What people belive is true on these forums

[zatoichi]

Ah, but if there was no law about shooting people in the street, would you do it? :twisted: If not, why not? What is it that would keep you from shooting random people? Think at it from the angle that there was no law keeping you from just going outside and shooting that guy who walks by your house every morning, or that mail man who comes by in the afternoon.

I wouldn't shoot them partly because I have no desire to, partly because humans are for the most part genetically inclined towards cooperation, and partly because lifes easier when you can assume nobody's gonna shoot you. I you're running around shooting people, chances are someone else is too.

[Usagi]

I think you're basically bastardising the word 'right'.

I agree we've got a problem with words; right can mean too many things with too many connotations.

I'm not sure how to solve it. When I talk about "wrong" action, I mean one with a negative effect on others; "right" action is one with a positive effect.

Sure it's alright to steal a loaf of bread, it's a dollar or a human life. A loaf of bread taken from a rich guy isn't so important as to lose a family for.

There's the word problem again. I would say a wrong action is always wrong; it doesn't change because of the circumstances.

Choosing a less damaging wrong (stealing bread) over a greater wrong (death through starvation) is natural and defensible, but doesn't change the action. And the fact that the victim may be able to afford it, may not even notice it, doesn't change it either. It may be less damaging to the rich man, but that doesn't make it a positive act.

And all this assumes you've tried everything else: getting a job, asking for help, asking for the bread, borrowing, begging: those are positive or at least neutral actions. But if it's just easier to steal, and you extrapolate that your family will die if you don't, it's totally wrong.

See, I think saying, "screw it, not my problem, let them all suffer," is not the right thing to do. That's simply a tough question to answer.

I don't think it really is. My position isn't "screw them, its not my problem." I don't think it is your problem, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to do something; you just aren't required to sacrifice yourself. And it's not possible to save or even help everyone, but that's no excuse for helping no one.

A couple stories; first a Japanese myth. A rabbit met an old holy man, who seemed to be sick and starving, about to die. The bunny offered to help, but had no way to provide food for the man. So he told the man to make a hot fire, then ran off.

The bunny ran back and jumped into the fire, and cooked himself so the old man could eat him and live. It turns out the man is really a god or a bodhisatva or something (as usual) and places the bunny in the moon as a reward for his compassion.

(That's the explanation the Japanese give for seeing a bunny in the moon; he's up there making sweet rice treats. And that's why they eat moichi cakes shaped like bunnies during the Moon Viewing festival in September.)

I think the bunny did a fine thing, driven by compassion. But he gave up something very valuable, which may have been his to give, but did he ask his family and friends if they wanted to trade him for a well-fed old fart?

The buddhists would say he was required to do it, and not doing so would be wrong. I disagree; what he did was positive, but not doing it would not be wrong.

The other story: A man is vacationing at the beach, and every morning at dawn he sees a guy walking down the beach throwing things in the ocean. After a few days he goes out to see what's going on.

He walks up and asks the guy what he's doing. "Throwing sea stars back in the water. They wash up on the sand and die."

The man says, "That's ridiculous. There must be millions of them along the coast! You can't save them all; it won't make make any difference."

The guy picked up a sea star, held it up and said, "It makes a difference to this one," and threw it in the ocean.

That's how I'd like to live my life; taking positive, constructive action, making a difference where I can.

But suicide is something you just shouldn't be doing because life is precious, the reason shouldn't be, because the Daimyo didn't let you and, it's alright to suicide if he does.

It's your life to give, and that life is only precious to you. When it's gone, so are you. But it also has value to others, people you have obligations to: family, lovers, friends, etc. If they all agree (and a samurai's family and friends usually would) then you're free to end it. Nowadays, your family and friends usually wouldn't agree.

In fact, if they don't believe in life after death, and and total cease to existence after life...

During the samurai era, the Shinto religion taught that you'd be reborn in 40 days. It's one reason they weren't so concerned about taking your own, or someone else's, life: you'd be back soon.

[Colicedus]

You have some good points set in this Debate Usagi.
Anything further to ad? or shall we move onto the Next Question?

[Crill3]

I'm so confused, so let's change topic and start new.
Topic = ?

[Colicedus]

Just for a Recap of my last queston, we did kinda get started on it but yea...

If some one was responsible for the Death of your loved ones out of being a psychopath, but evaded Judgment of the Authorities due to political corruption or a Bribe to the courts or what ever and got away without punishment. Do you believe that it is your Responsibility to assure his or her death, and if so would you find it more moral to Take his life face to face by your owen gun, or get a Hitman to do it for you?

[Crill3]

Not a responsibility, but I would if I could.
Not a hitman, that would almost be like not doing it at all.

[Usagi]

While it is bad to take a life, it's just as bad to let them get away with that...punishment is ok, but killing is not.

I tend to agree that it's a negative act to let someone kill another, maybe (but not quite) equal to taking a life yourself.

But punishment is a different thing than restitution. I believe it's your obligation to take responsibility for what you do, and make up for it if it's negative.

I don't believe restitution can take the form of punishment as defined by taking something of equal value away when you've killed or injured something; you can't bring a dead person back by dying, nor restore a lost limb by losing you own (although, who knows, medical science may change that someday: whack off a hand, give up yours to replace it).

This is where the weregild came in in Saxon societies; ya gotta pay to play the game. If you kill, you owe. This is similar to a fine; you broke a law which did (or could, like drunk driving) hurt someone, so you pay. And in some African societies, you literally gave up your identity.

Putting someone in jail as punishment makes little sense to me. It's not a good deterrent, it doesn't make restitution, it doesn't change anything. It's all we've got tho.

One benefit might be rehabilitation, so you learn not to do it again, but that doesn't seem to work either. The only real benefit might be keeping you isolated so you can't hurt again.

Certainly a murderer should be removed from society, and maybe deserves to die (giving up their most precious possession), so they can't do it again, but it doesn't change anything and costs more (in society's funds) than life in prison.

I'm not sure of the answer to this; maybe the killer's family becomes obligated to pay restitution, out to first cousins, which might be a deterrent too. But not if the killer doesn't care.

what do you...have to say on suicide bombing or suicide for a greater cause.

I think this is always wrong and unjustifiable on any grounds.

Killing innocent people, who may or may not be the source of the problem you feel justifies your actions, is totally wrong. It also gains you very little benefit for your cause. It's especially wrong when you justify it on the grounds of differences of belief.

I also think war is wrong, because there are better solutions that cost less. War is usually the result of economics, ethnic differences, etc.; none of them are positive reasons.

Defending yourself, however, is acceptable. As LOTR mentions, those without swords can still die on them. And if a soldier agrees to risk his life, and a soldier on the other side has made the same agreement, they have at least offered an equal exchange.

But their family might not agree, and the soldier might have been tricked or coerced into agreement. But if you want a chance to kill for your country, at least pick someone who has agreed to play, and can fight back in defense. If you want to offer your life to take theirs, like the kamikaze, that's a choice you’re free to make.

...what you seem to disagree with is that people don't know what is right and wrong from the beginning? I mean, we're taught what is right and what is wrong... that's why we hit each other and pull the wings off butterflies and such as children, we don't know it's wrong, or we haven't learned the consequences of doing something "wrong"

I think this is the result of literally not knowing the difference between yourself and the universe. You can't help but be ego-centric if you don't know that everything isn't yours.

This is what you learn as you grow, along with empathy, which allows you to distinguish between actions which have negative and positive effects on other, and know this because you don't want it to happen to you. And some children seem to know this intuitively; they never behave the way you describe.

I believe we should actually actively teach this, rather than say, (for instance), "God said so;" "You'll go to hell;" "It's against the law;" etc. We need to teach ethics, not morality.

...just because you believe/know that something is wrong/right/cruel/good/sick/perverted...whatever, doesn't mean that someone else believes the same thing...

I think they would if all people were taught ethics. I actually believe they do know it, but use various excuses to justify it: societal norms, holy writings, peer pressure, you name it.

And leave sick and perverted out; they're either true sickness (killing and maiming for fun) or sexual (use your fertile imaginations). Sick people are exceptions, and actions between consenting adults are neutral, if they do no harm.

...But lets say you're somewhere else and you do something that would be normal for you (let's take eating cow for example...in India ...)...and they accuse you of breaking their laws and such...who's right and who's wrong?

You can't be responsible for not knowing laws and customs, and you shouldn't be forced to give up everything (life or freedom) for a religious belief. But I think, once you do know, you should make restitution. You must have stolen the cow; no one would sell it to you to eat it, so you'd have found out about their belief.

..if there was no law..

Laws don't make morality or ethics, whether religious or civil. The claim that there would be no morals or ethics without the bible, the Koran, the Torah; it think it's ridiculous.

As I've said, I believe any action has an intrinsic value, positive or negative, and we can perceive it using only internal resources.

you may believe something...but if you don't follow the regulations, you get punished. Its a whole carrot and stick situation.

If you only avoid negative actions because of fear of punishment or desire for rewards, it's not ethical behavior.

You can teach children the law with this method, and they will learn ethics when they mature; you can teach a dog the same way, but it will never perceive the intrinsic difference between positive and negative actions. Animals have no ethics, or morality for that matter. They aren't self-aware, and can't reason at that level.

If some one was responsible for the Death of your loved ones out of being a psychopath...

Can we change the psychopath part? I think this is a special case. A psychopath is damaged; their lack of a conscience and inability to feel empathy is like a sickness. It's an anti-social personality disorder.

It's kind of like an aggressive animal: would you ask the same thing about a bear, or an elephant who killed your family? Or would you sail around the world and cause the death of all but one of your crew to find the whale who bit off your leg?

Let's agree someone did it out of greed for your belongings, or deviant sexual desire, and didn't want witnesses, so intentionally killed them.

Let's add another case: they did it to exact revenge for something you did that they didn't like. I'd treat these differently.

Do you agree to this change? In the meantime I'll think about it. Or maybe I'll shut up; I've talked a hell of a lot here.

[rudel_ic]

Nah, it's okay, get it out of your system.

[Renegade_Turner]

Wars were originally started by people who hated other people for believing in something they didn't believe existed.

I can actually imagine someone like Derek Zoolander saying that, all of it.

I laughed...long and hard.

I believe god does not exist. I think your religion just imploded.

That also made my stomach hurt from laughter.

Anyway, after that slight delve into the past of this thread (which I can almost predict that people are going to complain about now), I'll say that many things baffle me.

As Jeff said at the start, it is confusing when a blind belief is created, and attracts people to it, who for whatever reason cling onto that belief and do not let go no matter how much logic tries to intervene.
I will say, however, I see why some people might feel they need beliefs like this. Some people are so opposed to believing that there is no god, that they will believe in a certain religion like Christianity just for the sake of having something "spiritual" to believe in, maybe because it saves some of their sanity in doing so, or maybe gives them some hope. This is how my friend seems to think. He asked me one day "Why don't you just believe in something rather than having nothing to believe in?"

I'll say that I, myself, am an agnostic, which means that I do not believe in any particular religion/god, but I'm not directly saying they definitely don't exist. Should some undeniable evidence be presented, I will gladly believe in what I've always believed in, which is logic.

However, I neither see the sense nor the appeal in believing in something I have almost no reason to believe. Science, in fact, argues a much better and more sensible argument than religion. That's about it.

Hmm.
I also apologise as I see you guys were on some kind of completely different argument unrelated to my comment.

[BunnyWithStick]

And I think Jeff might've created some kind of anti-god then, as you can only create by believing, and can only destroy when nobody believes in something. But that's rather hard to do, considering that whatever was created definitely believes in itself (If it's alive) and anyone who's seen it probably believes in it as well.

[Zantalos]

And I think Jeff might've created some kind of anti-god then, as you can only create by believing, and can only destroy when nobody believes in something. But that's rather hard to do, considering that whatever was created definitely believes in itself (If it's alive) and anyone who's seen it probably believes in it as well.

OK.



What?

[tallyl.iii]

And I think Jeff might've created some kind of anti-god then, as you can only create by believing, and can only destroy when nobody believes in something. But that's rather hard to do, considering that whatever was created definitely believes in itself (If it's alive) and anyone who's seen it probably believes in it as well.

OK.



What?

I second that Zantalos in his profound statement of "What?"

[Usagi]

I followed it.

@ BWS: Ever read Mythago Wood by Robert Holdstock? Based on your statement I think you'd like it.

Also American Gods and Anansi Brothers by Neil Gaiman.

[GaGrin]

Before we move on to Col's newest topic of discussion, I was curious since you guys seem to know so much about the philosophical aspects of suicide, what do you, especially you GaGrin, have to say on suicide bombing or suicide for a greater cause. Just thought I'd pose the question.

I wouldn't really describe myself as knowledgable so please bear in mind that much of what I say is opinion based on my own experience and understanding - which is naturally limited on the topic of suicide as I live in a Western society (i.e. very high rights and powers of the individual over the state) where suicide is proportionally very low. I also live in Britain which for quite some time was a very strongly christian nation which blatently opposes suicide unless it is some form of martyrdom (sp?).

With that said I will say the following:

I think suicide is abhorent. I don't think laws or rights can or should interfer if someone genuinely feels they are willing or wish to kill themselves for whatever reason - but frankly I think the idea is disgusting and I find it very difficult to have anything but contempt for those who do so.

Frustratingly I'm not entirely sure why I think this - but I suspect it has something to do with my belief that we are not in any manner eternal and therfore it is somewhat our duty to make the best of what we have. Killing yourself for any reason really makes your life pointless.

I have upset a number of loved ones with this attitude - the elder of my younger sisters and my current girlfriend have both been at points where they claim that ending it is very attractive - and I have to claim that if that is so they would lose any and all sympathy from me. I will not expend the energy to mourn for those who would not fight for themselves.

I would say that I am in no way against those willing to risk their lives for good causes - or those that have a choice between life and death for themselves and others and choose to let the other live - (though I think this is stupid for various reasons).

So - finally getting on topic - I think that the additional "sacrifice" of yourself in an act of attempted mass-murder is the most cowardly and desperate thing that anyone can be driven to do - and it holds so much sway because the perpetraitor will never see the results of his actions nor have to live with the responsability afterwards. The addition of religious rewards as seen recently in Iraq and elsewhere really is just that - an addition. Its something that lets people ignore how utterly horrible what they are doing is, and their own death prevents any guilt or other consequence from reaching them.

To answer this for "a greater cause" I would need to have an example really - but I'm sure if you take what I've said above you could construct my opinion for most things that would qualify.

I realise my opinion on this matter is fairly extreme so I don't expect many (or indeed, any) to agree. It is however, an honest explaination of my views.

...I don't believe restitution can take the form of punishment as defined by taking something of equal value away when you've killed or injured something; you can't bring a dead person back by dying, nor restore a lost limb by losing you own...

This form of "eye-for-an-eye" punishment is called Vindication. And I agree with the statement - Vindication is purely a vengeful trait.

Putting someone in jail as punishment makes little sense to me. It's not a good deterrent, it doesn't make restitution, it doesn't change anything. It's all we've got tho.

One benefit might be rehabilitation, so you learn not to do it again, but that doesn't seem to work either. The only real benefit might be keeping you isolated so you can't hurt again.

Certainly a murderer should be removed from society, and maybe deserves to die (giving up their most precious possession), so they can't do it again, but it doesn't change anything and costs more (in society's funds) than life in prison.

I'm not sure of the answer to this; maybe the killer's family becomes obligated to pay restitution, out to first cousins, which might be a deterrent too. But not if the killer doesn't care.

Actually I think if we combine the all of the above we'd have a pretty good system of deterrent and rehabilitation.

I think the trouble is that we are too worried about treating criminals as human that we make prison a criminal hive. The learn new skills, make contacts and generally are released WORSE than they went in unless they are genuinely sorry - in which case the punishment is unneccesary IMO.

In any case we have to ask ourselves - what is the point of prison? Is it punishment? or is it the rehabilitation of miscreants and the protection of society from dangerous elements?

Right now I'd say its trying to be all three and essentially only managing the first part in a half-hearted manner.

If it was upto me all sentanced would be total isolation. No seeing other prisoners, no seeing friends or family. Make it *punishment* for fucks sake. Yes this is cruel - but read on and you shall see why.

The only human contact that an inmate shall recieve would be a trained criminal psychologist. This would be mandatory and would consist of analysis of the criminals state of mind, whether or not they are a continued threat and rehabilitation exercises.

Essentially you are only released when you are considered safe. You will not have the opportunity to meet and develop criminal contacts and skills. You will not be subjected to the horrific rape and violence of many prisons.

Essentially I think the issue here is not making them any more dangerous and then releasing them.

Okay this ranted on for much longer than I wanted. If anyone's bothered to read all of that - well done, have a cookie

[Colicedus]

Yea, me always Read everyones stuff, so...
Me want Anzac Cooky!

Well Looks like I have a Some what Like minded Person when it comes to the Prison system, but Are you prepared to go though that should you commit a crime or be accused of such crimes?... on another note I can remember a year ago or so when a new Zealand Prison got a bad name,

it was up on the TV show Close up and even on the news... They were planing on spending heaps of tax payers money for floor Insulation in a few prisons... They also found a woman breaking into a jail and working as a Woho worker (sorry for Sims 2 Slang) She did not walk out too rich (People in jail are able to make money now while spending time, but its not that much) other than that they get Sky TV, some out doors time, Quality food now (no more Shit on a shingle) and allot of other quality things.

There only draw back is the world has to come to them...

Mind you I will also Argue with your theory.

If you lock a man in a room with food and water, no social contact, nothing to do, nothing to drive him, and nothing to believe in, he will deteriorate. I have been in that situation, although not as severe, but know the feeling. I do know know first hand why it is not the best choice... It can cause many degrees of depression for starters, people can start hearing voices as a second...

Eventually the man will need counseling and will be forever Mentally warped. and were dose the government get the money to pay for the councilor fees? Do you really want to pay for some ones rehabilitation after the government enforces an act of human suffering? and don't say you don't pay tax cause you are a kid, you still pay GST (I always say that man)