Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Reciprocity (death penalty)

bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
IncredulousVessel
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 11:32:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Death penalty is idiotic in every way when used for punishing a murderer. IF one cannot see the ethical idiocy of it, they are blind to logic.
"Most people put a witty, intelligent or humorous quote here."

"Most people will die."
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The way I see it, the justice system has four main purposes of taking action against wrong doers; (1) rehabilitation, (2) deterrence, (3) segregation from society, and (4) punishment.

Punishment for the sake of punishment is utter bull. (4) should only ever be used for accomplishing the other goals. I value rehabilitation more than the others and capital punishment obviously can't accomplish it. No one deserves the death penalty because our ethical personality is irrelevant to our will. Our actions are shaped by our personality and our personality is shaped by our genetics, environment and culture, all of which we have little choice over. Moral responsibility is brought about by the illusion of libertarian free-will. We don't have libertarian free-will and that lessens any idea of moral responsibility greatly (though not completely). The eye for eye, tooth for tooth concept is a horrible principle to base the justice system off of. No one deserves death for committing murder. While acts in and of themselves are horrible, we mustn't treat the act-doer as the same. We always say Jesus "loves the sinner, hates the sin". I think we should also live more to that principle. Treat the sin as horrible and deserved of annihilation, not the sinner.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:29:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I believe in justice for its own sake.

That at least some form of murder warrants the death penalty seems, to me, patently obvious.

Did you rape, torture, and kill 47 people, knowing full well it was wrong? You have forfeited your right to live, and justice requires that, at least, you forfeit your own life.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:54:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:29:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe in justice for its own sake.

That at least some form of murder warrants the death penalty seems, to me, patently obvious.

Did you rape, torture, and kill 47 people, knowing full well it was wrong? You have forfeited your right to live, and justice requires that, at least, you forfeit your own life.

I would debate with you the ethics of using the death penalty for justices sake in such a situation sometime if you're interested, though I still need to set up a debate with noumena and I'm too busy right now. But if you're interested, I'd like to do it sometime. I'd suggest the resolution, "using the death penalty for the sake of justice in the following scenario, is not ethically justifiable". "The following scenario", obviously refers to the one you posted. I'd be pro. I assume that when you say "justice for it's own sake" you're talking about retribution.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:54:02 PM, phantom wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:29:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe in justice for its own sake.

That at least some form of murder warrants the death penalty seems, to me, patently obvious.

Did you rape, torture, and kill 47 people, knowing full well it was wrong? You have forfeited your right to live, and justice requires that, at least, you forfeit your own life.

I would debate with you the ethics of using the death penalty for justices sake in such a situation sometime if you're interested, though I still need to set up a debate with noumena and I'm too busy right now. But if you're interested, I'd like to do it sometime. I'd suggest the resolution, "using the death penalty for the sake of justice in the following scenario, is not ethically justifiable". "The following scenario", obviously refers to the one you posted. I'd be pro. I assume that when you say "justice for it's own sake" you're talking about retribution.

I would be interested in a debate, but we'd have to hammer out definitions first, I think; if you ever have time, I would love to.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 1:13:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 1:01:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:54:02 PM, phantom wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:29:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe in justice for its own sake.

That at least some form of murder warrants the death penalty seems, to me, patently obvious.

Did you rape, torture, and kill 47 people, knowing full well it was wrong? You have forfeited your right to live, and justice requires that, at least, you forfeit your own life.

I would debate with you the ethics of using the death penalty for justices sake in such a situation sometime if you're interested, though I still need to set up a debate with noumena and I'm too busy right now. But if you're interested, I'd like to do it sometime. I'd suggest the resolution, "using the death penalty for the sake of justice in the following scenario, is not ethically justifiable". "The following scenario", obviously refers to the one you posted. I'd be pro. I assume that when you say "justice for it's own sake" you're talking about retribution.

I would be interested in a debate, but we'd have to hammer out definitions first, I think; if you ever have time, I would love to.

Cool. I will let you know when I'm ready, though it will probably only be after my debate with Noumena which I don't know when will get started.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
j_lowe
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:13:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

A quote from Leo Tolstoy...

"And, indeed, what sort of ethical doctrine could admit the legitimacy of murder for any object whatever? It is as impossible as a theory of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three.

There may be a semblance of mathematics admitting that two is equal to three, but there can be no real science of mathematics. And there can only be a semblance of ethics in which murder in the shape of war and the execution of criminals is allowed, but no true ethics. The recognition of the life of every man as sacred is the first and only basis of all ethics.

The doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth has been abrogated by Christianity, because it is the justification of immorality, and a mere semblance of equity, and has no real meaning. Life is a value which has no weight nor size, and cannot be compared to any other, and so there is no sense in destroying a life for a life. Besides, every social law aims at the amelioration of man's life. What way, then, can the annihilation of the life of some men ameliorate men's life? Annihilation of life cannot be a means of the amelioration of life; it is a suicidal act.

To destroy another life for the sake of justice is as though a man, to repair the misfortune of losing one arm, should cut off the other arm for the sake of equity."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:35:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?

Yes.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:48:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:35:23 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?

Yes.

Then sure.

We can lock people away in a living hell, giving them an indefinite death sentence TBD stretching over years if not decades. Why can't we given shorter, definitive death sentence?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 12:49:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:48:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:35:23 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?

Yes.

Then sure.

We can lock people away in a living hell, giving them an indefinite death sentence TBD stretching over years if not decades. Why can't we given shorter, definitive death sentence?

The only real difference I see is that people get to tell themselves they aren't murderers if they do the former.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:40:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting idea, I have been debate (not online) a lot about death penalty and in may cases it is justifiable (i.e. to protect national security, to prevent harm done to the public) but never really thought if murder alone can constitute death penalty.

I guess in principle it is not. You not commit a crime o punish a crime. However, in practice I think many government can justify the use of death penalty at least to maintain order of the public and deter action that is consider threaten (drug dealing for example).
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:46:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

The Fool: No Never. Absolutely Passe. BARBARIC.

As if you guys are throwing money into morals. LOL
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:29:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I believe in justice for its own sake.

That at least some form of murder warrants the death penalty seems, to me, patently obvious.

Did you rape, torture, and kill 47 people, knowing full well it was wrong? You have forfeited your right to live, and justice requires that, at least, you forfeit your own life.

The Fool: There is no SECRET CONTRACT. Right to live, No one should ever except death. I don't think you can know full well its wrong. And to it at the same Time. No one would intentionally Chose to be BAD or GOOD, By what it means to be bad or good.. They get messed up. The root of evil is ignorance.

But we can never blame somebody who fight for their lives when others try and kill him. I may not like it but I can't say that I don't understand. If anybody is trying to kill you all Deals are OFF! In any situation. BUNZIIIIIIIII!

But I don't think we could actually blame somebody who is fighting to survive.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:03:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The root of evil is ignorance.

No, it isn't, at least not universally. That's simply absurd. H. H. Holmes was not ignorant of the wrong of his actions.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:07:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?

The Fool: Well obviously it would lead back to some causal factor if we had time to Link every piece of chain. Those are not even that Good. Social Science is. Pretty weak.
I am having a Huge Big fight with professors at school about. it.
There is a Prof underground a large group across our countries that Connect together. And think something must be Done about it. . Many people are questioning the methods.

They are really bad. There is usually no way to tell.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:09:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:07:07 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/8/2013 12:34:36 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/7/2013 7:52:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
If the death penalty would only be applied to people who are guilty of (insert crime here) and was completely free, would you support it?

In other words, do you think that committing murder should result in death (or torture)?

Can we be 100% sure the person is guilty and not have gender, racial, or economic biases influence whether someone receives it?

