ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:53 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: When, if ever, is murder justified?
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:17 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
For the purposes of this debate, I will be defining "murder" as the killing of another sentient being. The question of what beings can be justly killed is not the issue here; thus, this debate won't involve the issue of when human life begins, whether human rights should be extended to animals, etc. Rather, what I'm asking is whether certain situations make the killing of a being with "human" rights less of a crime, or even not a crime at all.

In other words, is killing a person who has raped and killed your wife any more or less "wrong" objectively than killing a random person on the street? The person who kills a random person on the street is considered more evil, of course, but is the actual act itself more evil? If so, does this mean that the degree of human rights one has is contingent upon the moral behavior of the person with rights? Does this mean that, say, the Dalai Lama has more rights as a person than I do? (It would have to work both ways, after all; if a bad person has less rights than an average person, it would only follow that an average person has less rights than a particularly virtuous person.)

Furthermore, is there any "objective" wrongness to the murder itself as an act, or is morality wholly a question of individual psychologies and motivations rather than objective actions?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
you could say "are you a pacifist"

yes = no

thus no = yes

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:57 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:47 pm
Posts: 6152
Location: somewhere in Canada
I may not be right, but I know what I believe. If I am put in a situation where it's kill or be killed, I will murder. If I am forced to kill to protect the people close to me, I will. I will not kill for pleasure or without meaning. I will try to find another way to solve the problem without fatalities. Whether I shoot to kill or only to wound is a judgment call made depending on circumstances.

The morality of the actual act depends on the actor. If it was done in order to prevent something worse, it is still wrong, but not as bad as doing nothing. But if it's done for no reason, with no meaning, then that is wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
Our society, thru our coutrs and legal system have defined murder to fit it into many catagories. From Premeditated murder (intention to commit, planned out beforehand) to Justifiable homicide to involuntary manslaughter down to self-defence.
Justification is truly a matter of degrees and intent.
International law and Military codes of conduct (Geneva convention, nato rules, UN described reolutions, and so forth) further define what is muder, or is not, in a variety of situations.
Aside from the legal defininitions, it may just ome down to a matter of morals to define wether murder is acceplable or not.
Some religions feel that killing an outsider to that religion for what the rest of see as nothing (one case was a diplomat getting stabbed for complimenting a farmer on his crop, this was an insult to the farmer who believed his 'god' should have been complimented, not him). We view this as an act of murder. It was viewed as an acceptlable act in the nation where this occured.
Victims of rape are allowed to kill the offender in some nations, based on a religious view, while in nations like the US, rapists are often viewed as trouble individuals in need of help (and vilifining the victim, as in the way she dressed said she asked for it). In both cases the victim is placed in a position of being less of a human than before, but the perp gets either killed off or locked up with therapy, depending on the religious beliefs of the nation.
It may just be a matter of personal views and convictions of your religion and personal moral values.
I personally would not murder the rapist, rather cripple the bastard to the point his life would be real misery (and remove his ability to rape again).
But there are other acts that would drive me to take another humans life.
They all have there 'IFs' about them however, and can change with the person confronting me with the situation. This comes down to my personal moral and religious convictions and my view/conception of the person confronting me.
In the end, could I, or would I take another humans life? That truly depends upon the situation. Have I? In service of my country, yes.
It is truly a life changing thing to do. It is not easily discussed/debated without having been real close to the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 2:48 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
wolf346 wrote:
The morality of the actual act depends on the actor. If it was done in order to prevent something worse, it is still wrong, but not as bad as doing nothing. But if it's done for no reason, with no meaning, then that is wrong.


If an action is the best action that can be done under the circumstances, then it is a "right" action. Thus, murder would not be "still wrong" if done to prevent something worse; it would, in that context, be the right and just thing to do.

As for whethert this is an argument about pacifism - not exactly. Although war, self-defense, and revenge are certainly contexts in which murder of human beings is often considered acceptable, there are other cases, such as capital punishment, that are not necessarily a question of being a pacifist or not. Also, is murder justified when/if one as committed a horrible crime that does not itself involve murder? Rape, for example. What I'm really wondering here is in what particular contexts murder is justifiable, and what overall principle can be used to determine whether murder is justifiable in a particular situation.

