News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

TWO HOURS?!?!?!

Started by Nam, July 24, 2014, 01:11:20 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

aitm

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam
In my opinion, that is nonsensical. Killing a killer in no way, in absolutely no way, equals in any way, or is in any way comparable to a person who goes out and kills someone for the sake of killing someone. Removing a killer from society guarantees its safety from that one individual. I believe it to be a moral obligation to society and a personal affront to anyone whom said killer should kill in the future should the opportunity be available.

I could forgive a demented killer for being demented, but I could not forgive a rational person who let a demented person loose who killed again when the blue print had already been laid. That to me, is an affront to civilized society.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

pioteir

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam

Tell me how do You expect that to work with people who are not part of Your "society" or better yet for a time they are but then they decide to kill some of it's members.
Do You consider such people a part of Your society and naturally expect them to follow "Your society's" rules?
How does that work with someone half around the globe who has a different set of rules?
Do You impose "Your" rules over their's? Do You talk it out? What if they want You dead instead of talking? Do You defend Yourself?
Theology is unnecessary. - Stephen Hawking

Nam

Quote from: pioteir on August 03, 2014, 04:27:48 PM
Tell me how do You expect that to work with people who are not part of Your "society" or better yet for a time they are but then they decide to kill some of it's members.
Do You consider such people a part of Your society and naturally expect them to follow "Your society's" rules?
How does that work with someone half around the globe who has a different set of rules?
Do You impose "Your" rules over their's? Do You talk it out? What if they want You dead instead of talking? Do You defend Yourself?

I live in the US, therefore my comments are about the US since this top is about the death penalty in the US.

If you wish to make this a broader topic create it elsewhere and I'll discuss it there.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Shiranu

Here's the thing...

The death penalty kills the wrong person... alot.
The death penalty kills people that are questionably guilty, and may have done it more out of situation than being "evil"... alot.

Now, when you start telling me that it is "good" to institute a system that kills the wrong people or people who aren't "evil"... I have a very hard time buying into this argument that morality is at all applicable to the death penalty, and if it is then the people who would support it are just as evil.

What is the difference between the "evil" man who knowingly kills an innocent and a "good" man who knowingly supports a system that kills innocents? The only difference I see is the "evil" man is willing to get his hands bloody himself and doesn't try to justify his actions as being just.

If we lived in a perfect world where the wrong guy would never be killed, or even killed at small ratio, then you have room to talk about the death penalty being the pragmatic (though I simply can never agree with it being the moral, and it is certainly the more expensive) option. But we will never live in that world, and therefor to support the death penalty is to intentionally support the murder of innocent people. There is no good or just in that.



"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

aitm

Quote from: Shiranu on August 03, 2014, 04:51:36 PM
Here's the thing...

The death penalty kills the wrong person... alot.
The death penalty kills people that are questionably guilty, and may have done it more out of situation than being "evil"... alot.

Now, when you start telling me that it is "good" to institute a system that kills the wrong people or people who aren't "evil"... I have a very hard time buying into this argument that morality is at all applicable to the death penalty, and if it is then the people who would support it are just as evil.

What is the difference between the "evil" man who knowingly kills an innocent and a "good" man who knowingly supports a system that kills innocents? The only difference I see is the "evil" man is willing to get his hands bloody himself and doesn't try to justify his actions as being just.

If we lived in a perfect world where the wrong guy would never be killed, or even killed at small ratio, then you have room to talk about the death penalty being the pragmatic (though I simply can never agree with it being the moral, and it is certainly the more expensive) option. But we will never live in that world, and therefor to support the death penalty is to intentionally support the murder of innocent people. There is no good or just in that.





I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Shiranu

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

Okay, on that one I don't really have a yes or no. If there was no better alternative at hand to restrain him and keep him from hurting someone else (say in a shoot-out or something) then I think it's 100% morally justified. Otherwise I am very iffy on it.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Nam

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
I understand your argument but that is not the argument at hand, (at least that is not the argument that I am stating). Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.

I disagree; not only based on overall consensus (laws on killing in general; even those who have no intent to kill and kill go to prison for it; some for life) but also for the fact most executions in the US have nothing to do with justice.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 04:17:09 PM
If society, as a whole, determines that killing is wrong then it must apply to all killing not just what pertains to one's point-of-view.

Therefore, if the society, as a whole, kills the killer then they are the killer as well, and therefore no longer "good" but "bad" as defined by their general ethical standpoint.

-Nam
But we have a whole lot of different "societies" on the mudball right now.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

aitm

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 05:13:07 PM
I disagree; not only based on overall consensus (laws on killing in general; even those who have no intent to kill and kill go to prison for it; some for life) but also for the fact most executions in the US have nothing to do with justice.

-Nam

You of course have points. But my argument is rather simple. Do we have the moral right to kill a killer? And let me set aside that I do not mean an "accidental" killer, but that human that kills intentionally simply to kill. I say yes. What most executions "have to do" is irrelevant to my point.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

Nam

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 05:31:25 PM
You of course have points. But my argument is rather simple. Do we have the moral right to kill a killer? And let me set aside that I do not mean an "accidental" killer, but that human that kills intentionally simply to kill. I say yes. What most executions "have to do" is irrelevant to my point.

Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically. Is it ethical to kill someone because they killed someone?

Both deaths are attributed to the want of one (or many) to terminate another's life based on illogical reasoning.

"He slighted me therefore he should die."

"He slighted society therefore he should die."

How is the same thing ethical and unethical simultaneously?

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:26:16 PM
Morals are based on what is right and what is wrong ethically.
And ethics are situational. Is it ethical to cut a man's arm off? Depends. Is it ethical to kill a man? Depends.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Nam

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 06:32:38 PM
And ethics are situational. Is it ethical to cut a man's arm off? Depends. Is it ethical to kill a man? Depends.

Only if you take absolution out of the equation. Then, like...say...the Bible, one can determine from whatever interpretation they wish that best suits their viewpoint.

-Nam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Gawdzilla Sama

Quote from: Nam on August 03, 2014, 06:40:08 PM
Only if you take absolution out of the equation. Then, like...say...the Bible, one can determine from whatever interpretation they wish that best suits their viewpoint.

-Nam
And people do that all the time, but they claim "society" demanded they do what they did.
We 'new atheists' have a reputation for being militant, but make no mistake  we didn't start this war. If you want to place blame put it on the the religious zealots who have been poisoning the minds of the  young for a long long time."
PZ Myers

Nam

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 03, 2014, 06:43:16 PM
And people do that all the time, but they claim "society" demanded they do what they did.

Irrelevant.

-Mam
Mad cow disease...it's not just for cows, or the mad!

Johan

Quote from: aitm on August 03, 2014, 04:57:13 PM
Is it morally right to kill the killer? I say yes.
Its a dangerous game to allow morality to enter into a question like this. Because there are nothing but very slippery slopes in every direction. If we argue that its morally wrong to kill the killer, then we also have to argue that all war is morally wrong. Therefore if we're going to dedicate vast amounts of people and resources to a strong military and national defense system, we are in essence dedicating vast amounts of people and resources to something which is at its very core morally wrong. And not only that, a great many of us on a personal level are taking every opportunity to thank those involved for their service, give them our airplane seats, letting them preboard etc.

I can't recall a time when I was on a commercial flight and the flight attendant announced that we had a porn star on board and encouraged all of us to give him or her a round of applause for their service. I do kind of like the idea of living in a world where everyone on a flight gives a round of applause to thank porn stars for their service but alas that is not the world we live in.

On the other hand if we argue that its morally right to kill the killer then we have to by default say its morally right to kill period. We as atheists complain often about the proclivity for theists to pick and choose which bible parts apply and which do not. But if we argue that its morally right to kill the killer, we are in effect doing the exact same thing. There is no winning either way if you make this a moral question IMO.

You have to leave morality at the door on this one and make up your mind based on other criteria. That's the only way I see it working no matter which side of the fence you're on.
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful