Even Spider-Man is morally wrong...

[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...