Another question: if an intelligent, productive member of society is killed by an ignorant useless dreg for no good reason, is this worse morally than if a dreg is killed by a productive member of society for no reason? In other words, is it more morally "wrong" to kill some people than to kill others? How do we make the judgment of who is more "deserving" of death?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 4:22 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 9:43 pm
Posts: 1096
Zarathustra wrote:
What I'm really wondering here is in what particular contexts murder is justifiable, and what overall principle can be used to determine whether murder is justifiable in a particular situation.


Colorado has the "Make-my-day" law that explicitly states that homeowners responding to intruders they believe to be a threat cannot be prosecuted for using deadly force.

It was wildly debated, and there have been a few cases where the law was abused, but I think that it's pretty clear that the threshold is (and should be) the initiation of physical force by the aggressor. You have a natural right to defend yourself and your household. (Kind of fuzzy whether this right includes defense of your property in general, or defense against legitimate government authorities, but anyway...)


Zarathustra wrote:
In other words, is it more morally "wrong" to kill some people than to kill others? How do we make the judgment of who is more "deserving" of death?


Well, the way we do it now it to bring in the actuaries. Statistical projections of future wages and production determine how much your life would have been worth and how much your survivors should be paid (e.g. liability in the case of an accident).

I don't think this does (or should) apply to murder, (otherwise you could go around killing vagrants) but society clearly does have some idea of relative worth built in.

In keeping with my first argument though, I'll say that physical defense from an <i>immediate</i> threat is the only extenuating circumstance. Beyond that all murders are equal, killers and victims both.


Zarathustra wrote:
Furthermore, is there any "objective" wrongness to the murder itself as an act, or is morality wholly a question of individual psychologies and motivations rather than objective actions?


I'd argue that the act of murder implies a judgment that the victim's life/identity is insignificant when weighed against the benefits that that would arise from their death. As human beings, we do not have sufficient information to make this decision in general.

Taken with the fact that most of us find murder psychologically repugnant, we say that the act of murder itself is wrong because we don't trust one another to know when it is justified -- a neat bit of doublethink. Murder is always wrong. Except when it isn't.

_________________
Always watching, ever vigilant


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Okay my concepts of Good and Evil come strictly from what causes happiness and what does not so I will work from that angle.

I guess the first thing to do is determine why killing is "wrong." The pain or fear associated with killing the person certainly does cause unhappiness but death itself is neutral. Though it results in nothing in and of itself it denies all future happiness the person might have experienced. This is about as great a crime as I can imagine. There are also rammifactions outside the immediate crime against the victim. The trauma caused to all people related to and intertwined with the victim is certainly severe. Their collective torment is worth sparing most lives. Though this does lead us to the slippery slope that ends up with killing hobos for fun. But hey, they're just hobos.

Okay now killing is a dire act however there are cases were it would be logically warranted. If by ending the person's life you could prevent unhappiness from coming to many people. However life is rarely so simple and human beings are absolutely awful at predicting the future to boot. So you are left with people's fallible reasoning to determine if someone is going to cause more harm to humanity than his death would. Also there are many alternatives to death that remove the threat of this person from humanity such as life-imprisonment. However this is assuming the person can be put under such conditions.

Usually this is not the case. Most people that are murdered are killed because someone perceived them as posing a threat to themselves or something or someone they held dear. I think the major problem with unjustified killing starts here. People often hold the lives of those they know in far higher regard than the lives of random people. By default they assume that their friends and family are more worthy of life than another person. If this person is perceived as threatening then it is only that much more of a weighted decision.

Petty criminals who just have no regard for human life I dont feel need addressing. Their actions are unjustified and therefor wrong. It is the self-defenses cases that are the stickiest of the lot. I feel a person is justified in subduing an aggressor in whatever way possible. Notice the word "subdue", I regard killing as a last resort. Though granted a person should act as quickly as possible in a situation in which they feel threatened, if they should still never go further and kill and individual just for attempting to kill or much less harm them. This is unwarranted and is usually just a manifestation of the violent urges that arise with adrenaline.

Now to justice. It's retarded. The completely conscious and voluntary killing of a human being who is essentially helpless, it is pointless. Lock them up. The justice system is far to faulty to ever make such weighty decisions with life and death. It is by far safer to keep the individuals alive and barred from humanity.

Okay yeah, that's it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
revolutio wrote:
Most people that are murdered are killed because someone perceived them as posing a threat to themselves or something or someone they held dear. I think the major problem with unjustified killing starts here. People often hold the lives of those they know in far higher regard than the lives of random people. By default they assume that their friends and family are more worthy of life than another person. If this person is perceived as threatening then it is only that much more of a weighted decision.


I don't think that is a problem. I am a utilitarian, but the weight I give to a human life is in direct proportion to my loyalty to them. One cannot have loyalty to the entire human race, and one must have loyalty or else be entirely unworthy of trust. To have loyalty you must act in the interests of those who you are loyal to. Therefore, you must value them more than strangers, and far more than hostiles.

revolutio wrote:
Petty criminals who just have no regard for human life I dont feel need addressing. Their actions are unjustified and therefor wrong. It is the self-defenses cases that are the stickiest of the lot. I feel a person is justified in subduing an aggressor in whatever way possible. Notice the word "subdue", I regard killing as a last resort. Though granted a person should act as quickly as possible in a situation in which they feel threatened, if they should still never go further and kill and individual just for attempting to kill or much less harm them. This is unwarranted and is usually just a manifestation of the violent urges that arise with adrenaline.


Those violent urges have a reason behind them. You leave an an assailant alive and injured and you have made an enemy. Furthermore, our laws are built so you are in more trouble if you leave people alive than if you kill them. Dead men don't make up their side of the story and sue you.

revolutio wrote:
Now to justice. It's retarded. The completely conscious and voluntary killing of a human being who is essentially helpless, it is pointless. Lock them up. The justice system is far to faulty to ever make such weighty decisions with life and death. It is by far safer to keep the individuals alive and barred from humanity.


That would be fine if people would stop letting them out. But i am tired of murderers and rapists being put back on the street to make room for recreational drug users. Killing them is the only way to make sure that they stay gone.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Leading to one thing, I have a quiestion to ask
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:46 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Is "morality" just a code of commonly accepted social behaviour meant to endorse security and abolish fear?

I don't much understand moral, but it seems to me, murdering and the fear of being murdered is inconvenient for most people, which is why there are laws against it.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Clay_Allison wrote:
I don't think that is a problem. I am a utilitarian, but the weight I give to a human life is in direct proportion to my loyalty to them. One cannot have loyalty to the entire human race, and one must have loyalty or else be entirely unworthy of trust. To have loyalty you must act in the interests of those who you are loyal to. Therefore, you must value them more than strangers, and far more than hostiles.
Well I just don't agree with that. Though my emotions come into play and self interest of course I try to let none of my personally biases seep through into making decisions. Though it isn't like I am ever likely to face any sort of choice that would affect humanity.

Quote:
Those violent urges have a reason behind them. You leave an an assailant alive and injured and you have made an enemy. Furthermore, our laws are built so you are in more trouble if you leave people alive than if you kill them. Dead men don't make up their side of the story and sue you.
I value my own moral code above money (to a certain extent of course) and certainly above the law.

Quote:
That would be fine if people would stop letting them out. But i am tired of murderers and rapists being put back on the street to make room for recreational drug users. Killing them is the only way to make sure that they stay gone.
I believe in rehabilitation though I also believe in castrating all violent criminals. However I agree that people are put back out on the street who should still be locked up. I hope this problem is fixed. I still don't think they need to die. It is a motion to offer a sense of closure to victims families for the most part. Life in prison is cheaper and no less effective at detering crime.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:18 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
My moral code exists in reality and applies to reality, which makes it less "pure" than an idealistic one.

Basically I say killing is justified to protect life AND property and to prevent, (in the words of the law of Florida) violent felonies from being immediately perpetrated on the self and others. Also in the case of eliminating a clear and present danger to self and others.

I know of a case where a guy found out that his ex wife was allowing his 11 year old daughter to be raped by her new boyfriend. I won't say what happened, but I would have sent the guy (and the bitch) from this mortal plane, taken my daughter and gone to mexico. In the case in whiich you have clear knowledge that a person is dangerous and no way to protect others before he/she does further harm. I would find it entirely moral to kill them.

I also believe in revenge. It may not be morally right, but if someone kills or irreparably harms yourself or a loved one. I would not denounce you for killing them.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:53 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Now, Icy, you've asked to very diffent (by your own words) questions. First, you ask about the objective morality of killing, and when it would be objectively moral to murder. Then you ask about when killing is "justifiable." Now, you yourself have repeatedly (in this very thread) pointed out that there is a great difference between these two questions, and I think that a good deal of confusion might arise if they are not separated.

Anyhoo, in regards to the objective morality of murder, I think it's all hogwash, as I do with a great portion of "objective morality." Now, this is a not uncommon end t many of the Debate Club debates, and I think there's a reason for it: no one can have an objective and omniscient view, nor can we know in an a priori sense (bleh, I'm spouting my old philosophy class terminology) that murder is wrong (or, according to Hume, that the act of murder causes death [ *shrugs* go figure]). So, without a few assumed rules, we can't argue whether or not murder is ever "moral." (Bleh, I've said an undisputed thing in such solemn tones, forgive me).

Now, as to murder being justifiable, I turn to my provincialism for that. Now, I've accepted as part of my set of rules (the ones I mentioned above), that the twins truth and honesty are better than the lack of such, all else being equal, that desires are worthy of being taken into account (something that many reputed philosophers deny, it's controversial), and that all else being equal, what is closer to oneself is of greater importance than what is further away. These are, I believe, reasonable and generally acceptable rules of conduct, so they might be worth discussing here.
First, truth and honesty are the basis for society, the whole thing. Everything from language to law is based in the understanding that we know what's going on with other people, and that we know how we should act when around others. This is my mandate against murder; simply that it is agreed that you don't go around killing people, and that killing in any situation is generally to be avoided when there is a choice. If you live outside of any society, then I suppose you haven't agreed to anything, and can ethically kill whom you please, but we know empirically that such a system is unsustainable (the isolated homicidal hermit strain of humanity hasn't been very prosperous). Now most societies stipulate conditions under which murder is acceptable (self-defense or defense of others, defense of property, etc.), but I've got a few more reasons why murder might be justifiable.
Now, going back to the provincialism I mentioned earlier. I propose that we witness the world in the first person (I know I do, and I have reason to believe the rest of you do as well). I also propose that we feel our own desires and emotions more sharply than those of our friends (unless our desires are to fulfill the desires of those friends), and of our friends more sharply than our acquaintences, and so on (I suspect not many of you cared much about the welfare of the mother of the wife of Han Seng, the twelth century Chinese clockmaker). So, when a stranger (whom you are not close to) commits a relatively minor crime (say, assault) against a friend (whom you are close to), it is reasonable and justified to commit murder (the greater crime) against the stranger (the one you are far from) in defense of your friend (whom you are close to).

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:28 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 2:28 pm
Posts: 88
I believe that murder is certainly justified when it removes a proven, lethal, and certain threat to other members of society. That is, I have no compunctions about the death of those that have intentionally killed others (excluding, of course, those agents that carry out the execution of said people).
In other words, you murder someone, and your life is forfeit, because there is no guarantee that I can believe that you will not murder again. This implies that all people have the right to life until they take the life of another.

Some would argue that for the purposes of removing a threat to society, a life sentence in prison serves the same purpose. I would say that the offender, being in prison indefinitely, serves only to be a drain on the rest of society, and furthermore that no prison can offer a 100% guarantee of no inmate escapes. I don't want my tax dollars being spent to keep a man alive that has proved his threat to society. I want it spent on programs that better society.

As obvious as it may be by now, I suppose now I should point out that I believe that there is no 'innate' value of human life; only that value which we as a society place upon it, and that each person is but a part of a total organism. The value of life, and the "right to life", comes from the expectation that as humans we will not be able to function as a part of a larger society, to trust each other and work toward common goals, if we do not have some guarantee to our personal survival. (That is why communities formed in the first place, to increase the individual chances of survival).

Furthermore, I also believe that there should be no difference in priority between a family member and a total stranger. The whole idea behind our modern society is to protect those that cannot protect themselves, instead of the "every clan for itself" way of thinking. Objectively, is there a difference between your brother being threatened with death and a stranger? Why should there be a subjective difference? The expectation that others will look out for us for no immediate personal reason - whether it's their job, duty, or simply part of their character - is what binds a society together.

Of course, once we move away from certain lethal threats into actions that are not necessarily lethal, we approach a grey area. I am a proponent of a "shoot-first, questions later" philosophy - If a man approaches me unarmed but threateningly, would killing him be justified? Probably - but I would expect a higher standard toward attempts at defusing the situation be applied. A man with a gun, obviously, poses a much larger, more immediate threat - and a much clearer threat - and assuming that said person has intentions to take your life or the life of another is much more permissible, so taking action to stop the person - like murder - is allowed. Assuming that the unarmed man knows Martial Arts Instant Death Blows and thus poses as much of a threat as the assailant with the firearm is not permissible; that’s where the standard comes into play.
... You know, I’m not sure if that makes a lot of sense. Time to wrap up.

As a generalization, the morals that we teach are a result of our societal nature, and are simply the rules which we must collectively construct in order to function as a community rather than a bunch of individuals, constantly having to watch our own backs. The definition of murder as a moral wrong is therefore just a rule created by society to put the members of society more at ease (and thus better able to work), secure in the expectation that they will not be killed by some random person for no reason. Religion established certain morals as rules, in order to give the rules more clout, more basis, and a threat of certain punishment.
Those religions and rules - and the societies based around those religions - that made the best societies flourished while those religions that made for worse societies died: evolution of the fittest societies with the fittest rules for survival in that society's environment. Get it?

Of course that all results from my viewpoint as an atheist bastard, that no God defined universal, absolute morals, and religions were initially sustained (in addition to answering questions such as origin) as a part of a governmental system created to create and control communities. (Think about it. A prohibition against murder will keep the people from killing each other: higher population: more wealth. A prohibition against homosexuality will enforce the creation of unions between men and women: higher breeding rate: more population. Prohibition against stealing: keeps citizens from killing each other: higher population. Honor thy father: people give weight to the commands of the elders: a subservient population. Human sacrifice: ...apparently, not such a good idea. There aren't any Aztecs around today, are there? (I know that’s a gross oversimplification). You get the point.)

The only thing keeping me from killing you is the expectation that if I killed you, the rest of society would perceive me as a threat and work to eliminate that threat as soon as possible; therefore I can assume you are not going to kill me for the same reason; and that each individual can act as a member of the society to eliminate any threat to that society. Summed up, it translates to a dictum of "Don't kill people," with an implied threat behind it.



I'm no philosopher. Feel free to destroy my argument from the inside out if you like, I appreciate being made to question my own assumptions and refine my logic.


_____
Edit: Forgot some of the other things I was going to mention.
Its fairly obvious that I support the death penalty and that I'm all for executing murderers. However I do NOT beleive that the American justice system is, in its current state, able to sentence people to death. Simply because of the complications of the legal system, the vast amount of wait time for cases to be processed, and the very real fact that there are innocent men/women on Death Rows around the country. There are so many loopholes in the law that let innocent men hang and the guilty go free... it makes me sick. The way crucial evidence can be thrown out of court... Someday, I hope that our justice system can find the guilty and free the innocent, and then it will be worthy to issue death sentences, but it needs a MAJOR overhaul. Personally I see little distinction in the crime of the state in letting an innocent man rot for life behind bars versus killing him outright; the thought that innocent men rot is just as bad as having innocent men killed. But how the fuck can change be initiated in something as complicated as the law??

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:19 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
I have no moral or ethical issue with murder. However I do have issues with some of the consequences and reasons for murder, so while I don't think there is inherently something wrong with killing a sentient being I am not willing to be a wanton killer.

It's a very primitive feeling in many ways... You get in my way I'll kill you. You hurt someone I love I'll kill you. You don't cause me undo trouble or pain then I won't kill you because I won't subject others to that unnecessarily. Killing is also often a waste of resources and therefore should be avoided when possible.

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:20 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Am I right in supposing that many of you are de facto moral relativists? It seems that way judging by some of your posts.

Keles wrote:
I don't want my tax dollars being spent to keep a man alive that has proved his threat to society. I want it spent on programs that better society.


You do realize that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 9:41 am 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 2:28 pm
Posts: 88
Zarathustra wrote:
Keles wrote:
I don't want my tax dollars being spent to keep a man alive that has proved his threat to society. I want it spent on programs that better society.


You do realize that it costs more money to execute someone than it does to keep them in prison for life, right?


I am aware of that, yes, the current American system costs more with all the appeals and processes the defendant gets. Unless the actual act of killing or the detention facilities specifically built for condemned prisoners costs more than a lifetime in prison, the cost stems from the judicial processes, which implies that defendants with death sentences have more of a right to appeal than a defendant sent to life behind bars. I've already said that I consider the two to be equally horrible fates for an innocent man to suffer. Thats yet another reason why the justice system now sucks.
Plus, while it may cost more to kill a prisoner, there is a 100% guarantee he will not commit future murders. A prisoner on life can always escape or be misplaced by the parole system and allowed out (that has happened before).

_________________
DNI'ed by Wandering Idiot


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Lifyre wrote:
I have no moral or ethical issue with murder. However I do have issues with some of the consequences and reasons for murder, so while I don't think there is inherently something wrong with killing a sentient being I am not willing to be a wanton killer.

It's a very primitive feeling in many ways... You get in my way I'll kill you. You hurt someone I love I'll kill you. You don't cause me undo trouble or pain then I won't kill you because I won't subject others to that unnecessarily. Killing is also often a waste of resources and therefore should be avoided when possible.


rather than write a page of "yeah but and in this case then in that case" i'll juts agree with Lifyre here and note that there's a difference between killing and murdering with this quote from Charles Manson "if i started murdering people, there wouldn't be any of you left"

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:44 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Clay_Allison wrote:
My moral code exists in reality and applies to reality, which makes it less "pure" than an idealistic one.
Mine is too, however your perception of reality is not mine so my moral code would not function in your version of reality.

Quote:
Basically I say killing is justified to protect life AND property and to prevent, (in the words of the law of Florida) violent felonies from being immediately perpetrated on the self and others. Also in the case of eliminating a clear and present danger to self and others.
Property I am iffy on since I generally think the price tag on a human life, even a poorly spent one, is quite a bit more than most people would ever have. The rest I would be fine with however I just feel that people as a whole have awful judgement. Many many deaths each year occur because someone felt threatened and killed someone when there was no actual threat. I think that if everyone feels like killing is such a readily available solution to problems they will be less apt to critically examine the situation.

Though I would wager good money that taking a moment to think would save alot more lives than it would end.

Quote:
I also believe in revenge. It may not be morally right, but if someone kills or irreparably harms yourself or a loved one. I would not denounce you for killing them.
I have no problem with someone seeking revenge since it is justified in many people's moral view. I do however have a problem with someone seeking revenge when it goes against their own moral code. If you ever find yourself breaking your own moral code willfully then you should re-examine what your concept of morality is.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:25 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
I keep it simple by not having morals- right and wrong are simply ideas that can be manipulated to mean anything. Same with good and evil.

However, I value my life, so I value other peoples lives to. If you, in their situation, would not want to die, then don't kill them. And if I was going be killed, then I would hope it would be for a good reason. But really all comes down to the individual situation.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 22, 2004 4:31 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Chris THe Great wrote:
I value my life, so I value other peoples lives to.

There is no moral logic, here.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group