The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", huh?

Well, I think this certainly applies in some cases, but in different ones, concepts of justice are entirely subjective. In short, not everyone's concept of justice is the same, and thus you cannot say your interests are the same as their's. For example, a religious man might say that he would like to be forced to adhere to religious standards. Does it mean he has the right to do the same to others? Of course not. An individual may want someone to kill him, but does he have the right to do so to another individual?

That's the problem with 'justice'. Justice is such a subjective, relativistic, and abstract concept. This is why I cannot agree with the Golden Rule. Though some application of it is necessary at times.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
[B]What logic? What have you actually proven conclusively? Make a logical argument using the correct format, DS. You acting on social morals because you feel the act is evil isn't in itself an objective stance. It needs a basis, a foundation.

So again, where is the logos for "Act X is evil"? How are you measuring and defining evil?

How do you define who's innocent? Using logic, mind you.

So strictly speaking, if it's both illegal and planned, it's evil? How so? What if I have to plan to kill a corrupt military official because he plans to end the world as we know it by death and fire. I have to plan this to do it right, and of course it's against the laws. But it's for a greater good, namely the cost of not doing so could result in the end of humanity. The collective VALUE of humanity outweighs any single life, even if I assign no real objective value to life in general. So thus it stands that my act of planning the illegal death of Official X may not only be wrong in a sense, but also the better of the two options and thus morally correct in a sense.

When breaking down the morality of a decision, Kant used to have "Intention>Act>Consequence". Most ethical arguments can be broken down similarly. Kant, an Idealist who believed in metaphysical, objective values, argued that if the first two were somehow morally questionable, the entire act was damned. It was immoral, regardless of the benefits it might provide. He would argue that you could never kill, period. You could never steal, period. You could never be heretical, period. It's absolutism.

Only an absolutist sees things strictly in black and white, because they've come to the conclusion that there is no grey area, and that if any part of the act is tainted, it's immoral and shouldn't be committed, period.

Now, before I continue, I'd like for you to remind yourself that I'm presenting a counterpoint to your moral absolutism. I am NOT advocating murder, rape, torture, etc. on any moral grounds. Don't go all crazy and start attacking an argument I'm not making, because it looked like you were close to doing that earlier.

My thought-provoking questions were to get YOU to flesh out YOUR stance where apparently moral grey doesn't exist. You claim certain kinds of killing are morally wrong, but you are either unable or unwilling to substantiate why this is the case.

It's not a rational conclusion if you don't have the premises, DS.

While you are right that murder, correctly speaking, includes some planning (Which explains legal wiggle room for crimes of passion, etc.), it is defined by law. Local law. Not divine law. If you live in a state which sanctions the murder of Jews, well... Well, you wouldn't be alive and on the internet. But you get the point. It's not murder if society thinks it's kosher. So if you're saying that murder is evil because it's "unlawful" and "planned", you had better categorize it under things like bridge jumping and graffiti, because that's one flimsy rationalization.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", huh?

Well, I think this certainly applies in some cases, but in different ones, concepts of justice are entirely subjective. In short, not everyone's concept of justice is the same, and thus you cannot say your interests are the same as their's. For example, a religious man might say that he would like to be forced to adhere to religious standards. Does it mean he has the right to do the same to others? Of course not. An individual may want someone to kill him, but does he have the right to do so to another individual?

That's the problem with 'justice'. Justice is such a subjective, relativistic, and abstract concept. This is why I cannot agree with the Golden Rule. Though some application of it is necessary at times.

Making someone pay for their crimes, injustices, etc is what I call justice. Making someone forfeit their life because they chose to do so to someone else in a premeditated state, is justice. While our legal system isn't perfect, I believe it more than not, hands out justice.

First of all, an important reason as to why the Golden Rule cannot always function is because criminals must occasionally be treated in ways they do not desire. Would a judge want to be executed or imprisoned? No. Does it mean he does not have the right to do so to a criminal? Hardly.

Aside from that, however, your concept of justice is not shared by myself. To you, an eye for an eye is justice. To me, it is a continuation of the cycle of violence; a degeneration into petty, animalistic feelings of self-destroying anger and hatred. And it serves not utilitarian purpose, either: the death of a man in a way that does not contribute to society in a pragmatic manner is pointless, in my opinion. Current, our legal system advocates your beliefs. If I was to become a politician, I would attempt to democratically change our system by hopefully convincing the populace to see my way of thinking and my own justice.

Despite the fact that I think you are wrong ('I think'😉, my problem is that you claim your version of justice is the only version of justice. It is not. Believe what you want to, but please understand that your interpretation of justice is not universal or absolute.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
First of all, an important reason as to why the Golden Rule cannot always function is because criminals must occasionally be treated in ways they do not desire. Would a judge want to be executed or imprisoned? No. Does it mean he does not have the right to do so to a criminal? Hardly.

Despite the fact that I think you are wrong ('I think'😉, my problem is that you claim your version of justice is the only version of justice. It is not. Believe what you want to, but please understand that your interpretation of justice is not universal or absolute.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Ridiculous. Did the judge commit premeditated murder? No. Did the criminal? Yes. He forfeits his right for rehabilitation and life.

... and where did I disagree with the fact that a judge has the absolute right to condemn a criminal to imprisonment (or, if the death penalty is legal, to death)? I've actually used that as an example as to why the Golden Rule cannot always work.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
An eye for an eye would be me killing you for killing someone I know. Justice is for our system to give you a trial, and then if you are found guilty under the rules of capital murder, give you the death penalty. Again, all you're doing is excusing the murderer but not excusing the system for taking his life. Seems like a double standard. And justice is done for the victim and his family.

I disagree, and I've repeatedly explained (in a detailed manner) why. I don't see a reason to go over my points again. The whole point I was making that your idea of justice is not shared by me; I do not think taking a human life, regardless of what that human did, while that serves absolutely no utilitarian purpose and is used for petty emotional gratification is justice. You do. End of story.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's absolute in America which is all that counts, and which I'm happy about. I wouldn't want a system of justice that doesn't really punish criminals who commit heinous acts. Again, you seem to think prisons are punishment enough but you fail to realize that criminals that commit crimes are usually habitual criminals and prison to them is just another life. I firmly believe when one commits 1st degree murder as defined by our laws, he is to forfeit his life.

It's a law in America: a law dictated by fallible human beings operating on their subjective moralistic standards. Now, these subjective moralistic standards are approved by the majority, which means that they should be legal (after all, we live in a democracy). I personally disagree with these standards and, if I was to pursue a career in politics, I would do my absolute best to make the populace see my way of thinking. After all, I believe my form of justice is the best and will ultimately lead towards a better world; however, it is probably not the best for the people if they don't consent to it. This is how democracy works.

All I am asking you is to 'admit', if you want to use such words, that your version of justice is not universal or absolutist. It's simply your subjective opinion that is currently advocated by America: there is no divine law dictating that it is the 'true' version of justice.

By the way, I've realized my initial post on the Golden Rule was flawed. Instead of looking at the mere superficiality of an action, I suppose you should at the deeper level to it. For example, if an individual wants someone to kill him, does it give him a right to do so to someone according to the Golden Rule? I don't think so. Because instead of thinking in such terms, I think you should think in "would he want someone to commit a physical action he does not consent to upon him", in which the answer would obviously be no. I hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]... and where did I disagree with the fact that a judge has the absolute right to condemn a criminal to imprisonment (or, if the death penalty is legal, to death)? I've actually used that as an example as to why the Golden Rule cannot always work.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
First of all, an important reason as to why the Golden Rule cannot always function is because criminals must occasionally be treated in ways they do not desire. Would a judge want to be executed or imprisoned? No. Does it mean he does not have the right to do so to a criminal? Hardly.

All I am asking you is to 'admit', if you want to use such words, that your version of justice is not universal or absolutist. It's simply your subjective opinion that is currently advocated by America: there is no divine law dictating that it is the 'true' version of justice.

I guess I define evil as someone doing wrong to an innocent person. How do I define an innocent person? Someone that minds his own business and still gets **** on.

So basically you define an innocent person as that who does not intrude upon others and does what they're told, and is the underdog? That's a very ridiculous notion of "innocent".

I don't understand the concept of subjectivity because it allows me to pick a person or a group of people, make an excuse like "they're an inferior race", and get rid of them.

Or perhaps you're too culturally sensative about the idea of subjectivity because your definition of innocent seems to almost indicate Jews during the Holocaust, from a certain POV. But since you're stuck in that WWII mindset, you should learn to pull yourself out of your own reasoning. A reason must be stand-alone for it to be logical. You cannot say "Brazil is a bad country because I hate the food", and consider it to be a universal truth. You aren't everyone. Not everyone is impacted by your own personal experiences, nor the experiences of your people. You are talking of morality from a personal and cultural viewpoint, yet you are condemning... morality from a personal and cultural viewpoint. The contradiction is glaring.

Let's start at base one - subjectivity is easily found in society. It's logical; no two people nor two cultures see anything exactly the same. The very nature of human understanding makes this possible. Ergo, it is impossible for them to find 100% common ground because of the minute differences in perception which shape their worlds.

Let's move on. So we've established that the world is not the same for any two bodies. Next we must establish how morality exists. Morality is a human mental construct. It cannot be found in nature. It is not published in some celestrial script book or index. No Higher Power has established a singular book of laws for all humankind, despite what most interested groups may say. If you tell me "killing Abel is against a universal law all humans must adhere to", you cannot substantiate this law. You can only tell me how revolted you are personally by the act, how your society shuns it, and how your holy book might damn it. That's all you can do.

So now we've gotten closer to the point. Each person's reality is different from the next, and because both of these differences and the very nature of morality (Read: it's not findable in the real world and thus empirically unable to ber verified), we can safely conclude that a universal morality, if existing, cannot possibly be derived by any human being on earth, nor can it be found reflected in nature, or written in the stars.

Fair enough for you?

Would you call a corrupt military official because he wants to end the world? From one point of view that person isn't classified as "innocent". Motives and actions I think define a person. On the other hand, what you're doing is being a vigilante and taking the law into your own hands.

