Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sexy, are you interested in having me respond to your previous points? I don't want to trap you in a two way debate with me and Nemesis, so just tell me if you want me to continue my end of the debate.
You can if you want, I'm not backing down. However, make sure you quote everything because it's hard enough for me to follow along with one person.
Originally posted by Red NemesisI didn't mean revenge had to be restricted to individuals, I meant it was about emotional gratification.
Faunus phrased this simply and (almost) accurately, "Revenge is personal, it's about making yourself feel better. Justice is about what's fair." I would modify that a little; Revenge need not be personal. Leaders of nations and policymakers as a group can be just as petty and immature as individuals.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Murder and killing aren't the same thing. Killing COULD be in self defense.
murder-the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).And yes, there are degrees of murder. Murder 1 Murder 2, manslaughter, etc.
No, different moral makeup, however the same outcome of murder and breaking the law. Obviously I would prosecute the 2nd one for more leniency but I would still prosecute it.
I think we have an agreement here- not all murders and killings, despite having the same 'real' effect upon society, have the same moral makeup behind them, and thus should not be punished in the same manner. Motivation should always be taken into account in a criminal trial: it's a matter of judging the individual's 'evil', and thus the punishment he deserves and the potential harm he poses to society.
Therefore, not even all premeditated murders are equal. This is also why I don't think there should be a minimum sentence for each crime.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Actually people DO kill because they randomly decide to. I've seen hundreds of cases where people killed because they "felt like it". Again your explanations are bullshit. The murderers are responsible, period. Instead of saying "why did they kill", look at the majority of the world and ask "Why don't they kill"? So no, society didn't cause shit. The person made a free choice. You've still yet to explain white collar crimes to me btw. If people are so desperate as to commit a crime, look no further than white collar. It's basically greed. No outside forces. It's a person's free will.
Someone who kills because they randomly decide to is mentally unhealthy. Human beings, and virtually no animal in nature, kills without purpose- there is always a motivation behind it. Someone who finds gratification in killing another human being is not sane, and should not be held entirely responsible for his actions: the possibility of rehabilitation always exists. In addition, there is a possibility that he simply grew up in an extremely violent society or home... I'm not a psychologist, but a regular human being who was not exposed to extremely violent societal factors and is not a sociopath does not kill simply because he chose to.
White collar crime happens as a result of humanity's natural fallibility. When given access to so much money and power, the natural reaction with certain psychological makeups is to abuse it; it brews corruption and greed. And even in that case, there are outside forces- the possession of money is one. And an individual who finds the ultimate purpose in life to be making money has clearly had a horrible education and negative societal effects. It's a possible product of a society that glorifies rampant capitalism and wealth at all costs, and causes the perception of the American Dream to be 'financial rewards'.
Also, the factors, outside of the immediate societal factor (for example poverty), are: education, naturally born traits (I suppose there are some traits within the human brain that define its development, personality-wise, although I'm not an expert), influences exposed to as a child, etc. The potential reaction, when all of these factors collide, is to cause the individual to react a certain way. I am NOT saying that the individual did not ultimately decide to act the way he did, nor am I saying that he had no choice whatsoever, but it was, in the grand scheme of things, society that spurred him to take that path of action.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nope, because for every person who killed under these so called extreme circumstances, you'll find a shitload who chose not to under these same circumstances. And there goes your argument.
Again; not everybody has the same preborn traits, the same education, the same intelligence, the same emotional fortitude... there are so many factors to consider beyond the immediate societal influence. I don't think people don't have a choice when they act a certain way. They definitely do. But it was societal factors that initially brought them to that choice.
Take a murderer, put him under different societal circumstances, and he would not be a murderer. The individual is not directly alter-able, but the external factors are, and this should always be taken into account.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Show me a multbillionaire who was indicted for murder. The only two cases I can think of that MIGHT show that money could buy a verdict would be the OJ case, and the 2nd trial of Claus Von Bulow. Of course, he had all the money in the first trial as well and that didn't help him. So no, there's no definitive proof.
And no, give it up with the external factors because again, for every person that kills, you have tens or hundreds that don't, under that same circumstance. It's called a choice and warrants personal responsibility. society has nothing to do with it.
So a poor guy who becomes a drug addict and a murderer would have been a drug addict and a murderer had he lived under differing circumstances? Society gives motivation, even if it isn't a rational one. The individual chooses to (or not) act upon that motivation. However, you eliminate the societal factors and thus the motivation, and the individual does not become a criminal.
And, in 90% of death row cases, the 'victim' did not have the money to pay for a lawyer. Go figure.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yet again, a LOT more impoverished people do NOT commit crimes than the ones that do. Same with the rich people. It's brought on my personal choice, not any external factors. This argument does not fly. So yes, they are responsible, not society.
It's a mixture. It's not entirely personal choice and it's not entirely societal influence. Society is responsible for bringing them to that choice, they are responsible for coming to that choice. Eliminate societal influence, and they would not come to that choice. Why do you think the majority of crime is committed by the working class, then?
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
And liberals think humans are good, so when they do a bad thing, it's society's fault. This is ignorance to the highest degree. it is NOT a mixture, because then you're denying that humans have free will.
... I've already been through this. There are always external factors which cause someone to act in a certain manner. With the exceptional of several pre-born traits (such as intelligence), a person's behavioral personality is created by the way his traits react with external influence.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What you usually do is bring up the most extreme cases and somehow attach them to the majority. But your case is ridiculous. Without his wife's infidelity he probably wouldn't have. However he made the personal choice of murder whereas the millions of other spouses who get cheated on, don't murder. So no, he's responsible and he's going to prison. How long is up to him. This is another terrible example.
Please. The individual was spurred into even coming to a choice between murder or not murder due to societal factors- this does not eliminate his responsibility. He is largely responsible for his actions, for coming into the choice, and thus should spend jail time. However, going back in reverse, the societal factor was the one that even caused him to come to the choice; thus, eliminating it would eliminate his future actions. This is pretty much un-deniable.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Oh right, humiliation.. They get their lives spared for genocide. Martyrs for their cause? Their cause was bullshit so you're not making martyrs out of them. They deserved death and the fact that we gave them legitimate trials says something about our country.
The Nazi's did not commit genocide because they were monstrous sadists or sociopaths (which also eliminates personal responsibility), but rather because they viewed what they did as an ultimate favor to humanity; they genuinely believed they were acting upon the path of good and what is ultimately beneficial for the world. Simply because we find someone's ideology abhorrent or violent, does not mean we can simply execute him- they could be judged as being threats to the 'new world' and thus imprisoned, but executed? Never.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It is a unversal truth. Whether you look at religious laws, or society's laws. You'd have to prove it wasn't a universal truth, since it seems that the opposite is true.
There is a 'much agreed upon truth' and there is a 'universal truth'. These things are not one and the same. In order to prove that something is a universal truth, you have to prove that there is some sort of nigh-infallible individual (or omnipotent entity, in your case) who elected standards of good and evil that everybody must follow; since you cannot do that, you cannot prove that your standards of good and evil are universal.
Also, religious is a matter of personal faith. There is nothing indicating your religion is truer than everybody else's, and there is nothing indicating that any religion is 'true' and universally applied. You want to believe in Judaism? Find. But at least understand that it is a matter of subjective faith and should not be a standard that everyone must follow.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Hilarious. But the world would disagree with you.
Again... universally applied truth and 'much agreed upon truth'. These things are different.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I'm not forcing anything on you. I happen to equate my religion with logic because that's exactly what it is. Atheists and pseudo intellectuals equate religion with insanity and delusion because they know nothing about it, and it makes them feel better telling people they don't have to believe in something "imaginary".
What I'm doing is telling you there ARE universal rights and wrongs and everything is NOT subjective.
There is nothing indicating religion is true- and if there is nothing indicating something is true, then that something should not be taken as a truth. It's very simple. Religion enables you to explain everything effortlessly without working or thinking- all it requires is an over-active imagination and conformation to traditions simply because 'that is what we always did'. Science explains the word with effort, with experiments, with logic, and with, occasionally, a proof that is as conclusive as possible. Religion? There is NOTHING logical in the least about it.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Rofl. Have you ever done any extensive research on religion or do you just spout of nonsense following other people, who've done the same lack of research as you? Blindly follows ideals? Without thought or reason? IF you've actually done the research, you'd be contradicting your own asertion that you follow only things that have logical substantiation. And again, I could tell you there are 5-6 dimensions that have been discovered, whereas a few years ago, you would only be able to "logically substantiate" 3-4. Does that mean you don't believe the 5-6 exist because you can't logically substantiate it?
Why do you think we came to the conclusion that 5-6 dimensions exists? Because we've studied it and we've analyzed it and we've logically deducted their existence. Science constantly makes more discoveries that are based on logical facts- and while it is not perfect or full-proof, I would much rather endorse a philosophy that is based on logical substantiation and intellectual experimentation than a philosophy that has beliefs which have no proof, logic, etc behind them. Scientific facts, if proven beyond all shadow of doubt (like gravity), should be taken as an absolute fact. If there is still a level of doubt behind them, then they should be a taken as a 'doubt-able fact', if that makes any sense. We explain the world via research. Religion explains the world via making fairy tales. The former is imperfect, but makes sense, while the second has no sense behind it.
Science > religion, sorry.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No. Humans have free will. IT just happens that over history, many of the fundamentalists from all religions have used G-d to further their own agenda.
According to the Bible, everything is within God's plan- he knows everything that is, was, and will be. Thus, the 'freedom of choice' is merely an illusion. That is bullshit. I believe in humanity, not God.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Liberals don't believe in logic. Liberals are pseudo intellectuals who actually hate the idea of thinking and distinguishing. That's why they spew out retarded nonsense such as "Everything is equal, nothing is better or worse, everything is subjective", because they don't have to think further. The conversation ends there. And again, liberals hate the idea of religion because it brings in a moral authority into play, and pretty much contradicts their "everything is subjective" bullshit.
The moral authority's existence cannot be proven, nor is there anything indicating its existence beyond a book which was written by a fallible human being. That's why I don't believe it. Atheism came before moral relativism, I believe.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Which we can. Except you don't understand scientific logic anymore than I do. We have a very limited range in understanding of science and the laws of physics. A few years from now scientists will find something that contradicts our current laws of physics. 100 years later, there will be more. It's not laws of physics, it's OUR understanding of OUR laws of physics.
'Our' laws of physics are generally grounded in reality and with research. They're imperfect and prone to error, but they have largely been proven (not fully conclusively, but still), but we actually work in order to explain the laws of the universe. And there are always facts behind science. There are none within religion.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Unfortunately you haven't shown anything that be above my intellectual capacity. What you've shown is the stereotypical liberal. Say your two lines and end the conversation. What quasi intellectuals are great at is spouting the information that they have absorbed, so they have to somehow feel better about themselves. Then when it comes time to put all their knowledge into practice, they can't.
Sure. If being grounded in reality and believing that freedom is the most important value makes me a 'stereotypical liberal', then I'm damned proud of it.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Impossible to prove yes. But that doesn't make it untrue. This goes back to the whole "if I can't see it it's not there!" nonsense. IF you tell me I'm delusional for following religion, I'll tell you that you're ignorant if you don't believe in something just because you can't see it.
Which brings me to evolution again. I believe in evolution, but I can't see it happening before my eyes. Why? There are scientific theories, facts, and rational explanations behind it. There are none of these things for religious values.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
The death penalty doesn't violate anything. The person gets a fair trial just like everyone else, and if he is convicted, he is sentenced to death. Our legal system worked, justice was done, the victim's family has peace of mind, etc. So you're wrong.
We, as a society, have certain in-violatable standards which define us as a whole. We enforce our morality in a way that distinguishes us from other cultures, which enforce them in a more violent manner- instead, we are not reduced to acting in the same manner as criminals for the purpose of fulfilling our goals. We value human life, no matter what human that is- and we must always pursue this belief, and thus minimize casualties whenever possible. There is no realistic difference between placing someone in seclusion, for life, and murdering him- certainly not for society as a whole. Except for the possibility of rehabilitation. It is always preferential to let someone become rehabilitated and thus a functioning member of society then let him rot for eternity. That is justice.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Our society follows G-ds laws, as do other societies. Whether it's the torah, the new testament, or even more obscure things like Hammurabi's laws, this is what's followed. There are universal rights and wrongs.
What? You think we would not have been capable of creating our laws and absolutes without the 'Torah' and 'God's Laws'? Our laws are not part of religious morality- we don't illegalize contraception and homosexuality, for example, despite these two things being frowned upon by religious authorities. Rather, our laws are to prevent absolutes which directly harm another being, whether it is physically, financially, or emotionally. Our laws are designed to protect every individual's personal liberty.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Nope. I follow it because it's logical, it makes sense, it builds up my character development, and it makes me a better person. If you understood religion rather than calling people that follow it, "blindly following an ideal", like most pseudo intellectual philosophy majors who have no idea what they're talking about, then you'd understand why I follow it. I conform to certain standards and morals, and i don't say they don't exist if they happen to contradict what I want.
Yes, hating homosexuality because an guy who lived 4000 years ago thinks an invisible man said homosexuality is bad is logical and makes you a better person.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Yet if I give you any case and the ruling for it, I can guarantee that you wouldn't be able to contradict any of it.
I'll go out on a limb and say that it is all based upon the existence of the Judaical God, which is, in itself, something I do not believe in.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Which is why pseudo intellectuals know very little, other than the information they absorb and can't wait to spout out.
Because you would clearly be exactly the same person you are now had your parents and family not been conservative and religious.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It's not my morality, it's universal law. My morality happens to agree that the Nazis were evil, Stalin's mass genocide was evil, etc. I live in a society with laws, some of which are universal. Everyone can develop their own morality, but that doesn't change the fact that there are universal rights or wrongs. Like I said, if I was to follow the liberal logic, I'd kill you, eat your head, urinate on you, and claim it was part of my "morality".
... and now comes that part again when I ask you to say who defines these absolute laws, outside of a subjective 'God'.
Also, there would be nothing wrong with you eating me from the perspective of your culture and from a 'cosmic perception'. There would be something wrong with it from the point of view of my culture and the general culture of the country I live in (it violates my human rights), which you, ultimately, must respect.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I think we have an agreement here- not all murders and killings, despite having the same 'real' effect upon society, have the same moral makeup behind them, and thus should not be punished in the same manner. Motivation should always be taken into account in a criminal trial: it's a matter of judging the individual's 'evil', and thus the punishment he deserves and the potential harm he poses to society.Therefore, not even all premeditated murders are equal. This is also why I don't think there should be a minimum sentence for each crime.
Someone who kills because they randomly decide to is mentally unhealthy. Human beings, and virtually no animal in nature, kills without purpose- there is always a motivation behind it. Someone who finds gratification in killing another human being is not sane, and should not be held entirely responsible for his actions: the possibility of rehabilitation always exists. In addition, there is a possibility that he simply grew up in an extremely violent society or home... I'm not a psychologist, but a regular human being who was not exposed to extremely violent societal factors and is not a sociopath does not kill simply because he chose to.
White collar crime happens as a result of humanity's natural fallibility. When given access to so much money and power, the natural reaction with certain psychological makeups is to abuse it; it brews corruption and greed. And even in that case, there are outside forces- the possession of money is one. And an individual who finds the ultimate purpose in life to be making money has clearly had a horrible education and negative societal effects. It's a possible product of a society that glorifies rampant capitalism and wealth at all costs, and causes the perception of the American Dream to be 'financial rewards'.
Also, the factors, outside of the immediate societal factor (for example poverty), are: education, naturally born traits (I suppose there are some traits within the human brain that define its development, personality-wise, although I'm not an expert), influences exposed to as a child, etc. The potential reaction, when all of these factors collide, is to cause the individual to react a certain way. I am NOT saying that the individual did not ultimately decide to act the way he did, nor am I saying that he had no choice whatsoever, but it was, in the grand scheme of things, society that spurred him to take that path of action.
Again; not everybody has the same preborn traits, the same education, the same intelligence, the same emotional fortitude... there are so many factors to consider beyond the immediate societal influence. I don't think people don't have a choice when they act a certain way. They definitely do. But it was societal factors that initially brought them to that choice.
Take a murderer, put him under different societal circumstances, and he would not be a murderer. The individual is not directly alter-able, but the external factors are, and this should always be taken into account.
So a poor guy who becomes a drug addict and a murderer would have been a drug addict and a murderer had he lived under differing circumstances? Society gives motivation, even if it isn't a rational one. The individual chooses to (or not) act upon that motivation. However, you eliminate the societal factors and thus the motivation, and the individual does not become a criminal.
And, in 90% of death row cases, the 'victim' did not have the money to pay for a lawyer. Go figure.
It's a mixture. It's not entirely personal choice and it's not entirely societal influence. Society is responsible for bringing them to that choice, they are responsible for coming to that choice. Eliminate societal influence, and they would not come to that choice. Why do you think the majority of crime is committed by the working class, then?
... I've already been through this. There are always external factors which cause someone to act in a certain manner. With the exceptional of several pre-born traits (such as intelligence), a person's behavioral personality is created by the way his traits react with external influence.
Personal responsibility. The end.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Please. The individual was spurred into even coming to a choice between murder or not murder due to societal factors- this does not eliminate his responsibility. He is largely responsible for his actions, for coming into the choice, and thus should spend jail time. However, going back in reverse, the societal factor was the one that even caused him to come to the choice; thus, eliminating it would eliminate his future actions. This is pretty much un-deniable.
The Nazi's did not commit genocide because they were monstrous sadists or sociopaths (which also eliminates personal responsibility), but rather because they viewed what they did as an ultimate favor to humanity; they genuinely believed they were acting upon the path of good and what is ultimately beneficial for the world. Simply because we find someone's ideology abhorrent or violent, does not mean we can simply execute him- they could be judged as being threats to the 'new world' and thus imprisoned, but executed? Never.
There is a 'much agreed upon truth' and there is a 'universal truth'. These things are not one and the same. In order to prove that something is a universal truth, you have to prove that there is some sort of nigh-infallible individual (or omnipotent entity, in your case) who elected standards of good and evil that everybody must follow; since you cannot do that, you cannot prove that your standards of good and evil are universal.
Also, religious is a matter of personal faith. There is nothing indicating your religion is truer than everybody else's, and there is nothing indicating that any religion is 'true' and universally applied. You want to believe in Judaism? Find. But at least understand that it is a matter of subjective faith and should not be a standard that everyone must follow.
Again... universally applied truth and 'much agreed upon truth'. These things are different.
There is nothing indicating religion is true- and if there is nothing indicating something is true, then that something should not be taken as a truth. It's very simple. Religion enables you to explain everything effortlessly without working or thinking- all it requires is an over-active imagination and conformation to traditions simply because 'that is what we always did'. Science explains the word with effort, with experiments, with logic, and with, occasionally, a proof that is as conclusive as possible. Religion? There is NOTHING logical in the least about it.
