceptable deeds...why would "bad" people bother conforming at all?
Guess I'm backin' up jkn75's POV here...


----------



## Nightingale

the problem with that argument is that when someone commits a crime, they don't think they're gonna get caught, so punishment as a deterrant doesn't work.

How many of us speed on the highway?  um...I'd venture to say all of us.  How many of us  speed with a cop behind us?  I'd say none.  People only commit crimes when they're pretty darn sure that they're not going to get caught.  Its really the cop who enforces the punishment that is the deterrant, not the punishment itself.


----------



## ace

A.K.A  the Death Penalty! :idea:


----------



## lvwhitebir

> _Originally posted by kenposcum _
> 
> *Violence is always wrong:  true or false?*



Violence in self-defense is not wrong.  Violence in attack (even retaliation or prevention) is wrong, IMO.

In your scenario, if you did go and harm the guy, you would pay for it by law.  Citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands because the definition of the severity of how they were wronged is different.

For example, you might think that harming the "rapist" is the right thing to do.  A gang-banger might think that harming you is right because you looked at his girlfriend wrong.

The law keeps it constant.  No matter what you think, calling the cops is ALWAYS the right thing to do.  NEVER take things into your own hands.

WhiteBirch


----------



## authoreyes

agreed....well put


----------



## 7starmantis

Yeah, its a hard question, I mean if you attack the attacker, you are making yourself just as wrong as them, but then if your talking about a world with no legal system, who is going to administer the punishment? There has to be a legal system of some sort, if you are a christian even God says to have a system of legal workings, if you are not a christian, chaos says you must have a system.


7sm


----------



## Shinzu

i'm not cool with going around and hunting down the bad people, but if you hurt someone i love then we are going to have problems.  i'm sorry... wrong or right that is how i feel.

as far as spidy goes... chill, it's just a comic book character.  and BTW, i can't wait to get it on dvd.  nov. 11th


----------



## Carbon

Actually I think spiderman didn't attack villians.

He went looking for wrong doing, and when he found a criminal in the current process of commiting a crime he would then stop them and call the cops.

Now if you were talking about the move the punisher, then thats a whole other story.

He is what a vigilante is by definition. Living in the sewer and taking out the mobsters. I love that movie quite a bit


----------



## bdparsons

When will people understand that the punishment meeted out for any particular crime all the way up to and including the death penalty is not about deterrence but about justice.?


----------



## Carbon

How is life in prison justice for a murder committed?

Or even when they get parol.

I don't think someone can be reabilitated after they kill someone, its in their mind and will always be there.

I think that people who commit murders should be punished in the way they did the crime. Eye for an eye is what I say and you might not agree.

Jail time is what they hope for, jail is a relaxed life and unless your in a gang sector you can usually get along without having to many people hassle you.

Since your in lockdown 23 hours a day.


----------



## Royal Dragon

HAving been in a situation where I was dating a girl who was being stalked by a psyco and going through the law for help, I think today I would Kill him from the shadows before there was any paperwork that would make me a suspect after the fact.

As for a rape, where there is no reoccuring threat, I don't know. In a total lawless society, I may seek retribution if it was my wife or girlfreind, or if I have knowledge the guy is a serial preditor.

In an anarchy, your going to have people after you for stuid stuff anyway. Right or wrong you are going to have to live trying to protect yourtself from that sort of thing. You are also going to have to be constantly protecting yourself from attackers. It would be a violent world, and most would be pretty insensitive to it. In those situations, I think I'd round up the guys and go after him. In times like that, you have to make your own justice. Of course, I'd probably be the one to create a system of justice, courts and all.


----------



## KennethKu

> _Originally posted by lvwhitebir _
> 
> *Violence in self-defense is not wrong.  Violence in attack (even retaliation or prevention) is wrong, IMO.
> *



Use of force, even deadly force, in the prevention of a crime is not necessary wrong.  It depends on the nature of the crime and the degree of reasonable belief that you or a victim is about to suffer an imminenet threat to life or bodily harm.