Here's the problem - your advocating of laws against murder is dependent on a variable you cannot substantiate yourself. You do not even seem to have a clear understanding of what "innocent" really is, giving me a few spare traits which can be attributed to many immoral people as well. You cannot will as a maxim that which cannot be enforced for everyone, correct? That's the absolutist speaking. It ties in with your second point- vigilantism. Vigilantism seeks to create justice outside of social laws. In the case of my example, you can clearly see it's the best choice, both morally and prudently. No moral person could ever hold the life of a corrupt individual sacred above the laws of many, regardless of whether or not they can substantiate said majority's actual value. You don't know who's being saved, and perhaps some of them genuinely deserve death. But the military official is clearly both a minority figure and a bad one; the choice is obvious.

Motives and actions can define a person, but motives are deep. Not all moral decisions are linear. Variables can force bad decisions. Lack of options can as well. If I have no choice but to kill the official or let the world die, can I be said to be morally flawed for doing what I felt was right for humanity? Is not my intention to lessen suffering, if I cannot absolutely minimize it?

If I am trapped in a cave with a school class, and an obsese man is stuck in the only entrance and and we have perhaps twenty minutes until high tide to escape or die, should I value the life of the obsese man and not do something drastic to remove him, or should I let everyone perish because I am too morally righteous to see that prudence is a better tool than absolutist morality?

I'm arguing for murder, not killing. Premeditated murder of an innocent person by my definition of "innocent" I suppose.

But again, define innocent completely. If you cannot define this completely, how can you argue it exists? How can you as a person adequately judge another being as being "innocent" or "not-innocent"? Let's think of it this way - are you innocent? Are you worthy of being saved? If you were killed, would it be imperative that the other party be a criminal and morally bankrupt, regardless of the circumstances? Is your value of "innocent/not-innocent" independent of the variables involved in the situation?

You'll notice I'm asking a lot of questions here, and you do not seem to be addressing them directly. These questions aren't to prove I'm right; they're to prove that your stance lacks substance. If you intend to prove me, you must first learn to prove to yourself that you are right. Start by elaborating on terms before you use them as justification.

In the unlikely situation you mentioned about the corrupt military leader, you could claim to justify it but you would also be a vigilante and I would argue that you could have done other things rather than kill the official.

But the example is to show situations when a binary choice is the ONLY choice. If the military official's lifeforce is what's keeping the machine going, I have no choice but to kill him, or let everyone else die. In this choice, I have to pick the lesser of two evils, regardless of my own personal values and those of my soon-to-be-destroyed society. A society which puts its morals above prudence is a swiftly extinct one. You'll notice that the US does not attack all countries engaging in behaviors which are contrary to our norms of morality and justice since that would surely get us destroyed. We're far outnumbered by societies which have different moral values.

I don't see things in black and white but at the same time, I see the grey area as a means to do whatever the hell you like and justify it.

But that's your problem - you see grey as a slippery slope leading towards abuse. That's not the case. Grey means that the action is not solely good or bad. It may have traits of both. This isn't an argument to state conclusively that capitol offenses can ever be 100% justified; it's to point out that not all moral decisions can be 100% one or the other.

Now, back to base one - perception of reality is subjective. This is undeniable. It's axiomatic, since it's easily provable to anyone who's sentient. Because reality is subjective, this means situations surrounding "moral dilemmas" are likewise subject to the person's perception of reality. Their intents may differ wildly, and their actions as well. They may even be contradictory due to lack of choice, or even an illusion of lack of choice (The typical binary choice logical dilemma... "Join us or die"😉. Their consequences may be the fruit born of the seed of intent and actions, but the consequence is never under the control of the human being. At most, they can hope that their intents and actions will lead to a better consequence in the end. Those more focused on the consequence may eschew the action as irrelevant; you'll notice that in most cases, action is the part that is typically morally questionable. Intents are rarely focused on. If a bad guy in a movie lets the other guys live an even gives his life for them, he appears to be morally correct. But in the end of the movie, if it's revealed that he did this to say, unleash a plague on an entire world, you realize in the end his true intentions and consequences were more in alignment than anything.

That kind of distinction is important.

No, I wasn't because like you said, you weren't advocating.

Thank you.

Capital murder. Premeditated murder of an innocent person. A premeditated theft and murder of a person, things like that. To claim that everything is subjective is to open the door to all kinds of questionable acts.

Slippery slope. Read above.

I would also consider that murder is somewhat agreed upon by the rest of the world. The defenses of political agenda and religious texts don't hold water. If you were in a foreign country and you witnessed a rape and possibly a murder, would you do something about it, or would you say "their society condones it, who am I to tell them otherwise"?

Murder is legally defined and relative to the society in question. Therefore, murder cannot be somewhat agreed upon more than that is to say all murders are illegal. It's part of the definition. But not all murders are identical. It is permissable to kill folks for wrong beliefs or imagined infidelity in some parts of the world. That would never wash in other parts, would it? Yet they are not considered murder. They may even be lauded as acceptable and morally correct behaviors. Luckily for you and everyone you come into contact with, the US and most of its friends don't belief in customary killings. Well, not that many, anyways.

In a foreign country, I would feel morally obligated to help someone being raped or murdered, simply because I believe they may be innocent victims and if I were in their shoes, I would want someone to help me. I may be wrong about their innocence, and it's a term I use very loosely (I define innocence in this example as someone who is being attacked without warranting such punishment. If I were sitting on a porch step, reading a book, for example, that doesn't warrant that I should be killed. If I had shot my neighbor's whole family before he came home from work though, I earned it).

I can acknowledge that perhaps the behaviors are relative to the society. But just because I recognize that does not mean I have to agree to it, either. My views are still subjective, aren't they? I'm not going to respect everyone's viewpoints simply because they have them. If a guy worships a pile of shit and burns puppies, I don't have to respect him for being "subjective like everyone else". In my eyes, he's a freak and a criminal, and he should be dealt with. If society agrees with me, I'm in the right place.

First of all, an important reason as to why the Golden Rule cannot always function is because criminals must occasionally be treated in ways they do not desire. Would a judge want to be executed or imprisoned? No. Does it mean he does not have the right to do so to a criminal? Hardly.

Here's the thing though, MC; the Golden Rule presumes that when it is being applied, it is being applied rationally, not just subjectively. You have to put the scenario into proper context for it to make sense.

Let's take yours: A criminal was caught and faces execution. This is bad for the criminal. The judge clearly does not want to suffer that kind of fate. But then, the judge must admit that he has not caused a crime, but the criminal has. The judge must rationally accept that, were he to have committed said crime, he should willingly suffer the consequences under another judge like himself.

The idea you're thinking of is Special Pleading. Special Pleading, a psychological mechanism which works almost without sleep throughout our lives, is why the Golden Rule cannot achieve universal perfection.

But that doesn't mean we can't try, right?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Or perhaps you're too culturally sensative about the idea of subjectivity because your definition of innocent seems to almost indicate Jews during the Holocaust, from a certain POV. But since you're stuck in that WWII mindset, you should learn to pull yourself out of your own reasoning. A reason must be stand-alone for it to be logical. You cannot say "Brazil is a bad country because I hate the food", and consider it to be a universal truth. You aren't everyone. Not everyone is impacted by your own personal experiences, nor the experiences of your people. You are talking of morality from a personal and cultural viewpoint, yet you are condemning... morality from a personal and cultural viewpoint. The contradiction is glaring.

Let's start at base one - subjectivity is easily found in society. It's logical; no two people nor two cultures see anything exactly the same. The very nature of human understanding makes this possible. Ergo, it is impossible for them to find 100% common ground because of the minute differences in perception which shape their worlds.

So now we've gotten closer to the point. Each person's reality is different from the next, and because both of these differences and the very nature of morality (Read: it's not findable in the real world and thus empirically unable to ber verified), we can safely conclude that a universal morality, if existing, cannot possibly be derived by any human being on earth, nor can it be found reflected in nature, or written in the stars.

Here's the problem - your advocating of laws against murder is dependent on a variable you cannot substantiate yourself. You do not even seem to have a clear understanding of what "innocent" really is, giving me a few spare traits which can be attributed to many immoral people as well. You cannot will as a maxim that which cannot be enforced for everyone, correct? That's the absolutist speaking. It ties in with your second point- vigilantism. Vigilantism seeks to create justice outside of social laws. In the case of my example, you can clearly see it's the best choice, both morally and prudently. No moral person could ever hold the life of a corrupt individual sacred above the laws of many, regardless of whether or not they can substantiate said majority's actual value. You don't know who's being saved, and perhaps some of them genuinely deserve death. But the military official is clearly both a minority figure and a bad one; the choice is obvious.

Motives and actions can define a person, but motives are deep. Not all moral decisions are linear. Variables can force bad decisions. Lack of options can as well. If I have no choice but to kill the official or let the world die, can I be said to be morally flawed for doing what I felt was right for humanity? Is not my intention to lessen suffering, if I cannot absolutely minimize it?

If I am trapped in a cave with a school class, and an obsese man is stuck in the only entrance and and we have perhaps twenty minutes until high tide to escape or die, should I value the life of the obsese man and not do something drastic to remove him, or should I let everyone perish because I am too morally righteous to see that prudence is a better tool than absolutist morality?

But again, define innocent completely. If you cannot define this completely, how can you argue it exists? How can you as a person adequately judge another being as being "innocent" or "not-innocent"? Let's think of it this way - are you innocent? Are you worthy of being saved? If you were killed, would it be imperative that the other party be a criminal and morally bankrupt, regardless of the circumstances? Is your value of "innocent/not-innocent" independent of the variables involved in the situation?

You'll notice I'm asking a lot of questions here, and you do not seem to be addressing them directly. These questions aren't to prove I'm right; they're to prove that your stance lacks substance. If you intend to prove me, you must first learn to prove to yourself that you are right. Start by elaborating on terms before you use them as justification.

But the example is to show situations when a binary choice is the ONLY choice. If the military official's lifeforce is what's keeping the machine going, I have no choice but to kill him, or let everyone else die. In this choice, I have to pick the lesser of two evils, regardless of my own personal values and those of my soon-to-be-destroyed society. A society which puts its morals above prudence is a swiftly extinct one. You'll notice that the US does not attack all countries engaging in behaviors which are contrary to our norms of morality and justice since that would surely get us destroyed. We're far outnumbered by societies which have different moral values.

