Bardock> Sorry, I missed your post. It was not intentional 🙂
Yes, sure. If the MAJORITY of a society accepts the death penalty it will be used. But it is still not the ENTIRE society (I think the numbers ar 75% in favour, 25% against even in China), and I suppose those who're against it would prefer that it wasn't said THE society killed that person, if you understand me?
To a certain extend I see where you are coming from, however, can a society not, a certain times commit AMMORAL acts (the answer is of course yes). Of course, morals change over time (once slavery was viewed at totally acceptable), but does the legality of a "questionable" act make it morally right?
Okay, now I confused myself 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock> Sorry, I missed your post. It was not intentional 🙂Yes, sure. If the MAJORITY of a society accepts the death penalty it will be used. But it is still not the ENTIRE society (I think the numbers ar 75% in favour, 25% against even in China), and I suppose those who're against it would prefer that it wasn't said THE society killed that person, if you understand me?
To a certain extend I see where you are coming from, however, can a society not, a certain times commit AMMORAL acts (the answer is of course yes). Of course, morals change over time (once slavery was viewed at totally acceptable), but does the legality of a "questionable" act make it morally right?
Okay, now I confused myself 🙂
Well, I can understand that the 25% do not want it to be called "The Society killing..." but that doesn't change the fact. If they don't like it, well maybe they should become part of another Society.
For the "ammoral", I, from my point of view, would say it is impossible for a Society to do so....but I see what you mean, obviously a Society (through a Government, or more direct actions) can do something that overtime, or even at the point, is considered wrong and immoral.
Bardock> So you answer to people who disagree with something in their society is "shut up and leave"???? Not to stay and try to change what they believe is questionable?
That sound awfully fascist to me, actually.
Not to mention that fact, that it's not always possible for people to emmigrate, nor are they always welcomed elsewhere.
Okay, so you say a society (viewed as an entity) cannot commit an ammoral act? Is this regardless of the form of government the society has?
Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock> So you answer to people who disagree with something in their society is "shut up and leave"???? Not to stay and try to change what they believe is questionable?
That sound awfully fascist to me, actually.
Not to mention that fact, that it's not always possible for people to emmigrate, nor are they always welcomed elsewhere.Okay, so you say a society (viewed as an entity) cannot commit an ammoral act? Is this regardless of the form of government the society has?
Oh no, certainly try and change it, won't stop you....I might even wish youz good luck and hope you will succeed...but it's still the Society that executes people...
I think everyone may do what they please but the most powerful (in this case the socitey ...the majority of a society) have more means to enforce what they want.
Well, yeah I think a Society can't commit an immoral act...mostly cause no one can.....I'd respect the person that actually achieves to do something immoral....
Bardock>"If they don't like it, well maybe they should become part of another Society."
So what do you mean - exactly - by this? (Are you, btw in favour of the death penalty and if "yes", what are you reasons? You seem like an intelligent person, and I'd like a chance to debate the issue with someone who won't throw hissy tantrums 🙂)
Ah! Yes, the most powerful (in this case the society) have more means to enforces what it wants. That does not make it MORAL, though? Does it? Perhaps we should agree on what is meant by "morals" actually?
WHat do you mean, no one can commit an immoral act? Are we in agreement on the definition of immoral?
Originally posted by The Omega
Bardock>"If they don't like it, well maybe they should become part of another Society."So what do you mean - exactly - by this? (Are you, btw in favour of the death penalty and if "yes", what are you reasons? You seem like an intelligent person, and I'd like a chance to debate the issue with someone who won't throw hissy tantrums 🙂)
Ah! Yes, the most powerful (in this case the society) have more means to enforces what it wants. That does not make it MORAL, though? Does it? Perhaps we should agree on what is meant by "morals" actually?
WHat do you mean, no one can commit an immoral act? Are we in agreement on the definition of immoral?
Well, if you do not like what your Society does you have a number of options. Leave the Society, Accept it, Try to Change it, Ignore it....chose what you want, it is all acceptable...
Oh I am sorry to dissapoint you, but I am not in favour of the death penalty...that makes me quite sad, I'd enjoy a debate with you.....I could argue in favour of it if you'd like me too, though.
Well, my approach basically is that one can neither behave moral not immoral since there is no absolute. Ever action is just neutral in my opinion....what is yours, though?
Okay, I see. For a moment there I was under the impression you agitated the "Love it or leave it" POW. Glad to know you do not.
😄 Well, no, I would like a debate with an intelligent person who is really in favour of the death penalty. Doing so with a devil's advocate wouldn't be the same. And I am not really disappointed, seeing I am against the death penalty myself, even though it's not even used here in the DK.
Ahh, true, nothing is black or white. So how can you view an act of murder as neutral?
My opinion is this: For a society to not only function be to be able to advance, there must be, among its members, a consensus of what is "right" and what is "wrong", that is to say what is morally acceptable and what is not. While I certainly no not agree that everything which is deemed ammoral in my society IS ammoral, nor do I view everything which is deemed moral as moral, if there is no consensus how can there be progress?
The law is a means of enforcing what society AS A WHOLE views as moral and ammoral, ultimately a society should advance to a stage where that is no longer necessary.
If I - for example - does not abstain from murder, stealing and violence, my actions create havoc and uncertainty/fear on a small scale in my society. This hinders co-operation and peace etc.
Do you see where I am coming from, or... ? 🙂
Originally posted by The Omega
Okay, I see. For a moment there I was under the impression you agitated the "Love it or leave it" POW. Glad to know you do not.
Yeah, well that's the slight difference why I am a liberal and not a fascist
Originally posted by The Omega
[B]😄 Well, no, I would like a debate with an intelligent person who is really in favour of the death penalty. Doing so with a devil's advocate wouldn't be the same. And I am not really disappointed, seeing I am against the death penalty myself, even though it's not even used here in the DK.
Originally posted by The Omega
[B]Ahh, true, nothing is black or white. So how can you view an act of murder as neutral?
Oh pretty easy, I just see murder as neutral....it is.
Originally posted by The Omega
[B]My opinion is this: For a society to not only function be to be able to advance, there must be, among its members, a consensus of what is "right" and what is "wrong", that is to say what is morally acceptable and what is not. While I certainly no not agree that everything which is deemed ammoral in my society IS ammoral, nor do I view everything which is deemed moral as moral, if there is no consensus how can there be progress?
The law is a means of enforcing what society AS A WHOLE views as moral and ammoral, ultimately a society should advance to a stage where that is no longer necessary.
If I - for example - does not abstain from murder, stealing and violence, my actions create havoc and uncertainty/fear on a small scale in my society. This hinders co-operation and peace etc.
Do you see where I am coming from, or... ? 🙂
I agree that a Society uses morals for different reasons, and I am not claiming that there aren't subjective morals. Everyone has them, and most societies have a consensus on what teh y should be, they are just not absolute, that means even though most people would say rape is immoral (and believe me subjectively, in my opinion, I agree) it isn't really. There's no reason why it should be. hmm, I wonder if I made myself clear there....
Originally posted by Bardock42
What is there to Explain?...it is just a simple thing. You ill someone else, he probably won't like it, you will have your reasons for it..that's it...there is no Morality involved there, at all.
Sounds like you subscribe to some sort of amoral crap, which isn't surprising considering my previous debates with you, Bardock. It's hardly an issue of one having reasons and the other not liking it... It's depriving another living being of life in the most brutal and callous way.
Originally posted by Wesker
Sounds like you subscribe to some sort of amoral crap, which isn't surprising considering my previous debates with you, Bardock. It's hardly an issue of one having reasons and the other not liking it... It's depriving another living being of life in the most brutal and callous way.
Yeah, so why is depriving another being of life immoral? No reason for that, really, is there?