Use of deadly force to prevent property crime, is murky. If you shot an intruder inside your home or in the process of breaking into your home, you are OK.  If you shot one in your backyard, big question.  If you live in an apt or a condo, NEVER go check outside with a gun. Those areas are for the Law Enforcement. Even if you shot a fleeing suspect, outside of your unit, you are in deep poo-poo.   Unless you happened to stop someone from been killed or raped or something that saved life.

IF you reasonably believe that you are about to be injured or raped, then use of force is sanctioned.  That falls into self-defence category.


----------



## ace

I can't nor wish to speak for anyone ele.

Eye for an Eye

Gameover & Lights out.


:bomb: :bomb: :bomb: :bomb: :bomb:


----------



## Rich Parsons

> _Originally posted by kenposcum _
> 
> *I had a long talk with one of my instructors a few years ago about vigilanteism and stopping bad people if you knew they were bad.  For instance, suppose you had a female friend (or a male friend, I suppose) who was raped.  She didn't go to the cops right away, due to psychological trauma, and instead she went to you to cry.  The situation makes it clear to you that this guy had a clear modus operandi: too perfect a predator in terms of setting up his situation.  He's probably done it before, will probably do it again.
> I was of the opinion that someone should go intercept this guy and cut his ears off.  But my instructor said, no.  That's wrong.  Violence is only justified when it is to be used to prevent violence against oneself or another, AT THAT MOMENT.  Thusly, to cut this perv's ears off is wrong, because it is seeking the violence-doer in order to inflict violence upon him, not justly responding in an emergency with violence to quell violence.
> So in a strict moral sense, even Spidey is wrong because he is seeking out those that committ violent criminal acts and inflicting violence upon them (sure, he's no Punisher, but you understand the point).  It is a step beyond the idea that "Unprokoved violence is wrong."  Sure Mr. Evil Rapist provoked me with his actions, but I didn't WITNESS it (and don't say that it didn't happen, because...in my hypothetical, you KNOW in your heart that it happened) therefore an expression of violence to mitigate this person's violence is wrong.
> So what do you think?  Suppose there were no police anywhere (thus eliminating the cop-out answer "Call the cops!" which is often pretty pointless anyway "I don't wanna do paperwork, so I'll make this a big ordeal for the victim, hopefully they'll give up"), like we're living in a Mad Max post-apocalypse world.  Violence is always wrong:  true or false?:asian: *




Let me define some terms I will use.

*Value(s):* Something that a person or family unit believes to be valuable to their survival.

*Moral(s):* These are a set of rules or guidelines that are instructed to people either through their family or religion, for the betterment of society.

*Ethic(s) or Ethical:* What Society has determined to be ethical or right for the survival of the society.

*Law(s):* What a society has decided to make a responsibility or ramifications for actions taken.

I value the physical and mental health of my friends, and if I knew how to make it better for someone, I would think it to be a good idea to do so.

If my religion or family had taught me to take an eye for an eye or deal out justice, then I could be morally right in going after said assailant.

If society supported vigilantism than it would be ethical for me to go after the assailant. Otherwise If society does not support taking the law into your own hands then it would be unethical to go after the assailant.

Since, there are laws, in the U.S.A, against assault and/or murder, society has determined that these actions are unethical. Therefore, it would be wrong to go after the assailant.


So, something could still be morally correct, but not ethical or against the law.

The Death Penalty is an issue where society has determined that the death of someone for an action they have taken has been determined to be ethical, even though the act of murder itself is unethical. This is the nature of law and ethics.

Just a discussion in philosophy and ethics.

Best wishes

Rich
:asian:


----------



## Nightingale

something to think about...

on the death certificate of someone who has died by state sanctioned execution, the cause of death is listed as "homicide."


----------



## Bod

Would I take justice into my own hands? If I was desperate enough. But I wouldn't expect society to condone it, because justice is different things to different people, and if everyone goes around making things just there would be anarchy. In fact criminals are already doing acts which they feel justified in doing:

Hitting a guy for looking at him wrong - totally justified as far as he is concerned.

Taking somehing from someone who 'has too much anyway and is probably insured' - also totally justified in his own mind.

Is capital punishment justified? It depends how well you trust your justice system to get it right, every time. GWB wants to kill Saddam for looking at him wrong.


----------



## 7starmantis

> _Originally posted by Bod _
> 
> *Would I take justice into my own hands? If I was desperate enough. But I wouldn't expect society to condone it, because justice is different things to different people, and if everyone goes around making things just there would be anarchy. In fact criminals are already doing acts which they feel justified in doing:
> 
> Hitting a guy for looking at him wrong - totally justified as far as he is concerned.
> 
> Taking somehing from someone who 'has too much anyway and is probably insured' - also totally justified in his own mind.
> 
> Is capital punishment justified? It depends how well you trust your justice system to get it right, every time. GWB wants to kill Saddam for looking at him wrong. *



I believe in capital punishment in extreme cases, but there is the issue of who is right, who is wrong, and is the accused getting a fair trial?
Lets not start a political debate in here, thats the very last thing we need!!  I personaly despise politics alltogether!!

7sm


----------



## Kirk

> _Originally posted by 7starmantis _
> 
> *Lets not start a political debate in here, thats the very last thing we need!!
> 7sm *



Amen to that!


----------



## cdhall

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> 
> *with regards to Christianity...  I learned this in a Christian theology class I took in college...
> 
> The phrase "Turn the other cheek"  has to be taken in historical context.  At that time period, in that society, slapping someone across the face was an insult, equivalent to spitting on someone or giving them "the finger" today.   In light of this context, "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as a directive to ignore petty insults and not make mountains out of molehills.  That passage in the bible doesn't address the concept of self-defense at all.
> 
> Its an interesting website.  Check it out. it discusses self-defense and gun control in a biblical context. *



This is excellent.  I will go look at the site later.  Thanks Nightingale.  I also like that "homicide" note.  Interesting.

:asian:


----------



## kenposcum

Some cool responses...
I think some people took issue with my statement of "there are no cops, this is a lawless world."  I was not trying to devalue the peacekeepers (God knows I need 'em, with my mouth) but to add the presupposition that there is no higher Earthly authority to turn to for justice...can the individual seek retribution for an act which is typically deemed evil?  Who made Spider-Man an arbiter of right and wrong?

Can unprovoked violence against a known perpetrator of unprovoked violence be morally correct?
  :asian:


----------



## 7starmantis

I think unprovocked violence is wrong. When the cops go pick up someone they don't use unprovocked violence, they handcuff them and drive them downtown. If they fight, they the violence is provocked.

my humble opinion

7sm


----------



## kenposcum

No, no, no...
I was SAYING, is suppose we're past the apocalypse, there's no cops, anywhere, is it then morally correct to mete out justice as you see fit?
:asian:


----------



## Bod

Yes it would.

Soon enough though good people will get together, figure out it is more efficient to have a police system, and before you know it,  it'll be immoral all over again.


----------



## fringe_dweller

I'd like to say that I agree with the concept of not hurting others, although in the heat of the moment all my rational thnking would most likely fly out the window. I've never had a problem with people who seek to hurt me but if they hurt someone I care about - look out. 
We can talk about it all we like, but I think to a ceratin point it's safe to say that passion rules reason. On this forum it's very clinical to talk about someone being hurt etc but if I was holding my girlfriend in my arms as she cried to me that she'd been raped then I'm 90% certain that it would take more willpower than I'll ever have to not cream the bastard for what he's done.
Right in your head doesn't always equal right in your heart.


----------



## arnisador

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## OULobo

Well, since this thread got inadvertently bumped up, I'll throw in an opinion. I think that violence is an intergral part of the human condition and phyche, like greed. To hide from it or avoid it is foolish. We live in extrememly civilized times and still violence is unavoidable in some situations. The logical mind (unaffected by moral beliefs) sees violence as a quicker and easier solution in some situations. While I don't adhear to this thought pattern, I see why some people view this outlook as reasonable. In certain societies violence is an accepted part of everyday life and I don't think that these societies are nessessarily worse then our own. The bottom line is that in a civilized society violence is just that, a bottom line or last resort. That doesn't mean it is unacceptable, just distastful. 

How about the question about Hitler and the time machine. If you could go back in time and kill Hitler (ignoring all the paradox issues) before the war, would you do it even though he hadn't done anything really wrong yet. 

My opinion as a Catholic is that compassion is the key and it is a blessing that can be revoked.


----------



## arnisador

Nothing inadvertent about it--I'm not only moving threads where they better fit, I'm also trying to stimulate conversation!

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Cruentus

I feel that "indifference" or "inaction" can be more wrong then violence sometimes. If killing the rapist serial killer who gets away with it will prevent more violence and killing, then do it. The problem with "mankind" is we often use this justification for violence, when instead of preventing violence, our actions only lead to more violence. So...only if it actually "prevents" something then I say it is correct. If it doesn't prevent anything, then the only motive it solves is revenge. Revenge only breeds more violence. 

My 2 cents...


----------



## Cryozombie

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *I can't nor wish to speak for anyone ele.
> 
> Eye for an Eye
> 
> Gameover & Lights out.
> 
> 
> :bomb: :bomb: :bomb: :bomb: :bomb: *



Uh, just a Quick note... "An Eye for an EYE" doenst mean "REVENGE!" it means "EQUAL PUNISHMENT FOR THE CRIME" Hence... if you take my EYE I can Take your EYE, no more... 

SO theoretically, what you are saying By "An EYe for an Eye" is "You raped her I now can rape you in return"


----------



## Reprobate

> _Originally posted by lvwhitebir _
> Violence in self-defense is not wrong.  Violence in attack (even retaliation or prevention) is wrong, IMO.
> 
> In your scenario, if you did go and harm the guy, you would pay for it by law.  Citizens don't have the right to take the law into their own hands because the definition of the severity of how they were wronged is different.
> 
> For example, you might think that harming the "rapist" is the right thing to do.  A gang-banger might think that harming you is right because you looked at his girlfriend wrong.
> 
> The law keeps it constant.  No matter what you think, calling the cops is ALWAYS the right thing to do.  NEVER take things into your own hands.


But it feels so good!


----------



## redfang

Nature is inherently violent. There is nothing morally wrong with violence. 

Also, we don't have to use a comic book character to exemplify the point.  I remember thinking that Bernard Goetz was right on.


----------



## Cliarlaoch

Good points all around, but I have to believe that moral justification for an act does not extend beyond the situation in which one is in. I can understand the idea of a Mad Max-like anarchy, but even then, I don't think going out and slaughtering the *** who hurt you or your friends/loved ones is really going to solve the problem. You have the right to defend yourself and your family if attacked. That's never been a problem for me, and I am Christian myself. Jesus said to love one's neighbour as oneself, to forgive the sins of others, etc. He didn't say go out and torch the entire neighbourhood of the guy who did you wrong (a la the Punisher reference). That's just wrong. In fact, that's just sinning right back at the guy who did it to you. It's not a solution, it's just violence.

Heck, look at it without the Christian motif. Do you have the right to hurt someone after the fact? No. Your life is not in danger. The damage has been done. The best way to stop it from happening again is to promote the values of tolerance, love for one another, etc. that will prevent people from acting like psychos. The law exists for the purposes of distributing justice, yes, but the goal of government, and of society, should be to educate people to the point where the government and the law no longer needs to be enforced. Instead, people should be trained to respect the idea of the law in the first place. Not easy to do, sure, and hard to make practical... but that doesn't make it right to take justice into your own hands. No individual is omniscient or all-powerful. We don't know enough to judge other human beings, and the law is, at best, a meager attempt to put limits on bad behaviours and punish wrong-doing. Wrong way of going about it in my opinion. You have to gradually remove the violent tendencies from the society, which takes more work... so of course, no one wants to do it!  

To use a good quotation that might reflect my opinion just as well as this whole rant: "Many people who have lived deserved death, and many who have died deserved life. Can YOU give it back to them?" (Gandalf to Frodo, in the Lord of the Rings, the first movie) We don't have the power or the authority to make the decision to take the life of others, justice, into our own hands.


----------



## Cthulhu

I think a lot of people equate 'justice' with 'law' and they are not really the same thing.  In the original posting, you may think you are serving justice by hunting down the offender in question and doing grevious bodily harm, but that would be against the law.

In my opinion, justice is subjective, and different for each person.  Law is an attempt to have 'justice for all'.

Cthulhu


----------



## Touch Of Death

> _Originally posted by ace _
> *It would not be a game!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :angry: I came from the streets
> Before i walked in the Dojo!
> 
> U would let this hapen!!
> ??????????????????
> 
> 
> Eye for an Eye
> 
> :2xbird: *


First of all Eye for an Eye is a call for restraint not to get the bad guy. Secondly If the mongole hoards are comming(or whomever), it is not Moraly wrong to protect your family from harm. Most of us pay someone to do that protecting but violence byproxy is still violence and it is scuicide to do any different. And as you know scuicide is a sin.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death

Ace said...                                                                                                        :angry: I came from the streets
Before i walked in the Dojo!
I can't think of a single person that didn't.

Sean


----------



## Reprobate

> _Originally posted by kenposcum _
> *No, no, no...
> I was SAYING, is suppose we're past the apocalypse, there's no cops, anywhere, is it then morally correct to mete out justice as you see fit?
> :asian: *


Why wait for the apocalypse?


----------



## the_kicking_fiend

Eye for an eye?  Perhaps I wouldn't go that far but I certainly don't believe in being a pacifist.  Look at world war II, someone somewhere had to stand up to Hitler or the world could be very different now.  Several countries just laid down and were swept over but it took a lot of balls for someone, that someone being Churchill, to totally commit themselves to defending their beliefs.

'All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to give up'

A stand against injustice has to made at some stage.  Whatever line you care to draw, if no-one stands up for what they believe in, then the world beneath us will slip away.

d


----------



## Jibbler

I'd have to say if some one raped or beat a friend of mine and i know where or how to get the guy he's gonna get it

an eye for a eye a tooth for a tooth thats the way i see it

i am a christen and i still see this as the right thing to do God took care of the bad people with the great flood


----------



## Adept

Morals are very much relative. What one person considers to be wrong, another may consider to be right. So morally, violence can never be universally wrong under any circumstances, just like blue cannot ever be everyones favourite colour all the time.

 Legally and practically, a situation where I would feel justified in using physical force is unlikely to arise. I would have no hesitations in using it if I felt it to be the best course of action.

 Some might say an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I say, in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.


----------



## 5 hand swords

kenposcum said:
			
		

> I had a long talk with one of my instructors a few years ago about vigilanteism and stopping bad people if you knew they were bad. *EDIT*I was of the opinion that someone should go intercept this guy and cut his ears off. But my instructor said, no. That's wrong. 1) Violence is only justified when it is to be used to prevent violence against oneself or another, AT THAT MOMENT. *EDIT*2) Violence is always wrong: true or false?:asian:


1 Humans can plan ahead. Is MA to limit itself to Tactics? Find a better response than your 1st opinion or doing nothing, Help your friend first.
2 this seems inconsistant as a question based on the situation above.


----------



## 5 hand swords

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Let me define some terms I will use.
> 
> *Value(s):* Something that a person or family unit believes to be valuable to their survival.
> 
> *Moral(s):* These are a set of rules or guidelines that are instructed to people either through their family or religion, for the betterment of society.
> 
> *Ethic(s) or Ethical:* What Society has determined to be ethical or right for the survival of the society.
> 
> *Law(s):* What a society has decided to make a responsibility or ramifications for actions taken.
> 
> I value the physical and mental health of my friends, and if I knew how to make it better for someone, I would think it to be a good idea to do so.
> 
> If my religion or family had taught me to take an eye for an eye or deal out justice, then I could be morally right in going after said assailant.
> 
> If society supported vigilantism than it would be ethical for me to go after the assailant. Otherwise If society does not support taking the law into your own hands then it would be unethical to go after the assailant.
> 
> Since, there are laws, in the U.S.A, against assault and/or murder, society has determined that these actions are unethical. Therefore, it would be wrong to go after the assailant.
> 
> 
> So, something could still be morally correct, but not ethical or against the law.
> 
> The Death Penalty is an issue where society has determined that the death of someone for an action they have taken has been determined to be ethical, even though the act of murder itself is unethical. This is the nature of law and ethics.
> 
> Just a discussion in philosophy and ethics.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Rich
> :asian:


Excellent Post! (how do I give rep-points?)
Not to say I agree 100% but at last someone shows how to important it is to DEFINE YOUR TERMS when posting on these types of issues


----------



## 5 hand swords

Quote:
_Originally posted by kenposcum _
*No, no, no...
I was SAYING, is suppose we're past the apocalypse, there's no cops, anywhere, is it then morally correct to mete out justice as you see fit?
:asian: *



			
				Reprobate said:
			
		

> Why wait for the apocalypse?


I hate that people discussing this stuff alway go right to the "LifeBoat" cases.
You know the if kind of question that starts with a guy with no arms or legs in a lifeboat at sea.


----------



## Seig

Nightingale said:
			
		

> something to think about...
> 
> on the death certificate of someone who has died by state sanctioned execution, the cause of death is listed as "homicide."


homicide definition  homicide is the killing of one person by another.


----------



## kroh

Hey there All, 

The problem with comparing the real world with fiction is that many times the authors are taking on social issues that they would like to see corrected and they do it in an interesting and entertaining way.  

Not all non-LEO methods of public protection is bad.  For an example, look at the private detective who investigates missing children's cases, or evidence of spousal abuse.  This might be a personal crusade for the dective in question and instead of commiting violence against the perpetrators, they gather evidence to be used in a court of law.  

Another thing to consider is neigborhood watch programs.  Every day Joe's armed with cell phones who walk a beat at night to prevent crime from happening where they live.  They see something going down and they get on the horn and call for the cavalry....

There are a lot of methods that one can use to fight crime in our society and still stay within the boundries of the law.  Even a normal everyday joe can make a citizens arrest if the circumstances warrant it (although there is a fine line in the courts between civil arrest and false imprisonment).

We would all like to play the role of the comic book hero  who goes out to bring the bad guys to justice...

But who decides what justice is...

Regards, 
Walt


----------



## CuongNhuka

see that is why i think that rapeists should be killed. they probly did it before, and will probly do it again.and yah, now that i think about it, superheros are pretty bad.

Sweet Brighit bless your blade

John


----------



## heretic888

Hrmmm....

When the sister of the rapist you killed for violating your own sister comes after your throat for revenge, I wonder how "justified" the philosophy of Eye For An Eye seems then??

Set aside the obvious moral hypocrisy of this "revenge"-based morality, its also rather obvious to see it perpetuates a never-ending cycle. And, oddly enough, the cycle tends to get even more viscious with each turn (what started out as exchanging insults could turn to petty theft which could eventually escalate into murder). But, hey, you just need to look to the Middle East for validation of this observation.

Its always disheartening to see compassion take a backseat to egotism.


----------



## ed-swckf

coungnhuka said:
			
		

> see that is why i think that rapeists should be killed. they probly did it before, and will probly do it again.and yah, now that i think about it, superheros are pretty bad.
> 
> Sweet Brighit bless your blade
> 
> John


What about potential rapists, should they be killed also, or should someone suffer first?  A superhero that isolates a rape gene for instance?
I mean your soloution certainly stops them doing it again but doesn't erradicate rape.  And "they probly did it before" sounds like you aren't sure they did it before, should people die if you aren't sure they raped before?


----------



## heretic888

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> What about potential rapists, should they be killed also, or should someone suffer first?



For some reason, I'm suddenly reminded of the movie _Minority Report_. 



			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> A superhero that isolates a rape gene for instance?



Even then, this assumes one subscribes to a paradigm of genetic determinism. I don't.



			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> I mean your soloution certainly stops them doing it again but doesn't erradicate rape.



No, it certainly doesn't.  



			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> And "they probly did it before" sounds like you aren't sure they did it before, should people die if you aren't sure they raped before?



Personally, I don't think people should be put to death at all if it can be avoided. But, that's just me.


----------



## ed-swckf

heretic888 said:
			
		

> For some reason, I'm suddenly reminded of the movie _Minority Report_.


I've still not seen it, but i've heard about it and thought the same thing as i typed it.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Even then, this assumes one subscribes to a paradigm of genetic determinism. I don't.


  Yeah but it could make a good superhero comic





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> No, it certainly doesn't.


If it did would you go for it?





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't think people should be put to death at all if it can be avoided. But, that's just me.


I understand holding enough disdain for rapists and wanting them dead for closure or whatever reason, but ultimately i feel i would agree with you but i'm not 100% sure and that is heavily tainted by a socially ingrained moral understanding that it is wrong and its hard to egineer my thoughts to ignore the consequences.  Of course that relates more to them being put to death by my own judgement, if it were done through a court of law resulting in a death penalty then i would have different feelings although i would still question it.


----------



## heretic888

ed-swckf said:
			
		

> If it did would you go for it?



No, I wouldn't. 

There are a number of "solutions" that, while morally repugnant, could "stop" or "prevent" specific crimes from happening altogether. That doesn't make them viable options, however.



			
				ed-swckf said:
			
		

> I understand holding enough disdain for rapists and wanting them dead for closure or whatever reason, but ultimately i feel i would agree with you but i'm not 100% sure and that is heavily tainted by a socially ingrained moral understanding that it is wrong and its hard to egineer my thoughts to ignore the consequences.  Of course that relates more to them being put to death by my own judgement, if it were done through a court of law resulting in a death penalty then i would have different feelings although i would still question it.



Um, okay.

The point I was making, regardless of whether it is culturally relative or not, is that I don't feel we should take the lives of other human beings (against their own will, anyway) if it can at all be avoided. Rather, I think the punitive system in a rational society should be more dedicated to preventing such behavior in the future rather than doling out "punishment".


----------



## White Fox

I feel that violence is in itself neutral. So it can be good or bad depending on the situation. I mean if we didn't have cops ( even though I know some are bad) then so many bad dudes like crack heads, drug dealers, etc would be able to tourment people unchecked. 

But the violence going on in Eastern Europe Is bad becuase it is harmful, it is based on ethnic hatred. And innocents like women and children are being raped and blown away. That is violence used in a bad way.

So violence is neutral what matters is the context it is used in. dig it!

On the death penality when I was going to this buddist temple one girl there told me that when someone kills another person they accumulate a karmic debt for that. But if they get the death penality then the debt is made even. But if they don't get it than they will have to suffer the reaction for that act worse than getting the penality.


----------