But that's your problem - you see grey as a slippery slope leading towards abuse. That's not the case. Grey means that the action is not solely good or bad. It may have traits of both. This isn't an argument to state conclusively that capitol offenses can ever be 100% justified; it's to point out that not all moral decisions can be 100% one or the other.

Now, back to base one - perception of reality is subjective. This is undeniable. It's axiomatic, since it's easily provable to anyone who's sentient. Because reality is subjective, this means situations surrounding "moral dilemmas" are likewise subject to the person's perception of reality. Their intents may differ wildly, and their actions as well. They may even be contradictory due to lack of choice, or even an illusion of lack of choice (The typical binary choice logical dilemma... "Join us or die"😉. Their consequences may be the fruit born of the seed of intent and actions, but the consequence is never under the control of the human being. At most, they can hope that their intents and actions will lead to a better consequence in the end. Those more focused on the consequence may eschew the action as irrelevant; you'll notice that in most cases, action is the part that is typically morally questionable. Intents are rarely focused on. If a bad guy in a movie lets the other guys live an even gives his life for them, he appears to be morally correct. But in the end of the movie, if it's revealed that he did this to say, unleash a plague on an entire world, you realize in the end his true intentions and consequences were more in alignment than anything.

That kind of distinction is important. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
That's what it seems like to me.

I mentioned that a judge would not want to be executed, but that does not mean (that's what 'hardly' means) that he does not have the right to condemn a criminal to imprisonment or execution.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
In terms of capital punishment? Sure. I think our legal system is the best in the world though.

... which is exactly why the U.S has a very high crime rate in comparison to most 'developed' countries. I don't have a problem with you advocating the death penalty (aside from the fact that I feel it is wrong, of course), but, if you look at the statistics of crime, the U.S's legal system is far from the best in the world.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Here's the thing though, MC; the Golden Rule presumes that when it is being applied, it is being applied rationally, not just subjectively. You have to put the scenario into proper context for it to make sense.

Let's take yours: A criminal was caught and faces execution. This is bad for the criminal. The judge clearly does not want to suffer that kind of fate. But then, the judge must admit that he has not caused a crime, but the criminal has. The judge must rationally accept that, were he to have committed said crime, he should willingly suffer the consequences under another judge like himself.

The idea you're thinking of is Special Pleading. Special Pleading, a psychological mechanism which works almost without sleep throughout our lives, is why the Golden Rule cannot achieve universal perfection.

But that doesn't mean we can't try, right?

Well, I completely agree with this, and the existence of criminality and other violent acts (so long as that 'violence' is done without consent) will lead to the fact that the Golden Rule can never be utilized to its full degree. While I think that we can try and minimize violence and criminality to the best of our ability, I don't think it will ever be completely eradicated.

Here's another 'moral' question: if a country is committing genocide upon its populace, do you think we have a duty to intervene, and if so, by what means?

Originally posted by Janus Marius

Murder is legally defined and relative to the society in question. Therefore, murder cannot be somewhat agreed upon more than that is to say all murders are illegal. It's part of the definition. But not all murders are identical. It is permissable to kill folks for wrong beliefs or imagined infidelity in some parts of the world. That would never wash in other parts, would it? Yet they are not considered murder. They may even be lauded as acceptable and morally correct behaviors. Luckily for you and everyone you come into contact with, the US and most of its friends don't belief in customary killings. Well, not that many, anyways.

In a foreign country, I would feel morally obligated to help someone being raped or murdered, simply because I believe they may be innocent victims and if I were in their shoes, I would want someone to help me. I may be wrong about their innocence, and it's a term I use very loosely (I define innocence in this example as someone who is being attacked without warranting such punishment. If I were sitting on a porch step, reading a book, for example, that doesn't warrant that I should be killed. If I had shot my neighbor's whole family before he came home from work though, I earned it).

I can acknowledge that perhaps the behaviors are relative to the society. But just because I recognize that does not mean I have to agree to it, either. My views are still subjective, aren't they? I'm not going to respect everyone's viewpoints simply because they have them. If a guy worships a pile of shit and burns puppies, I don't have to respect him for being "subjective like everyone else". In my eyes, he's a freak and a criminal, and he should be dealt with. If society agrees with me, I'm in the right place.

Here's the thing though, MC; the Golden Rule presumes that when it is being applied, it is being applied rationally, not just subjectively. You have to put the scenario into proper context for it to make sense.

... which is exactly why the U.S has a very high crime rate in comparison to most 'developed' countries. I don't have a problem with you advocating the death penalty (aside from the fact that I feel it is wrong, of course), but, if you look at the statistics of crime, the U.S's legal system is far from the best in the world.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I would HARDLY call this a correlation unless you can provei t.

Homicide rates in the U.S in comparison to other countries (out of a population of 100,000):

Ireland: 0.9
Germany: 0.9
Norway: 1.0
United Kingdom: 1.4
France: 1.6
Canada: 1.9
United States: 5.5

The United States is the only country on this list with the death penalty intact. And even within it, the states without it (liberal states) are generally the most peaceful and with the lowest statistics of crime.

For the industrialized world, the average homicide rate is roughly 2.5. The U.S, one of the only countries with the death penalty intact, has over twice that number.

I'm not saying my opinion here. But just see the statistics for yourself. And when I make a claim, it is generally backed up by some sort of proof.

Ok then. If my view is allegedly subjective or from a certain pov, give me the pov of the Nazis. You asked me to be rational. The Jews were the victims during the Holocaust. The nazis were the aggressors. What is so irrational about that statement? JUSTIFY the Holocaust. JUSTIFY what the Nazis did. "Oh we decided to say we are better than you because we need to blame someone for our economic collapse post WWI" doesn't constitute as a justification.

But that's the thing - I don't have to justify the Nazis. I don't even agree with them.

But you're asking me to accept your version of events as more morally acceptible because you and your society believes it. That's appeal to personal bias, not a rational argument. If you carefully constructed why Nazi aggression was immoral, then you would be evidently the better party, because not only do you have your views, but you can support them.

See, it's like this:

You: Nazi genocide is heinous, and their regime was corrupt and in needing of a serious asskicking.

Nazis: Zay all lie! Ve did not do zuch a thing! Ze jews ruins Chermany in WWI and before!

Germany, before WWII, had a long cultural history of Jewish oppression, superstition, and stigma. Jews have a long history of being oppressed. Neither are coming into this discussion without baggage, preconceived notions of the other part, and irrational grudges.

This doesn't mean that said grudges don't have a grounding in some moral reasoning, obviously. It just means that having a viewpoint based on subjective perceptions does not in itself constitute a moral law. Generically speaking, just because they shot you, doesn't mean it's objectively wrong in all cases nor is shooting back. If you said it was, you're an absolutist.

I never claimed subjectivity didn't exist.

No, but you're championing objective laws, which are contrary to my basic premise. Subjective viewpoints cannot see all sides of things in reality; thus they cannot know objective law because of their own limitations.

Each person's PERCEPTION might be different, but does that indicate that their reality is different?

Ah, but that's the crux, isn't it? There is almost definitely an objective reality (I believe...), but we cannot perceive it objectively. Thus, we cannot derive the objective laws because of our own limitations.

Person A kills Person B. Person A PLANS to kill person B and does it. Person A takes the life of person B. In our legal system, you would have been tried and sent to prison for your vigilantism. While I and most people would agree that the person posed a threat, you broke the law of going above the law by being the judge, jury, and executioner. We can debate "innocent" later.If you know someone raped someone else before, and you killed him at some point in the future, you'd say you did it because that person was not "innocent"? Because he raped someone? No, what you are doing is taking the law into your own hands. So while it may be YOUR justification and defense in court, it does not agree with the laws of this country.

But what law? Social law? Law of the culture involved? Or objective, godlike law? You aren't being consistent here. Obviously, if you break the law, you break the law. But you cannot presume that all laws are moral laws. Jaywalking harms no one, yet it is against the law. It is against the law for a woman to have her hair cut without her husband's permission in Michigan, or for a lady to walk down the interstate in a bikini unless she's flanked by police and bearing a club in (I think) Tennessee or Kentucky. Laws can be flawed; they are constructs of bodies of - get this - subjective and flawed human beings who cannot perceive objective truth.

So again, how is your definition of legality conclusively proving objective law for all humankind?

But by deferring to "outside influences", you are again setting up excuses for criminals. I admit that there are influences, but that doesn't constitute as an excuse. It comes down to personal choice. For every person that commits a crime in an impoverished neighborhood, 10 others don't. Are you going to tell me that they must have had good influences in their lives?

The problem here is that you use "excuse" instead of "influencing factors and variables". An excuse is something someone uses when they are trying to get out of blame for something they did wrong, usually willingly. But if I'm in that position where all I can do is shoot the official or let the world die, I am not excusing my actions based on limited options. I'm being realistic.

If criminals attempt to excuse their actions by saying they had no options, then it's up to the presiding body to determine whether or not that is the case. Obviously if they are indeed truly criminal and trying to weasle out of judgment, they had other more moral choices. If they manage to trick or abuse the system, this does not negate the point that having no choice at all does not make all choices in that scenario 100% bad. If I use a car to run over children, they should not ban cars because of my abuse of a legitimate system.

I'm not even going to touch on the idea of determinism, either, because I don't think you're ready to handle the "free will" argument.

I suppose that's a life and death situation that I will agree with you. However, this example does not follow your example of the official. The example of the official destroying around might have been an INEVITABLE danger, but this example shows that the fat man poses IMMINENT danger. They're two different terms and are treated as such by our judicial system. With the IMMINENT danger, no court of law would try you.

Firstly, why are you relating your stance to courts of law determined by societies? You do realize that you're arguing my point for me, right?

--

Subjective Society A established law.

Said law says doing X is bad.

Y does X.

Y is bad.

Objectivity is not proven in this example.

--

Secondly, you are misusing those terms. The fat guy clogging up the cave is an inevitable danger. He cannot be avoided as of the time of the moral dilemma. It's past the point where avoiding him could be an option. Since it's one of two options (Say, blow the guy up or let everyone die), the choices are the same. The idea of "haste" should not impact the morality of the action in this case. If I need a few hours to plan a way to assassinate the official to save the world, this does not negate both the inevitable AND imminent danger of his plot to destroy the world. Using a legal term to fit in a moral debate is a great way to miss the point.

I come to your house and kill you. What right did I have to take your life exactly? Regardless of your value, I would be committing murder, and I would be held accountable for my crime.

You avoided the question.

I asked YOU if you were innocent or not according to your own definition, and whether or not that value was static or variable. You choice to ignore it and redirect into an assertion. Try again.

Trying here sweetheart, I'm not dodging you I'm trying to articulate my thoughts so it might take some time.

Take more time then. If you intend to convince me, you'll need to seriously consider each of my posts. I don't throw these up here for my benefit.

I agree with morality being put above prudence is wrong. 100% agree. But again you must understand there is a difference between inevitable threat, and imminent threat.

No, I don't. See above. Society law != moral law. Don't confuse the two. Not all social laws are moral ones, though most moral laws may reflect in social laws. Since both are subjective as we've already conclusively established, all you've managed to prove is that you believe in your society's social laws, and perhaps by extention some of their implied moral ones as well. That's it. You still haven't defined "innocence", "evil", or "moral" for that matter.

I agree but I think in terms of law and justice which may or not be conducive to this discussion. I see the slippery slope all around us. In many ways, if we allow A, we allow B. I believe in setting precedents to avoid this.

That's the problem with lawyers - they actively use fallacies to make their points in court, not realizing that said fallacies are barring the path to true rationality. Begging the question, red herring, etc. are all traits used by lawyers to position the evidence in their favor. Legal precedings do not have any relevant bearing to moral discussions because lawyers twist the system to meet their own ends. Most judges are passive and juries are completely subjective, so the system in its entirety cannot be used as a foundation for moral reasoning.

And if you're working to become a lawyer, I suggest you pull up Wikipedia and start memorizing the list of fallacies, because that'll help you in the courtroom. Reactive judges and stupid jurors buy into that kind of stuff. Just remember that it was lawyers who killed Socrates.

It is permissible because they try to justify it through some kind of skewed interpretations. I would never allow it in my presence, and I don't think this country would, for the most part. I've tried to explain that the only way murders are usually justified is through a political agenda or a skewed interpretation of religion (islam).

Some Islamic countries think it is morally correct to kill those poor foolish Danish comic produces who depicted Mohammed because of their laws. They totally ignored the point that Danish laws do not prohibit such drawings, and that Denmark is not an Islamic state.

That's why subjective society views cannot be the basis of reason either.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Homicide rates in the U.S in comparison to other countries (out of a population of 100,000):

Ireland: 0.9
Germany: 0.9
Norway: 1.0
United Kingdom: 1.4
France: 1.6
Canada: 1.9
United States: 5.5

The United States is the only country on this list with the death penalty intact. And even within it, the states without it (liberal states) are generally the most peaceful and with the lowest statistics of crime.

For the industrialized world, the average homicide rate is roughly 2.5. The U.S, one of the only countries with the death penalty intact, has over twice that number.

I'm not saying my opinion here. But just see the statistics for yourself. And when I make a claim, it is generally backed up by some sort of proof.

I'm looking at the statistics. There is absolutely no proof that a correlation exists.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Homicide rates in the U.S in comparison to other countries (out of a population of 100,000):

Ireland: 0.9
Germany: 0.9
Norway: 1.0
United Kingdom: 1.4
France: 1.6
Canada: 1.9
United States: 5.5

The United States is the only country on this list with the death penalty intact. And even within it, the states without it (liberal states) are generally the most peaceful and with the lowest statistics of crime.

For the industrialized world, the average homicide rate is roughly 2.5. The U.S, one of the only countries with the death penalty intact, has over twice that number.

I'm not saying my opinion here. But just see the statistics for yourself. And when I make a claim, it is generally backed up by some sort of proof.

Statistics are very tricky. Besides the idea of sampling and errors involved, etc., these statics are not taking into effect all aspects of the societies which may or may not be contributing to the murder rates. The only correlation here seems to be the death penalty, but correlation is not causation. Since the US justice system is amazingly broken and its society focused on selfish capitalism, acquisition of goods and power, applauding public ridicule and idolizing violent media icons, it's a small wonder this place doesn't look like Escape from NY.

Other societies don't have the same norms as we do, nor the same social climate. We're also one of the most ethnically diverse countries on the planet, with some of the most populated metropolitan areas around. If you took the metro areas out of the statistics and did another study of the 50 states that way, I bet you'd find the numbers more even.

So it just happens to be a work of marvelous coincidence that the United States' crime rate is absurdly high compared to the modern world, a world that, at large, abolished the death penalty? It is coincidence that the states within the U.S that do not have the death penalty have a lower crime rate? And not just any lower crime rate: a lower homicide rate, the crime that is generally punishable by the death penalty.

Now honestly tell me a correlation does not exist. I'm not saying the death penalty increases crime, but it is certainly a poor deterrent of it, and countries that pursue alternative methods of fighting crime have achieved greater success within that field.

Edit: Well, Janus, even within the freakin' United States, liberal states without the death penalty generally have a lower crime rate. This is not because they are less diverse. In fact, they're infinitely more tolerant of diversity. Europe has an extremely high amount of new Muslim immigrants within it, Muslims that have an entirely different culture and ethnicity than the mainstream. And yet Europe, at large, frowns upon the death penalty and has a far lower crime rate than the United States.

I don't think the U.S crime rate has anything to do with the media, first of all. Japan has a media that is far more explicit and violent in nature, even 'mainstream' manga; but yet it has a very low crime rate, too. Capitalism and materialism is one of the lead causes of crime, yeah; but violent crime? I can understand why poverty, segregation, and a vastly inferior education would be more likely to lead an individual down a life of violent criminality, but the more horrible effects of selfish greed and capitalism is seen within white collar crime.

The United States is a very flawed society, to be sure. Its legal system, however, beyond its societal standards, is hugely flawed, too.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Homicide rates in the U.S in comparison to other countries (out of a population of 100,000):

Ireland: 0.9
Germany: 0.9
Norway: 1.0
United Kingdom: 1.4
France: 1.6
Canada: 1.9
United States: 5.5

The United States is the only country on this list with the death penalty intact. And even within it, the states without it (liberal states) are generally the most peaceful and with the lowest statistics of crime.

For the industrialized world, the average homicide rate is roughly 2.5. The U.S, one of the only countries with the death penalty intact, has over twice that number.

I'm not saying my opinion here. But just see the statistics for yourself. And when I make a claim, it is generally backed up by some sort of proof.

Not that I completely disagree, but I think the homicide rate may be influenced by the US having a much larger population and the ugly truth that cities such as LA have large groups of working poor. The working poor usually have much higher crime rates. Which seems to me to make it more a problem of long term capitalistic policies as opposed to the DP.

EDIT - And Janus beat me to it.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
[B]But that's the thing - I don't have to justify the Nazis. I don't even agree with them.

But you're asking me to accept your version of events as more morally acceptible because you and your society believes it. That's appeal to personal bias, not a rational argument. If you carefully constructed why Nazi aggression was immoral, then you would be evidently the better party, because not only do you have your views, but you can support them.

See, it's like this:

You: Nazi genocide is heinous, and their regime was corrupt and in needing of a serious asskicking.

Nazis: Zay all lie! Ve did not do zuch a thing! Ze jews ruins Chermany in WWI and before!

Germany, before WWII, had a long cultural history of Jewish oppression, superstition, and stigma. Jews have a long history of being oppressed. Neither are coming into this discussion without baggage, preconceived notions of the other part, and irrational grudges.

This doesn't mean that said grudges don't have a grounding in some moral reasoning, obviously. It just means that having a viewpoint based on subjective perceptions does not in itself constitute a moral law. Generically speaking, just because they shot you, doesn't mean it's objectively wrong in all cases nor is shooting back. If you said it was, you're an absolutist.

No, but you're championing objective laws, which are contrary to my basic premise. Subjective viewpoints cannot see all sides of things in reality; thus they cannot know objective law because of their own limitations.

Ah, but that's the crux, isn't it? There is almost definitely an objective reality (I believe...), but we cannot perceive it objectively. Thus, we cannot derive the objective laws because of our own limitations.

But what law? Social law? Law of the culture involved? Or objective, godlike law? You aren't being consistent here. Obviously, if you break the law, you break the law. But you cannot presume that all laws are moral laws. Jaywalking harms no one, yet it is against the law. It is against the law for a woman to have her hair cut without her husband's permission in Michigan, or for a lady to walk down the interstate in a bikini unless she's flanked by police and bearing a club in (I think) Tennessee or Kentucky. Laws can be flawed; they are constructs of bodies of - get this - subjective and flawed human beings who cannot perceive objective truth.

The problem here is that you use "excuse" instead of "influencing factors and variables". An excuse is something someone uses when they are trying to get out of blame for something they did wrong, usually willingly. But if I'm in that position where all I can do is shoot the official or let the world die, I am not excusing my actions based on limited options. I'm being realistic.

If criminals attempt to excuse their actions by saying they had no options, then it's up to the presiding body to determine whether or not that is the case. Obviously if they are indeed truly criminal and trying to weasle out of judgment, they had other more moral choices. If they manage to trick or abuse the system, this does not negate the point that having no choice at all does not make all choices in that scenario 100% bad. If I use a car to run over children, they should not ban cars because of my abuse of a legitimate system.

I'm not even going to touch on the idea of determinism, either, because I don't think you're ready to handle the "free will" argument.

Firstly, why are you relating your stance to courts of law determined by societies? You do realize that you're arguing my point for me, right?

--

Subjective Society A established law.

Said law says doing X is bad.

Y does X.

Y is bad.

Objectivity is not proven in this example.

Secondly, you are misusing those terms. The fat guy clogging up the cave is an inevitable danger. He cannot be avoided as of the time of the moral dilemma. It's past the point where avoiding him could be an option. Since it's one of two options (Say, blow the guy up or let everyone die), the choices are the same. The idea of "haste" should not impact the morality of the action in this case. If I need a few hours to plan a way to assassinate the official to save the world, this does not negate both the inevitable AND imminent danger of his plot to destroy the world. Using a legal term to fit in a moral debate is a great way to miss the point.

I asked YOU if you were innocent or not according to your own definition, and whether or not that value was static or variable. You choice to ignore it and redirect into an assertion. Try again.

Take more time then. If you intend to convince me, you'll need to seriously consider each of my posts. I don't throw these up here for my benefit.