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Why do you think we came to the conclusion that 5-6 dimensions exists? Because we've studied it and we've analyzed it and we've logically deducted their existence. Science constantly makes more discoveries that are based on logical facts- and while it is not perfect or full-proof, I would much rather endorse a philosophy that is based on logical substantiation and intellectual experimentation than a philosophy that has beliefs which have no proof, logic, etc behind them. Scientific facts, if proven beyond all shadow of doubt (like gravity), should be taken as an absolute fact. If there is still a level of doubt behind them, then they should be a taken as a 'doubt-able fact', if that makes any sense. We explain the world via research. Religion explains the world via making fairy tales. The former is imperfect, but makes sense, while the second has no sense behind it.
Science > religion, sorry.
According to the Bible, everything is within God's plan- he knows everything that is, was, and will be. Thus, the 'freedom of choice' is merely an illusion. That is bullshit. I believe in humanity, not God.
The moral authority's existence cannot be proven, nor is there anything indicating its existence beyond a book which was written by a fallible human being. That's why I don't believe it. Atheism came before moral relativism, I believe.
'Our' laws of physics are generally grounded in reality and with research. They're imperfect and prone to error, but they have largely been proven (not fully conclusively, but still), but we actually work in order to explain the laws of the universe. And there are always facts behind science. There are none within religion.
Sure. If being grounded in reality and believing that freedom is the most important value makes me a 'stereotypical liberal', then I'm damned proud of it.
Which brings me to evolution again. I believe in evolution, but I can't see it happening before my eyes. Why? There are scientific theories, facts, and rational explanations behind it. There are none of these things for religious values.
We, as a society, have certain in-violatable standards which define us as a whole. We enforce our morality in a way that distinguishes us from other cultures, which enforce them in a more violent manner- instead, we are not reduced to acting in the same manner as criminals for the purpose of fulfilling our goals. We value human life, no matter what human that is- and we must always pursue this belief, and thus minimize casualties whenever possible. There is no realistic difference between placing someone in seclusion, for life, and murdering him- certainly not for society as a whole. Except for the possibility of rehabilitation. It is always preferential to let someone become rehabilitated and thus a functioning member of society then let him rot for eternity. That is justice.
What? You think we would not have been capable of creating our laws and absolutes without the 'Torah' and 'God's Laws'? Our laws are not part of religious morality- we don't illegalize contraception and homosexuality, for example, despite these two things being frowned upon by religious authorities. Rather, our laws are to prevent absolutes which directly harm another being, whether it is physically, financially, or emotionally. Our laws are designed to protect every individual's personal liberty.
Yes, hating homosexuality because an guy who lived 4000 years ago thinks an invisible man said homosexuality is bad is logical and makes you a better person.
I'll go out on a limb and say that it is all based upon the existence of the Judaical God[, which is, in itself, something I do not believe in.
Because you would clearly be exactly the same person you are now had your parents and family not been conservative and religious.
... and now comes that part again when I ask you to say who defines these absolute laws, outside of a subjective 'God'.
Also, there would be nothing wrong with you eating me from the perspective of your culture and from a 'cosmic perception'. There would be something wrong with it from the point of view of my culture and the general culture of the country I live in (it violates my human rights), which you, ultimately, must respect.
Well, I just saw Watchmen. The movie was very good in terms of overall storyline and graphics. However, I felt like I've just been on a 3 hour acid trip.
The ending made me literally shout out 'WTF!!!!' I got the some stares, but that was some daring piece of storytelling right there. Still cxan't decide if I agree with it or not.
Rorshach was L33t though. I laughed when he killed the midget.
Rorsarch was the best in the movie. Did anyone notice that it was played by Kelly from the 1970's Bad News Bears movies?
Also, here's a question I heard from one of Dennis Prager's lecture that I want to pose to the members of this forum. I already know where MC stands, which is the far left.
Q: Do you believe the majority of crimes commited are because of:
a. poor moral principles and lack of self control
b. external (societial and environmental) forces
Elements of both, although I'd stop cold at the first mention of "moral principles" [relative, duh]. Disregard for law, lack of empathy, and general lack of common sense or prescience would be critical factors, but only the ignorant and foolish deny that the environment shapes the individual.
And Rorschach kicks unholy amounts of ass. He pretty much made that movie for me.
Originally posted by Eminence
Elements of both, although I'd stop cold at the first mention of "moral principles" [relative, duh]. Disregard for law, lack of empathy, and general lack of common sense or prescience would be critical factors, but only the ignorant and foolish deny that the environment shapes the individual.And Rorschach kicks unholy amounts of ass. He pretty much made that movie for me.
Not relative. Moral principles+our laws.
And my parents raised me properly, they've never lied, cheated, or stolen. Yet I decided to commit a crime. Same as in impoverished neighborhoods where a person commits a crime, where the other 10 don't. Societal factors CAN (not WILL) play a role, but the determinant is free choice, lack of self control, lack of morals, etc.
Here's the thing: This has become a purely philisophical argument. If anyone wants me to argue the utility (or lack thereof) of the Death Penalty to society then I will do so. I do not feel comfortable asserting 'Morals are relative' because it is purely opinion:
You might be a physics major if
"...when asked for an 'opinion' you choke a little and look confused."
I'm going to have to back down on this. You all clearly know my opinions, but I am going to stick to the physical realm. I'll keep reading though, so if it circles back to the real world I might jump back in.
Originally posted by Darth SexyMoral principles =/= our laws. You and I clearly have different principles, yet we are expected to follow the same laws.
Not relative. Moral principles+our laws.
And my parents raised me properly, they've never lied, cheated, or stolen.No Santa for you, huh?
Yet I decided to commit a crime. Same as in impoverished neighborhoods where a person commits a crime, where the other 10 don't. Societal factors CAN (not WILL) play a role, but the determinant is free choice, lack of self control, lack of morals, etc.The environment shapes the individual. That doesn't mean you're either perfect or an utter bastard.
Originally posted by Eminence
Moral principles =/= our laws. You and I clearly have different principles, yet we are expected to follow the same laws.
The environment shapes the individual. That doesn't mean you're either perfect or an utter bastard.
It CAN shape the individual, but it doesn't destroy somebody's ability to use free choice. If the enviroment shaped the individual to the extent you're discussing, then everybody in impoverished neighborhoods would be committing crimes. This is not the case so it seems that people in the same situation as a criminal are exercising their free choice and following proper principles and laws.
Using external factors is shunning responsibility.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Here's the thing: This has become a purely philisophical argument. If anyone wants me to argue the utility (or lack thereof) of the Death Penalty to society then I will do so. I do not feel comfortable asserting 'Morals are relative' because it is purely opinion:
You might be a physics major if
"...when asked for an 'opinion' you choke a little and look confused."I'm going to have to back down on this. You all clearly know my opinions, but I am going to stick to the physical realm. I'll keep reading though, so if it circles back to the real world I might jump back in.
I didn't turn this into a philosophical argument. Credit to that people who think everything is relative and there is no right or wrong. Anyways, I agree with the death penalty under the rules of capital murder. I agree with the death penalty under the rules of treason and espionage as well. I wouldn't push for the maximum sentence because it would depend on many factors of the case, but I definitely believe in legally taking someone's life, who illegally took the life of others.
Okay, I really don't have time to respond to your entire post now, but I just want to tell you that I don't believe that there is no personal responsibility or choice involved- merely that it is not the deciding factor. Here is the thing: multiple factors, such as intelligence, pre-born traits, education, societal influence as a child (notably parental influence, or lack thereof), other direct societal influences (poverty) ultimately shape an individual's behavior and ultimately causes him to come to a certain choice. Now, he can either take that choice or not take that; he should be directly responsible for making the choice. However, this does not mean we completely remove societal influence and motives, which inherently made him come to that certain choice- it is a direct mixture of both. However, society is the alter-able (and the stronger) factor, and thus should be the one we focus our attention upon. Thus, rehabilitation and the introduction of different societal influence can work, and condemning a person for his actions without inspecting his external influence simply cannot work. This is NOT shunning responsibility: this is reality.