The Fool: Well obviously it would lead back to some causal factor if we had time to Link every piece of chain. Those are not even that Good. Social Science is. Pretty weak.
I am having a Huge Big fight with professors at school about. it.
There is a Prof underground a large group across our countries that Connect together. And think something must be Done about it. . Many people are questioning the methods.

They are really bad. There is usually no way to tell.

The Fool: I Get what you mean though.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Orpheus
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:17:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I support the death penalty yes. If you have taken away someone else's right to live you, in turn, have forfeited your own right to live and the society that the victim was a part of should have the right to decide the fate of the murderer.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:37:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:03:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The root of evil is ignorance.

No, it isn't, at least not universally. That's simply absurd. H. H. Holmes was not ignorant of the wrong of his actions.

The Fool: It is. Everyone desires The Good. By what it means. I don't mean any particular thing, but that which accompanies all things we call Good. Those things may turn out to be bad in the long run. It is still a wrong action regardless. But in the moment insofar that they are thinking it good, or that it will lead to the good. Whether or not it does, Turn out to be actually good is another thing. But then again I would say its their poor judgment and understanding of what is actually Good to blame.

This still making them immoral, by their poor judgment, and false moral knowledge and/or Consideration of others.

And it is in that way In which I mean that ignorance is the root of all evil.

What do you mean by he knows he is wrong in this case. What is he thinking is the wrong to himself?
Are you using the Term Wrong to mean The very same think he would mean By wrong in that Situation. For maybe you refer to a difference meaning of term Wrong.

You see, What I am saying is if he would mean wrong in what you mean here and now. By the very fact that I assume you are claiming it wrong in in the case that you wouldn't do so.

That is if he understood wrong as you mean it now, I am saying he wouldn't do so. as you wouldn't do so.

Do you get what mean?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:40:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:03:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The root of evil is ignorance.

No, it isn't, at least not universally. That's simply absurd. H. H. Holmes was not ignorant of the wrong of his actions.

I prefer the more elaborate version penned by Camus:

"Le mal qui est dans le monde vient presque toujours de l"ignorance, et les bonnes intentions peuvent faire du mal autant que la malveillance si elles n"ont pas la compr"hension."

(The evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding.)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:44:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:37:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:03:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The root of evil is ignorance.

No, it isn't, at least not universally. That's simply absurd. H. H. Holmes was not ignorant of the wrong of his actions.

The Fool: It is. Everyone desires The Good. By what it means. I don't mean any particular thing, but that which accompanies all things we call Good. Those things may turn out to be bad in the long run. It is still a wrong action regardless. But in the moment insofar that they are thinking it good, or that it will lead to the good. Whether or not it does, Turn out to be actually good is another thing. But then again I would say its their poor judgment and understanding of what is actually Good to blame.

This still making them immoral, by their poor judgment, and false moral knowledge and/or Consideration of others.

And it is in that way In which I mean that ignorance is the root of all evil.


What do you mean by he knows he is wrong in this case. What is he thinking is the wrong to himself?
Are you using the Term Wrong to mean The very same think he would mean By wrong in that Situation. For maybe you refer to a difference meaning of term Wrong.

You see, What I am saying is if he would mean wrong in what you mean here and now. By the very fact that I assume you are claiming it wrong in in the case that you wouldn't do so.

That is if he understood wrong as you mean it now, I am saying he wouldn't do so. as you wouldn't do so.

Do you get what mean?

A person can say "I know this action to be morally wrong, but I am going to do it anyway, because I want to"; at that point they are not acting out of ignorance, but rather out of evil (though, generally it's a far less atrocious evil than in Holmes' case).

You're proposing a moral nihilism, in which case we can't punish anyone at all for anything, since it wasn't wrong for them, because if it had been they wouldn't do it. It's in keeping with the idea of some on here that punishment is only moral if it's done for the specific purpose of teaching someone the error of their ways, but I reject that concept.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 7:45:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:50:18 PM, UniversalEmulator wrote:
Death penalty is just stupid because the person will learn no lesson if they are dead.

It's like turning justice into a search for revenge.

As opposed to turning justice into a classroom lecture?

I reject the idea that justice = teaching someone.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 10:05:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:50:18 PM, UniversalEmulator wrote:
Death penalty is just stupid because the person will learn no lesson if they are dead.

The lesson isn't isn't for them, they already didn't learn it, it's for other people who might be considering murder to learn from.

It's like turning justice into a search for revenge.

No, it's like making the punishment proportional to the crime.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:42:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:44:11 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:37:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:03:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:00:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The root of evil is ignorance.

No, it isn't, at least not universally. That's simply absurd. H. H. Holmes was not ignorant of the wrong of his actions.

The Fool: It is. Everyone desires The Good. By what it means. I don't mean any particular thing, but that which accompanies all things we call Good. Those things may turn out to be bad in the long run. It is still a wrong action regardless. But in the moment insofar that they are thinking it good, or that it will lead to the good. Whether or not it does, Turn out to be actually good is another thing. But then again I would say its their poor judgment and understanding of what is actually Good to blame.

This still making them immoral, by their poor judgment, and false moral knowledge and/or Consideration of others.

And it is in that way In which I mean that ignorance is the root of all evil.


What do you mean by he knows he is wrong in this case. What is he thinking is the wrong to himself?
Are you using the Term Wrong to mean The very same think he would mean By wrong in that Situation. For maybe you refer to a difference meaning of term Wrong.

You see, What I am saying is if he would mean wrong in what you mean here and now. By the very fact that I assume you are claiming it wrong in in the case that you wouldn't do so.

That is if he understood wrong as you mean it now, I am saying he wouldn't do so. as you wouldn't do so.

Do you get what mean?

A person can say "I know this action to be morally wrong, but I am going to do it anyway, because I want to"; at that point they are not acting out of ignorance, but rather out of evil (though, generally it's a far less atrocious evil than in Holmes' case).

The Fool: A person can say" yabadaba dooo!" But who cares, its that an argument.

You're proposing a moral nihilism, in which case we can't punish anyone at all for anything, since it wasn't wrong for them, because if it had been they wouldn't do it.

The Fool: If you are not sure what I am proposing you should ask me. It is more likely that I know what I am proposing if I did in fact propose something yet.

It's in keeping with the idea of some on here that punishment is only moral if it's done for the specific purpose of teaching someone the error of their ways, but I reject that concept.

The Fool: I Reject Candy Apples, who cares.
Punishment is never a moral act, it is only to be done, it will lead to the great good.
The most important concern is to prevent such crimes from happening again. Not get pleasure or satisfaction of the suffering of more, that is Devils pleasure.

We want people to be Moral because its Good to do!. not because they are afraid of being punished for evil.

It is a fact that punishment just increase pain over all, it increases resentment, hate and retaliation. And therefore the over all evil in the world.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 4:59:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:42:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: It is. Everyone desires The Good.

Simple not true in terms of ethics, which was my point. One can say "I recognize this as an ethical wrong, but will do it anyway because I want to.

Saying "they can also say yabba dabba do" is just silly. The point is that it's ridiculous to try to claim that ALL evil comes from ignorance. It is a statement without truth value, when we know people have done evil knowing it was evil. To simply assert "nuh uh" is to put your fingers in your ears and ignore reality.

This still making them immoral, by their poor judgment, and false
moral knowledge and/or Consideration of others.

Those are two different things.


And it is in that way In which I mean that ignorance is the root of all evil.

In the way that doesn't matter?

It is a fact that punishment just increase pain over all, it increases resentment, hate and retaliation. And therefore the over all evil in the world.

Only if you equate pain to evil. Which I don't. Evil is an abstract concept; one can do an evil that does not increase the total pain in the world (painlessly killing a hobo for sexual satisfaction is evil)
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 5:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:42:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:


The Fool: I Reject Candy Apples, who cares.
Punishment is never a moral act, it is only to be done, it will lead to the great good.
The most important concern is to prevent such crimes from happening again. Not get pleasure or satisfaction of the suffering of more, that is Devils pleasure.

