Author Topic: Good and bad, right and wrong  (Read 5476 times)

  • Guest
Good and bad, right and wrong
« on: March 01, 2007, 09:44:36 PM »
So, like there are people who think there is nothing wrong with child pornography. This, I find terribly disturbing.

Murder though - there are so many different shades. Emotionally, we sympathize more with murder for self-defence, although our legislation (or the implementation of it) is weaker in this area than I would like to see it. We also sympathize with crimes committed by insanity.

What about murder out of sheer hatred? And what if the victim was a miserable, lousy, hateful, spiteful human being, disliked intensely by everyone? And what if nobody could care less if this person was dead or not? Is the murder still 'wrong'? Should we still punish the perpetrator of the crime who perhaps has had their life (nearly) ruined by the victim, and incur all the costs that putting somebody behind bars entails? It now becomes blurry who the 'victim' is. Why is one person's crimes not considered as 'wrong' simply because that person let his/her victim live? I think there are worse crimes than murder. Can letting somebody live be 'wronger' than killing them?

Don't worry, I'm not planning on killing somebody worthless. Just random, morbid thoughts going through my head as I fall asleep.

Agent 204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
    • http://nitroglycol.blogspot.com
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2007, 08:18:09 AM »
The hypothetical case that a lot of people bring up is, what about killing someone who's killed a family member of yours? I can totally sympathize with the desire to do this; I imagine I'd want to do it too if I was in that situation- but I hope I'd have the self-control not to do it. Why? Many reasons, but perhaps the biggest is the same as with capital punishment by the state- what if you get the wrong person? And given that a jury of twelve relatively impartial people can and do get it wrong, how much more likely is it that someone who's emotionally involved in the case will err?

In short, it's not worth it.
You keep buying these things but you don\'t need them,
But as long as you\'re comfortable it feels like freedom.
-Billy Bragg, "North Sea Bubble"

skdadl

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32874
    • View Profile
    • http://www.pogge.ca
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2007, 08:40:24 AM »
A further problem with that scenario, Agent: it tends to lead to revenge cycles -- he killed my dad, so I kill him, so then his brother has to kill me, and my kid then has to kill him, and so on and so on and so on.

Our justice system is set up to stop revenge cycles by socializing the crime, in a sense: crime is treated as an offence against the community, a disruption in the social order, and its investigation and judgement are taken out of the hands of victims, put into the hands of people who can think reasonably about what went on, as victims often can't. I think that's a good thing m'self.

I'm opposed to killing anyone. I would do it in self-defence if I had to (and could), but that by definition is not murder. There are a few people who really challenge my opposition to capital punishment ... but no, I don't want them killed. Locked up forever, maybe, although I really don't like our jails much.

Agent 204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 270
    • View Profile
    • http://nitroglycol.blogspot.com
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2007, 08:46:50 AM »
That's a good point too. It reminds me of a passage from the radio version of The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy in which the Guide is discussing the three stages in the development of conflict: retribution, anticipation, and diplomacy.

Retribution: I'm going to kill you because you killed my brother.

Anticipation: I'm going to kill you because I killed your brother.

Diplomacy: I'm going to kill my brother and then kill you on the pretext that your brother did it.
You keep buying these things but you don\'t need them,
But as long as you\'re comfortable it feels like freedom.
-Billy Bragg, "North Sea Bubble"

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2007, 09:12:06 PM »
Quote
what about killing someone who's killed a family member of yours?

That is something I can understand - maybe not condone, but certainly understand.

With our 'social contract' have we not given the idea of personally extracting retribution and left that to the state/community/organization?

Quote
crime is treated as an offence against the community, a disruption in the social order


is more than a social theory - if I should walk into a room and see you with a gun standing over my just shot mother I would be sorely tempted to extract some vengency - later investigation may show you just arrived as well and picked up the gun - the deed was done by someone else entirely.

Both practically and formally it is best left to more detached individuals.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

arborman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2298
    • View Profile
    • http://bohemiancoast.blogspot.com
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2007, 01:38:40 AM »
Quote from: skdadl
I'm opposed to killing anyone. I would do it in self-defence if I had to (and could), but that by definition is not murder. There are a few people who really challenge my opposition to capital punishment ... but no, I don't want them killed. Locked up forever, maybe, although I really don't like our jails much.


Yeah, we really need somewhere to exile people to.  Banishment to the moon or something.
The pleasures of the table are for every man, of every land, and no matter what place in history or society; they can be a part of all his other pleasures, and they last the longest, to console him when he has outlived the rest.

leftfield

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2007, 10:37:19 AM »
On the face of, the idea that killing anyone is wrong just seems right and sensible.

But apparently many thoughtful and well-intentioned people would disagree. There are so many cases where the taking of life is condoned by people who have thought long and hard about it -- fetal abortion, euthanasia and suicide, for example. Even people who are uncomfortable with the taking of life in those cases are still willing to eat the bodies of other sentient creatures who have been systemtically killed in commercial meat production.

When the answer isn't clear and straightforward, it's usually because we're not very clear on what the question is.

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2007, 05:19:38 PM »
A friend sent me an interesting website. It is of an international group, out of Switzerland, called TRAIL.

They say their purpose is:
Quote
TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) is an Association under Swiss law founded in June 2002. It is apolitical and non-confessional. Its principal goals are in the fight against impunity for the perpetrators accomplices and instigators of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of torture. TRIAL will go to court and defend the interests of the victims of such acts before the Swiss courts and the International Criminal Tribunal.

Their make up is:
Quote
a network of lawyers capable of rapidly and efficiently instituting legal proceedings.


Some of the trials they are following are that of: Alberto Fujimori, late and unlamented of Peru: Rasim Delic. one time Chief of Staff of the Army of Bosnian Muslims: and Annemette Hommel, an intelligence officer with the Danish Forces in Iraq, accused of torturing prisoners, along with Ahmad Mohammed Harun, a security chief in Darfur and Charles Taylor, who unlike these other pikers, terrorized an entire country (Liberia).
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2009, 10:10:06 PM »
I found this at God's Politics. The blog is about religion in the world. Here is the first few lines of an article in the magazine The Sojurners by Glen Stassen. It is called Challenging Obama on Abortion  

Mr. Stassen is anti-abortion. But anti-abortion with a twist we do not see very often and many here have commented upon its' absence. He says he challenger Bush some time ago on abortion and saw that:
Quote
the Bush administration cut back crucial supports for mothers and babies such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program; Women, Infants, and Children; food stamps; and Pell Grants for college education. I predicted those cutbacks would increase abortions in 2002 among pregnant women who feared they would not have the support needed to raise their baby and keep their life together economically.

and ya know what ......
Quote
When economic policies treat the poor unjustly, pro-life concerns take a big hit. The economy has been so devastated now that more pregnant women may conclude they cannot afford a baby, and have an abortion in 2009.

The rest of the article is inside a subscription wall .... but these lines show a good start. It is also good to see an avid religionist with civilized views on how to achieve a reduction in abortions without resorting to threats, insults, harsher laws and repression.
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Croghan27

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7694
    • View Profile
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2009, 09:05:04 AM »
This story in The Guardian begins by saying this Law is a return to the Middle Ages, say comedy team, as secularists plan an 'insult' to all religions but we find out later that it only goes back 100 years or so. ( :whew: )

Ireland has some very entrenched blasphemy laws - not just laws, but founding principles, enshrined in their Constitution.  They do have some rather restricting "morality laws" that were notably used upon GBS about 90 years ago - but it can be argued that this 'morality'  is only being used as a cover for banning some blasphemy. (Dog whistles are not new.)

There are echoes of this all over the world - an elected leader of one C. American country just got tossed out of the country for trying to conduct a pole to see if a referendum to change their constitution would fly, and California just had a prop. 8 referendum - because same sex marriages are seen as (not) part of their basic makeup.

