Even Spider-Man is morally wrong...

[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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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.

A superhero that isolates a rape gene for instance?

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

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

No, it certainly doesn't.

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.