Your finding fault with my statement that I reject your argument, then go on to make a flat assertion, "Punishment is never a moral act, it is only to be done it will lead to the greater good".

Why?

I don't get pleasure or satisfaction of the suffering of more, that's a stupid argument. But if you have killed unjustly, the just thing is for you to forfeit your life.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 8:43:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:50:18 PM, UniversalEmulator wrote:
Death penalty is just stupid because the person will learn no lesson if they are dead.

And if they learn their lesson during a life sentence, do we let them go?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 9:28:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/9/2013 4:59:36 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/9/2013 4:42:28 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

The Fool: It is. Everyone desires The Good.

Simple not true in terms of ethics, which was my point. One can say "I recognize this as an ethical wrong, but will do it anyway because I want to.

The Fool: Ha, you actually Said In TERM's of Ethics. The Question here is what is or what is not ethical.

bladerunner060: Saying "they can also say yabba dabba do" is just silly.

The Fool: I know it was foolish, but it was a Perfect analogy to you argument. Nothing follows from what people CAN Say. It"s an empty premise. Just like in TERMS is. We want to know what it is not what what it"s called.

bladerunner060: The point is that it's ridiculous to try to claim that ALL evil comes from ignorance.

The Fool: Well when you make a serious argument against it we will take it more seriously.

bladerunner060: It is a statement without truth value, when we know people have done evil knowing it was evil.

The Fool: Actually it"s as true as it gets.

bladerunner060: To simply assert "nuh uh" is to put your fingers in your ears and ignore reality.

The Fool: I would advise against doing that, when it comes to morality.

Past line:This still making them immoral, by their poor judgment, and false moral knowledge and/or Consideration of others.

bladerunner060: Those are two different things.

The Fool: Well actually there is a lot of things I meantions. Good Intension is not enough, because many people mistake what is good. We can argue that even Hitler thought that he was doing well, by trying to create what he thought was a superior human Race. He honestly thought that the fix was to kill off what they thought was bad, genetics. And that it would lead to the best in the long run. But he did not know better nor was it rational.

You have to know what is Good, You have to be able to make good Rational Judgments based on it A most necessary part of moral knowledge is to recognition and consideration of OTHERS.
And it is in that way In which I mean that ignorance is the root of all evil.
If you change the way that I am meaning then you are not responding to me.
Do you get what I "The Fool" Mean?

bladerunner060:: In the way that doesn't matter?

The Fool: What is Not, does not exist. What are you talking about? If you are responding to me Stick to my ARGUMENT. Don"t Create it.

bladerunner060:: Only if you equate pain to evil.

The Fool: Equating something is beside the fact of what something Is?

bladerunner060: Which I don't.

The Fool: Who cares? Arguments are much more wanted.

bladerunner060: Evil is an abstract concept;

The Fool: Infact, Most concepts are abstract.

bladerunner060: one can do an evil that does not increase the total pain in the world (painlessly killing a hobo for sexual satisfaction is evil)

The Fool: Killing is always evil unless it is in defence of life. For it is life that necessites the Good.
Do you mean they can cause, evil? Do evil is rough. An action is and action in itself. The action in itself does nto have the property of Good or Evil.
For the good is the Good in itself, and so forth for its opposite.

Make sure that you are attacking MY: THE FOOLS arguments. I think you are adding in and assuming more then I have given.

Pay attention to my wording. Even though I often make English errors. It"s very easy for those not knee deep into philosophical contemplation to Roughshod over the subtle but Critical distinctions in the order and words that I use. Take your time, think about it and Break it down.

Make sure you are communicated with me. If you still disagree. Then try to refute it, that way you will know exactly how or where I made a mistake, and I will be glad that you have pointed it out to me. For I will then know exactly where I need to adapt my beliefs, so I can continue to evolve in accordance with necessity.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL