24-03-2003 02:29									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

"quote:
Let the punishment fit the crime.


Why?"


Outstanding rebuttal, Ramo.
Marvelous. Fascinating. Dare I say? Even Rad.

	24-03-2003 02:34									#92
	Get a bigger avatar today!

It's a simple question, Sloww. Why do you advocate an eye for an eye?

	24-03-2003 02:37									#93
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yeah, Slowwhand! why?!

	24-03-2003 02:42									#94
	Tired of ads?

quote: Imran: that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for something better, or else what's the point?

I'm not sure that there IS a point at all.

quote: I'm not referring to social morality. Societal morality is totally irrelevent to the issue. I'm asking you why you think retribution is moral. Not if most people think retribution is moral.

I already told you. Just desserts. You beat up some dude, you go to jail. It's what you deserve. You shouldn't do something 'bad' and get away with it simply because it was done in the heat of passion.

quote: I don't believe the purpose of prison is punishment/retribution. It should exist to protect society. Societ is not protected if you go about offing people because you feel a hankering for vengeance.

So you don't want to punish anyone for committing crimes? Wonderful . In Ramo's society the murder rate has just jumped incredibly, because the only people that will go to jail are those who have a strong likelihood of doing it again.

	24-03-2003 02:44									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Punishment and retribution are different things.

	24-03-2003 02:48									#96
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Punishment and retribution are different things

Yes, but all punishment INCLUDES some retribution in it, a feeling that the person deserves the punishment he is getting. It doesn't matter if it is deterrance or incapcitation, retribution is behind them both. Only rehabilitation doesn't include retribution.

	24-03-2003 02:58									#97
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If you lock someone up for life for habitual crime, or for 3 time loser status, how does one justify anything but "eye for an eye".

You can't, and shouldn't, set habituals back on the street.
It's retarded thinking to do so.

Increments of punishment finalize in execution.



I'll advocate lopping off hands of thieves, if you'd prefer that aspect.
Or lopping off..other, for rapists.

The penalties must be relative to the crime.
End of my input.

Last edited by SlowwHand on 24-03-2003 at 03:16

	24-03-2003 03:00									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

You stole a cookie from the cookie jar! No more fingernail on Mr Pinky!!!1!

	24-03-2003 10:12									#99
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Boris, that's a difference between societal morality and individual morality. Societal morality is based on laws, individual morality surely isn't. quote: Explain how it is moral to kill an innocent person in response to someone else killing an innocent person? In what society is this considered moral? Certainly not in ours! It's been moral for centuries and still is in some cultures. The whole idea that since you killed my children, I will kill your children has been well established.

That doesn't explain anything. You say it's moral. So it's either moral by your personal morality, or by the morality of society.

It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of. Since that's the case, you must be saying it is moral by your standards.

So explain to me, rationally, how it is moral to murder an innocent person in retribution for the murder of another innocent. I can't believe you would seriously adhere to such a viewpoint.

	24-03-2003 10:15									#100
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of.

You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

	24-03-2003 10:22									#101
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of. You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

Dodging the question. You said it was moral. Your society says it isn't. So it must be moral to you personally. If so, I want a rational reason why you think it is moral.

	24-03-2003 10:27									#102
	Support Apolyton

I don't personally think it is moral, but if the goal of society is equality then it is reasonable to kill your children if you kill someone else's children. You have equalized the situation.

	24-03-2003 10:27									#103
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

Imran,

I think the problem here is that if you say hey it was/is moral in society x, that somebody could easily present an argument that it wasn't moral in society y. I mean under that standard human sacrifices to various gods would be moral because of a number thought it was moral. I doubt we're going to sacrifice Iraqi POWs to Huitzilopochtli (the Aztec god of war) when the war in Iraq is over, and say it's moral because the Aztecs did it.

	24-03-2003 10:33									#104
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I don't personally think it is moral, but if the goal of society is equality then it is reasonable to kill your children if you kill someone else's children. You have equalized the situation.

You said, in response to UR's question if it was moral, that it was. You said it was moral even if it was illegal:

quote: quote: Let's say you kill my SO, and then I kill your SO. That's an act of retribution. Is it therefore moral? Yes. It is not legal, but it is moral.

So explain to me how, if laws are the embodiment of a society's morality, it could possibly be moral to commit such an act, which is clearly illegal. You yourself established here that it is our society about which you are talking.

	24-03-2003 10:33									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

korn469:

You've hit the nail on the problems with Cultural Relativism.


Imran: So if a society likes to eat babies, eating babies must be moral for that society?

	24-03-2003 10:40									#106
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by obiwan18 korn469: You've hit the nail on the problems with Cultural Relativism. Imran: So if a society likes to eat babies, eating babies must be moral for that society?

Don't distract him from the issue at hand. We're talking about the morality of retribution. And I wanna know how, since he's stated on several occasions before that laws=morality, something illegal can still be moral.

	24-03-2003 10:41									#107
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: if laws are the embodiment of a society's morality, it could possibly be moral to commit such an act, which is clearly illegal. You yourself established here that it is our society about which you are talking.

Society composes of individuals. Individuals can disagree with laws, but it doesn't change the fact that society has declared a morality for the entire society.

And why do you assume I was speaking about our society? There are plenty of societies where that act is illegal but a significant minority consider it to be immoral.

quote: I think the problem here is that if you say hey it was/is moral in society x, that somebody could easily present an argument that it wasn't moral in society y.

And what does this prove? It was moral in x, but not in y. So?

quote: Imran: So if a society likes to eat babies, eating babies must be moral for that society?

Yep.

	24-03-2003 10:42									#108
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Such a society would not last very long, and hence that one choice is greatly selected against.

	24-03-2003 10:46									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: And I wanna know how, since he's stated on several occasions before that laws=morality, something illegal can still be moral.

Yes... like I said society's morality is not the same individual's morality. Laws cannot equal every individual's morality.

I may have misspoke when I said that killing an SO is legal, but not moral. I should have inserted 'may' twice into the text. I didn't mean to imply absolutes there. It should have been: may be legal, but may not be moral. It is the difference between societal morality (laws) and individual morality (morals).

quote: Such a society would not last very long

Yep.

	24-03-2003 10:46									#110
	Tired of ads?

Imran

I forgot but didn't you say you were studying law?

also I too would like to know if you think retribution outside of the authority of the state is moral

	24-03-2003 10:48									#111
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: I forgot but didn't you say you were studying law?

Yes, that's how I knew the 'Four Theories of Punishment' .

quote: also I too would like to know if you think retribution outside of the authority of the state is moral

To individuals, yes. Personally, I think it can be. A man killing someone that raped his daughter I believe is a moral act.

To societies, no! Vigilantism is against societal morality, no matter what.

	24-03-2003 10:50									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: if laws are the embodiment of a society's morality, it could possibly be moral to commit such an act, which is clearly illegal. You yourself established here that it is our society about which you are talking. Society composes of individuals. Individuals can disagree with laws, but it doesn't change the fact that society has declared a morality for the entire society.

But those individual moralities don't matter, according to you. You said yourself in the other thread that only the morality of society as a whole matters in questions of determining what is right and wrong.

At any rate, asserting this makes your saying it is moral patently irrelevant. If it isn't moral to you personally, and isn't moral to society, but it may be moral so some individuals who are at odds with society, what the hell does that matter in the context of an argument? I'm sure some people think it is moral to press their kids' fingers to hot stoves as punishment. But if you don't think it's moral, and society doesn't think it's moral, why bother bringing it up in a debate wherein someone is trying to get your moral perspective?

That's like if someone asked me if it were moral for the Nazis to massacre the Jews, I answered yes based on the fact that some Nazis did in fact think it was moral.

quote: And why do you assume I was speaking about our society? There are plenty of societies where that act is illegal but a significant minority consider it to be immoral.

Again, according to you, that minority's morality doesn't matter. Regardless, if you don't feel that way, and most people don't feel that way, why do you bother asserting it in an argument about whether it is right or wrong? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

	24-03-2003 10:57									#113
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: But those individual moralities don't matter, according to you.

Those individual moralities don't matter in determining what is right in wrong for SOCIETAL MORALITY (except in democratic states when a bunch of them equal 50%+1). I never said that individual morality does not absolutely matter. It matters to the individual, of course. I haven't said otherwise.

quote: If it isn't moral to you personally, and isn't moral to society, but it may be moral so some individuals who are at odds with society, what the hell does that matter in the context of an argument?

Because retribution is something that can be done by society OR individuals. Think about it, when someone kills your kid, you can easily get up and kill him. It is very much harder, if not impossible, to incapaciate, deter, or rehabilitate someone by yourself, without society.

The morality of individuals who do not matter to society's morality is important in this context, because in retribution an individual's morality can be just as strong as society's morality in achieving the desired end.

	24-03-2003 11:02									#114
	Increase Your PM Length

Imran:

Is the law of a society dynamic or static?

	24-03-2003 11:05									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Is the law of a society dynamic or static?

Dynamic... just as social morality is (which can change with another generation where a majority of them believes in a different morality).

	24-03-2003 11:06									#116
	Got spare money?

Imran

if a person does something that is individually moral, should society has a right to punish them if their action is illegal?

how about if a person does something that violates their individual code morality yet it is legal, is justice being ignored?

	24-03-2003 11:09									#117
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: if a person does something that is individually moral, should society has a right to punish them if their action is illegal?

Yes, because it violates social morality. Individual morality doesn't matter to anyone other than the person, unless he's got enough people to make it the societal morality.

quote: how about if a person does something that violates their individual code morality yet it is legal, is justice being ignored?

Nope.

	24-03-2003 11:12									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: If it isn't moral to you personally, and isn't moral to society, but it may be moral so some individuals who are at odds with society, what the hell does that matter in the context of an argument? Because retribution is something that can be done by society OR individuals. Think about it, when someone kills your kid, you can easily get up and kill him. It is very much harder, if not impossible, to incapaciate, deter, or rehabilitate someone by yourself, without society. The morality of individuals who do not matter to society's morality is important in this context, because in retribution an individual's morality can be just as strong as society's morality in achieving the desired end.

This makes no sense to stipulate in an argument about what is right or wrong. UR asked you if it was moral to do such a thing, and you said yes. There are only two reasons I can think of to answer like that: 1) That is how you personally feel, or 2) that is how society feels.

NEITHER of those is apparently true, so answering like that is absurd. BY this reasoning, one could answer ANY moral question with a "Yes, that is moral" because someone somewhere once thought it was moral to do such a thing.

Regardless, individual morality doesn't have anything to do with stipulating whether or not retribution is right or wrong in an absolute (by societal standards) sense. Arguing it is moral to an individual to kill someone else's innocent loved one is meaningless in the context of an argument about whether or not it is moral for a society to partake in retribution, which is what this argument was about.

Part of me wonders why you even bother taking part in moral arguments in the first place, considering you always throw out morally relativistic nonsense that does nothing but throw a debate into chaos.

	24-03-2003 11:13									#119
	Inflate your Upload Space

Imran,

since society's morality as codified by laws is the only thing we should concern ourselves with then could you please clarify yourself on this statement some

quote: The morality of individuals who do not matter to society's morality is important in this context, because in retribution an individual's morality can be just as strong as society's morality in achieving the desired end.

	24-03-2003 11:16									#120
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: individual morality doesn't have anything to do with stipulating whether or not retribution is right or wrong in an absolute (by societal standards) sense. Arguing it is moral to an individual to kill someone else's innocent loved one is meaningless in the context of an argument about whether or not it is moral for a society to partake in retribution, which is what this argument was about.

What can I say? I'm very good at threadjacking *shrug*.

Though I thought the argument was whether retribution was right at all, whether done societally or individually. Ramo believes that all retribution is wrong, no matter who it is done by.