| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Side Forums :: Philosophy |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Crime and Punishment | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| peacebypeice |
|
||
peacebypeice
Registered Member #925
Joined: Mon Nov 26 2007, 05:23AMPosts: 1452 |
to an extreme amount... any way any how | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kd. |
|
||
♥ (✿◠‿◠) ♥
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 08:51PMPosts: 3128 |
Sorry about the offtopicness, but Peace, your signature is looks like one I made a while ago... lul.
I JUST NOTICED IT'S THE SAME RENDER TOO. luuuuul.
Rawr. Edited Mon Feb 18 2008, 09:30AM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Maddogme |
|
||
Registered Member #964
Joined: Sat Jan 12 2008, 07:23PMPosts: 1776 |
gLiTchâ„¢ wrote ... EDIT: BAH MADDOG U BEAT ME TO IT LOL. <3 |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kd. |
|
||
|
♥ (✿◠‿◠) ♥
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 08:51PM Posts: 3128 |
NoSkill wrote ... At what point does murder become justified? If ever. If the murder of a single individual will significantly improve the lives of hundreds, even thousands of people, is it right? Or even if it isn't "right" in the traditional sense of the word, should it still be done, for the greater good? Yes. That's what revolutions are all about, French, American, Russian, etc. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Zero |
|
||
I want to fuck your hand.
Registered Member #571
Joined: Thu Feb 15 2007, 09:59PMPosts: 2809 |
but in the same sense... Revolutions can come from not killing, you simply take the people negatively effecting the situation, out of the equation. however this has always been with killing... but there are other effective ways. Which is why it is still asked, does it still make it just? Just because you kill someone to protect thousands, the quantity just doesnt mean anything. IS THAT ONE PERSON GETTING KILLED WORTH ANYTHING? He said what is the value, and so far we've come up with 1 for 1. You kill, you get killed. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Merzon |
|
||
Registered Member #981
Joined: Sun Feb 03 2008, 04:10AMPosts: 32 |
Murder is never justified, murder is only see is less of a evil light due to the consequence of the two actions. if by you murdering one individual, stops one man from murdering multiple individuals, then that is where you would logically choose the first. Murder is never justified, it is only chosen to stop other murder from happening. From an empirical standpoint - the action isn't evil, but the consequence of the actions signal if the action should or should not be done again. BUT this also brings up the question of are we responsible for our actions. If things are all predetermined, and there is a way to see criminal actions before they occur, like the movie the minority report, then is it morally justified to arrest someone before they commit the crime? They havent done anything wrong but its absolutely certain they will. Is it right to kill someone if they dont have a choice with what they are going to do? Edited Mon Feb 18 2008, 08:12PM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kd. |
|
||
|
♥ (✿◠‿◠) ♥
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Dec 17 2005, 08:51PM Posts: 3128 |
According to the communist manifesto, violent class revolution is neccesary | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| NoSkill |
|
||
Sir
Registered Member #457
Joined: Tue Oct 10 2006, 01:13PMPosts: 2628 |
Excellent! I dare say I wasn't sure I would be met with such a general intrigue in this topic, thank you for your honest and heartfelt responses. I've just finished the book, it was... amazing and I'm left with some very strong impressions on this subject, allow me to share them with you. Murder. Being against the law of man and God should not, in the moral sense, go unpunished. Regardless of the loftiness of the aim, for the greater good or what have you, the individual act is still reprehensible. This, I'm sure, at least we can agree on. However, I'm going to broaden this topic a bit. Throughout religious and human history alike there have been countless examples of... extraordinary people who are... a cut above the rest. Through their PERSONAL transgressions (breaking of) past and present laws, they create new and better societies based on NEW ideas and NEW laws that are in themselves breaking of the old ones. Examples include almost any powerful present and past statesmen who have shaped the face of their society around them. I'm talking the Napoleons, the George Washingtons, yes even the Hitlers and the Bin Ladens. (forget the particular cause of the individual for a moment) By overstepping any and all obstacles (which were numerous in all of these situations) they have revolutionized the face of the planet and the society we live in today. This... "overstepping" of obstacles can include anything from completey ignoring common public procedure to mass murder. Some of these men had... a "good" aim in our eyes hell all of these men had a "good" aim in their own eyes and in the eyes of their followers. Some of these men, like George Washington and Napoleon for example are championed in their respective societies as some of the greatest men who have ever lived. And it may be true! For if it wasn't for these men who knows what type of miserable conditions our lives would be reduced to through "idiotic" and unwise laws. I have a smile on my face as I write this. So at what point, does it become right or good? 10 years later? 100 years later? Immediately? Never? I have my own opinions, but again, I would like to hear you all's. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Merzon |
|
||
|
Registered Member #981
Joined: Sun Feb 03 2008, 04:10AM Posts: 32 |
murder never becomes right, for murder is only an action. what you are talking about is the consequences of these actions. they are two separate thing. if i were to bully a kid and he were to cry. there were two things, the cause and the effect. there are two ways to looks at this: empirical means: the action isn't inherently bad - the action is only as bad as the consequences are rational means: the action is inherently bad despite how good the consequences are. If you believe in the first one, then the actions are not per say justified, just look at in a less evil way. The second one, they are evil. I tend to lean more towards the empirical end. In my opinion you can't put a time limit on an "evil" (whatever that may be) action for it to become good. The holocaust will always be morally wrong despite the good it caused due to the insane amount of cruelty used. Same with 9-11. I believe that things with greater consequences, the good has be exceeding grand, much much more amazing then the evil it causes. But for smaller things like petty larceny, its more arguable if done for noble means, ex robin hood, is that actually evil. Which more pertains to people believing that the laws are always perfect, and not realizing that all laws are created by flawed creatures called humans. and someone who is flawed cannot create something that is perfect - a perfect law. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| NoSkill |
|
||
|
Sir
Registered Member #457
Joined: Tue Oct 10 2006, 01:13PM Posts: 2628 |
I believe in quesitons regarding a moral dilemma such as this you need to ask yourself "what was the intent?" If the intent to murder an old woman pawnbroker was "to get back my belongings" that would be wrong. You deserve to be punished. If the intent was "so that the many people she hurts on a regular basis all: financially, emotionally and physically will be relieved" while that's a BETTER goal, as in it's not selfish, to me still doesn't make it right. And you will still be punished, because, who are you to decide? Regardless of how obviously right it may be. But if the intent is to "rid the world of a despicable person and use the illgotten gains she's amassed to further pursue one's own noble and productive goals (like starting a business and employing people) while at the same time improving the lives of many as stated before" This seems like the highest and most just cause. In fact, punishing the individual with this intent, will PREVENT any good from ever ocurring from the single act. However, intent can never be known and there in lies the problem. But this is one remaining course that can make it right. In other words, for this act of murder, to in anyway be considered right, EVER, the individual committing it should have a vision far beyond the initial act. One of goodness and benevolence and betterment. So that, this... murder... is merely an neccesary step on the way to great things. This is how I'm sure generals like Napoleon thought. The end result, if successful, will always outweigh the sum of the wrongs that were committed out of necessity. But there's the dividing line, right there. In order for any immoral or illegal ACT or ACTS to ever be considered acceptable. The OVERALL goal must be achieved. Not only must it be achieved but it must be SUCCESSFUL. When you look at it this way, it's no wonder these illegal acts MUST be committed in the first place. As society has always been structured with it's laws and morals and respective governing bodies, there is no MORAL or LEGAL course of action one can take to affect the whole of society. In order to be truly successful and implement a change in society. It seems that you MUST not only commit illegal and immoral acts, but you must continue to commit them or any action for that matter, until your goal is realized. Anything less can only be considered a complete and utter failure and yes... you will be punished. This is why men like Napoleon are one in billions. Not that there aren't other men who may have had the vision and even the motivation to carry out their plans, but for one reason or another, perhaps even by chance, society put an end to their meddling long before their goal could be achieved... Oh how curious it all is. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|