Now Dermot Ahern, the Justice Minister, has introduced into the Dáil a bill that would amend the Defamation Act of 1961, which includes blasphemy as a crime. See here.

The story says:
Quote
The bill going through the Dáil would amend the Defamation Act of 1961, which includes blasphemy as a crime. To abolish blasphemy laws, the government would have to hold a referendum to amend the constitution.
Which bring up the question of what are the specific offences under this new law. The article does not going into detail, indeed is mostly about the reaction of some artists and of Atheist Ireland to the change.

The nature of the changes are not mentioned ... but given that some blasphemy laws are mandated and it takes a major effort to abolish them, it may be more convenient just to make them so toothless, so benign that they, for all intents and purposes, are gone. My nod to fairness and equanimity being done it does not look good. Ahern is a homophobe, he thinks that queers and, well queer: "Homosexuality is a departure from normality....." and homosexuality is "like lefthand drivers driving on the right-hand side of the road."  :annoyed:

Poor Ireland - it once was called a Celtic Tiger to reflect the enormous growth taking place there, like that of the Asian Tigers. At that time they joined the EU, even if rejecting the Lisbon Treaty, and came very close to legalizing abortions. Now it is the EU country most devastated by this economic travail and they as sliding back to 'the days of yore'. (Forgetting that the days of yore was not all that mellow, witness the diaspora of Irish all over the world.)

a thank you to Brenda Lewis from Facebook for the tip to the story.   :D
"It is also a good rule not to put overmuch confidence in the observational results that are put forward until they are confirmed by theory." -- Arthur Stanley Eddington

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2011, 05:06:36 PM »
I don't want to appear insensitive to the Amish, but when I was listening to the radio I thought I heard Amish Fearful of Mullets :confused  now I'm to understand it's the perps name. Duh.
I don't really want to talk about this, but if you want to read the article:
 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/24/us/7-arrested-in-hair-cutting-attacks-on-amish-in-ohio.html?_r=2&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto


I thought I'd die laughing when I read - “While people are free to disagree about religion in this country, we don’t settle those disagreements with late-night visits, dangerous weapons and violent attacks haircuts”. and then -
[/size]"In at least four violent attacks over the last few months, groups of men from Mr. Mullet’s compound held men down to shear their beards with scissors and battery-operated clippers :o [/size], according to the authorities."[/i]
[/size]
[/size]You know when the Amish start to lose it, the whole world has really gone to hell in a handbasket.
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #11 on: December 17, 2011, 06:54:04 PM »
Some psychic @ yahoo asked about Canada's politics.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/psychic-predictions-canadian-politics-2012-mulcair-win-ndp-212522718.html


There are 7 predictions, #7 was obvious to us all even at the beginning.....


..but #2 I just lurve. Prediction #2: The Conservatives will maintain their level of support in 2012 but, at some point during the year, will be rocked by a sex scandal. :popcorn :)) :bunny
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 06:56:15 PM by Toedancer »
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

sparqui

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7434
    • View Profile
    • http://resettlethis.blogspot.com/
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2011, 08:32:32 PM »
Sex scandal. What if Laureen comes out and then proceeds to have a same sex marriage with her RCMP partner? Oooooohhhhhhh, that would be delicious (still have your dinner on my brain, Toe.)
If my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a tractor. -- Gilles Duceppe

Toedancer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13966
    • View Profile
Re: Good and bad, right and wrong
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2011, 10:44:03 PM »
Sparks, come on, I know your imagination can do better than that. Laureen, coming out? Oh so boring and droll. I want it to be Toes again, or maybe Baird ? or maybe McKay, but def. cabinet material doing the nastie with a married person, too add, of course it'll be a male cuz the cabinet has so few women.  ::) ::)
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 10:45:17 PM by Toedancer »
"Democracy is not the law of the majority, it's the protection of the minority." -Albert Camus 1913-1960

 

Return To TAT