24-03-2003 11:17									#121
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Who objects to using the death penalty if there is irrefutable proof that the person committed atrocious crimes?

Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used.

Would you anti-DP people have supported the execution of Hitler or Stalin if they had been in the hands of capable authorities?

	24-03-2003 11:19									#122
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: 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

When did I say society's morality is the only thing we should concern ourselves with? Society's morality is the only thing we should concern ourselves with when dealing with what should be right and wrong in SOCIETY! As much as I love getting words put into my mouth, it's getting tired.

As for the statement, retribution of an individual and retribution of the state will lead to that individual dying (well if he engaged in a capital crime), so the end is the same. Therefore when deciding if retribution is correct ever (societally or individually), it is important to look at individual morality, because that is part of the question.

	24-03-2003 11:21									#123
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think we can all agree that individual retriubution is almost always wrong in any organized society, because it turns into unneeded chaos. So if we only worry about retribution as enacted by societies, it seems that if it didn't improve the public safety, or improve public safety more than other methods then it would have no place in the justice system.

	24-03-2003 11:23									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui 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.

Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.

For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise. Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.

	24-03-2003 11:28									#125
	Put an end to popups!

quote: So if we only worry about retribution as enacted by societies, it seems that if it didn't improve the public safety, or improve public safety more than other methods then it would have no place in the justice system.

Well, the main theoretical reasoning for retribution is that people are moral actors and if they do something that is 'wrong' then they have earned the punishment by his crime. It only restricts punishment to those that have made moral, willing choices in perpetration of their crime.

Practically, retribution is a part of deterrance and incapication. In both reasons there is a hint of 'they deserved it'. You do the crime, you deserve the crime.

	24-03-2003 11:29									#126
	Suffering from ads?

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

Imran:
So what a society believes at any one time is only right for that society, and that particular time. Restating, what a society believes at any point in time must be right for that society.

Suppose we have a very divided issue, where only a few persons decide the majority. By your system, if these people change their minds every minute, the morality of the society must change as well.

Absurd.

Now, why change the society if what the majority of the people believe is right? Why should we desire change?

Suppose we have a corrupt judge who takes advantage of this absurdity. Let's say he says, "the majority of the people believe that baby eating is right, therefore, there shall be no legal restrictions on baby eating." How do we prove him wrong? Let's say we take a poll and the people vote overwhelmingly against baby eating. Could not the judge say, the morality has shifted since the poll was conducted? You must poll again before I am convinced that the majority of the people currently believe baby eating is wrong. Otherwise, we must agree with the current law.

	24-03-2003 11:33									#127
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.

Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.

quote: For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise.

It depends on how you view it. If you view something immoral, yes, you do consider it immoral for everyone else. But what about the person who believes the opposite of you? Who is 'correct'? Neither really. The person's morality which is closest to society's morality has more power behind his individual morality, but it doesn't mean it is more 'right' than someone else's.

quote: Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.

Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).

	24-03-2003 11:35									#128
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Well, the main theoretical reasoning for retribution is that people are moral actors and if they do something that is 'wrong' then they have earned the punishment by his crime. It only restricts punishment to those that have made moral, willing choices in perpetration of their crime.

if it only restricted punishment to those people, then ignorance of the laws would be an acceptable defense then correct? If you didn't know you were doing something wrong, you couldn't be willing choosing to do wrong, and therefore you don't deserve punishment correct?

quote: Practically, retribution is a part of deterrance and incapication. In both reasons there is a hint of 'they deserved it'. You do the crime, you deserve the crime

well couldn't you argue that practically deterrance is then part of incapacitation because without the fear of being sent off there would be no deterrence?

	24-03-2003 11:37									#129
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Suppose we have a very divided issue, where only a few persons decide the majority. By your system, if these people change their minds every minute, the morality of the society must change as well. Absurd.

Why is it absurd?

quote: Suppose we have a corrupt judge who takes advantage of this absurdity. Let's say he says, "the majority of the people believe that baby eating is right, therefore, there shall be no legal restrictions on baby eating." How do we prove him wrong? Let's say we take a poll and the people vote overwhelmingly against baby eating. Could not the judge say, the morality has shifted since the poll was conducted? You must poll again before I am convinced that the majority of the people currently believe baby killing is wrong. Otherwise, we must agree with the current law.

If the people really thought his view was immoral, then they could oust him, either by election or impeachment. If they could not oust him and he is like dicatator, then what he says is moral (as I've said, the shifting morality based on people's beliefs only applies in democracies).

Anyway, sleep time. Night.

	24-03-2003 11:38									#130
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: if it only restricted punishment to those people, then ignorance of the laws would be an acceptable defense then correct? If you didn't know you were doing something wrong, you couldn't be willing choosing to do wrong, and therefore you don't deserve punishment correct?

Yes, the biggest flaw in their theory, IMO.

quote: well couldn't you argue that practically deterrance is then part of incapacitation because without the fear of being sent off there would be no deterrence?

Yes.

	24-03-2003 11:49									#131
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: If the people really thought his view was immoral, then they could oust him, either by election or impeachment. If they could not oust him and he is like dicatator, then what he says is moral (as I've said, the shifting morality based on people's beliefs only applies in democracies).

So long as a person is a dictator, what he does is right?

Why are you even debating over the merits of capital punishment? If Texas wants capital punishment, it must be right, by your position for Texas to execute prisoners.

	24-03-2003 12:25									#132
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Wycoff Who objects to using the death penalty if there is irrefutable proof that the person committed atrocious crimes? Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used. Would you anti-DP people have supported the execution of Hitler or Stalin if they had been in the hands of capable authorities?

Some people actually would like to have worse than DP for these people...
But to answer your question: People who don't understand or admit bad people exist and evil things happen. People who think everyone has the right to live "just because". People who can't measure what is equal and what is not. People who don't understand that only reason why they don't want DP is because they feel more for the actual criminal then the criminals victims, they think the criminal is _the_ victim. It is hard for them to understand people are different. Can't think of more right now.
Sure I know everything is luck, and nobody gets to choose what they get when they are born. But that's no excuse to let pshychopaths live. As soon as they touch other people their status go from neutral to negative.

	24-03-2003 12:30									#133
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Who wouldn't execute John Wayne Gacy, an admitted murderer/rapists with dozens of his victim's bodies buried on his property? I couldn't see a better area where the DP should be used.

I would not execute him. Did he commit monstrous acts? Of course. Was he beyond rehabilitation? Probably. But if we say that it is okay for the state to kill Gacy, then we have to put into law that the state can kill murderers. And once you do that, you open the door to loopholes and mistakes, resulting in the death of innocents.

It is better to spare the lives of evil men, in order to save the lives of innocent ones, I think.

	24-03-2003 12:47									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: But to answer your question: People who don't understand or admit bad people exist and evil things happen. People who think everyone has the right to live "just because".

tinyp3nis:

I would agree with a right to life, but mostly, can we ever rule out rehabilitation?

cinch:
Well said. I don't agree with all of your premises, but we come to the same conclusion.

	24-03-2003 14:58									#135
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by cinch I would not execute him. Did he commit monstrous acts? Of course. Was he beyond rehabilitation? Probably. But if we say that it is okay for the state to kill Gacy, then we have to put into law that the state can kill murderers. And once you do that, you open the door to loopholes and mistakes, resulting in the death of innocents. It is better to spare the lives of evil men, in order to save the lives of innocent ones, I think.

This I have heard many times. What would be better for Gacy then? How about life in prison for innocent person? Or 20 years? 5? Or let him go?
Not even fines are justified if they are given to innocent person. So nobody should be punished ever. Saying death penalty is some special case is weird imo. The door to loopholes is already open, no matter if there is death penalty or not.

You didn't say this, but the point that "he can be realesed later" isn't worth much either, if someone innocent has been inprisoned 20 years and gets realesed later... life effectively ruined anyway. He simply should not been imprisoned in the first place.

quote: I would agree with a right to life, but mostly, can we ever rule out rehabilitation?

Sure, from what I have heard yes. And are you saying that if rehabilitation is possible it should be done everytime for everyone no matter what? You seem to believe that everyone is the same as in everyone is good, unless I am mistaken?

	24-03-2003 19:05									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place. Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.

I don't think you're getting it. Ramo was stating his individual moral view on why he felt retribution was always wrong. Ramo's views on what makes an act moral and immoral isn't likely to be affected by the identity of who is committing the act, hence bringing up that some people somewhere find it moral is utterly irrelevant to Ramo's beliefs. Why even mention it in an argument?

He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?

quote: quote: For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise. It depends on how you view it. If you view something immoral, yes, you do consider it immoral for everyone else.

Which is the entire point of making a moral statement.

quote: But what about the person who believes the opposite of you?

How is it relevant, when discussing an individual's moral beliefs, to counter with some unrelated person's moral beliefs?

quote: Who is 'correct'? Neither really. The person's morality which is closest to society's morality has more power behind his individual morality, but it doesn't mean it is more 'right' than someone else's. quote: Were this the case, nothing would be immoral. Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).

Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate.

	24-03-2003 19:33									#137
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: So long as a person is a dictator, what he does is right?

Yes, at least in his own society.

quote: Why are you even debating over the merits of capital punishment? If Texas wants capital punishment, it must be right, by your position for Texas to execute prisoners

Yes, it is.

quote: He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?

Why shouldn't we care about that? I have never said my moral beliefs are correct in any way, shape, or form. It may be moral to kill someone's SO, if someone else murderd your SO.

Hell, if it happened to me, I may consider it right and just that I do so. You seem to think that reason is the only way humanity decides things.

quote: Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate.

Why? If you ask for my moral beliefs and I do not believe my moral views are correct for all people, why does it matter what MY moral views are? Because, in the end, I don't think all my moral views SHOULD apply to society (it may mess things up, but it sounds nice morally - it is also the reason that politics curtails morality of individuals... they realize if they put into place all they morally believe the country would get ****ed up fast).

	24-03-2003 19:40									#138
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Hey. You weepers best be glad we don't hang hoss thieves any more.

	24-03-2003 19:49									#139
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that? Why shouldn't we care about that? I have never said my moral beliefs are correct in any way, shape, or form. It may be moral to kill someone's SO, if someone else murderd your SO.

We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese?

quote: Hell, if it happened to me, I may consider it right and just that I do so. You seem to think that reason is the only way humanity decides things.

Morality is based on reason. If you were to murder an innocent person based on this scenario because you felt it just retribution, that doesn't magically make it a moral thing to do if you believed the contrary was the case beforehand.

That you seem incapable of making an individual moral argument here is perplexing to me. You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality?

It seems that you not only believe your morals are irrelevant to society, but that they are irrelevant to yourself as well.

quote: quote: Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate. Why? If you ask for my moral beliefs and I do not believe my moral views are correct for all people, why does it matter what MY moral views are?

You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY.

quote: Because, in the end, I don't think all my moral views SHOULD apply to society (it may mess things up, but it sounds nice morally - it is also the reason that politics curtails morality of individuals... they realize if they put into place all they morally believe the country would get ****ed up fast).

Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do?

Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it?

	24-03-2003 19:59									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese?

Well, if I said that I can't taste anything, then wouldn't it be reasonable for me to bring in someone not involved?

quote: Morality is based on reason.

Only partly, and I say minorly. The major part of morality is and always as been emotion. Things are immoral that disgust us. We may not be able to say why, but we know they are bad.

quote: You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality?

Satisfying a thrist for revenge seems a good justification for me. And yes, that can be a moral belief.

quote: You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY.

What if it doesn't matter what my morality is?

The question may have been why do I consider retribution moral, but the UNDERLYING question was why is retribution moral at all. I merely chose to answer the underlying premise instead of the one posed to me.

quote: Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do?

It ain't like I can turn my moral views off, though I don't know about you . I have them, I sometimes think about them, and they are there with me. Something in the mind wants people to come up with morality.

quote: Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it?

'Cause its fun? I mean why bother debating at all? You gonna change the world by it? You really think you are going to change people's minds? Debating, at least on this site, is something we do for entertainment.

I hope you don't think I espouse about morality and debate it in my day-to-day life.

	24-03-2003 20:20									#141
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese? Well, if I said that I can't taste anything, then wouldn't it be reasonable for me to bring in someone not involved?

No! If I asked you if you liked cheese, why would I care what someone else thought about it?

And are you saying you have no moral opinion about murdering the SO of another for revenge, so you had to rely on bringing in another opinion that wasn't your own?

quote: quote: Morality is based on reason. Only partly, and I say minorly. The major part of morality is and always as been emotion. Things are immoral that disgust us. We may not be able to say why, but we know they are bad.

So you never think about your moral views and why you hold them? That's so bizarre as to be astounding. You're obviously not stupid, so I don't understand how you could go through life not reasoning your moral beliefs.

quote: quote: You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality? Satisfying a thrist for revenge seems a good justification for me. And yes, that can be a moral belief.

How on earth do you justify this? In what sense could a thirst for revenge make it justifiable to kill an innocent person? What is your rationale for believing that?

quote: quote: You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY. What if it doesn't matter what my morality is?

It matters when someone asks you directly what your morality is. Jesus Christ.

quote: The question may have been why do I consider retribution moral, but the UNDERLYING question was why is retribution moral at all. I merely chose to answer the underlying premise instead of the one posed to me.

Even if I were to pretend this were a rational way of answering the question (it certainly isn't), I'd have to point out you still failed to provide any rationale for your statement. Answering a question of "is this act moral?" with the answer that "to someone somewhere it is," when it isn't moral to you or your society, is pointless. Taking moral arguments out of the context of society is not rational, helpful or even enlightening. It's just a stupid waste of time, as shown here.

quote: quote: Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do? It ain't like I can turn my moral views off, though I don't know about you . I have them, I sometimes think about them, and they are there with me. Something in the mind wants people to come up with morality.

You said yourself you could switch them, were you in the situation of murdering someone's SO in retribution. If you morally believe it isn't justified to that before the situation happens to you, but then change your mind after it does happen to you and decide it's ok to murder that person's SO, then you've just turned your moral views off.

quote: quote: Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it? 'Cause its fun? I mean why bother debating at all? You gonna change the world by it? You really think you are going to change people's minds? Debating, at least on this site, is something we do for entertainment. I hope you don't think I espouse about morality and debate it in my day-to-day life.

We're not talking about changing people's minds or the world. We're talking simply about stating one's own moral viewpoint. You can't, since you feel your moral views don't matter to anyone else and that anything is moral, because someone somewhere at somepoint might have felt it was moral. These make your contributions to moral debates pointless and, worse, obfuscating. Why not leave them to people who actually care about morality?

	24-03-2003 20:22									#142
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Put them on a freaking deserted island, ala Papillion.
The problem will be solved, the result the same.

	24-03-2003 20:30									#143
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I don't believe the purpose of prison is punishment/retribution.

Why not? It seems fairly self-evident that is one of its purposes.

	24-03-2003 20:35									#144
	Tired of ads?

Imran, you are insane.

1. You believe your morality shouldn't apply to society. This is a ludicrous postion. Morality is nothing more and nothing less than a system of judgement of social interactions. So it by definition applies to society. Even things like real politik are moral beliefs (realism is based on the moral that state power is good).

2. Anything can part of a moral system. Someone could believe that it's immoral to stick bananas up one's ass less than once a day. There's no reason that can't be possible. When I ask you if think something is moral, I'm asking just that. I'm not asking whether most people in some society on the other side of the globe thinks this thing is moral.

3. Speaking of which, I have no idea why you persist on this silly stuff about societal morality and democracy/dictatorship. I don't think anyone gives a **** about that. You're just constructing arbitrary definitions with little practical value. When most people talk about morality, they are referring to personal beliefs.

4. You still haven't justified the morality of retribution. If you can't justify it within your moral system, you can of course assume that retribution is moral. But then you'd have to take the position that any act of retribution is moral; including my 9/11 - nuke the Middle East example.

5. No, a vindictive justice system that executes people does not reduce crime. I again reference ours or Russia's "justice" system which have huge crime rates compared to the rest of the West, but have draconian penalties for crime compared to the rest of the West.

	24-03-2003 20:36									#145
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Why not? It seems fairly self-evident that is one of its purposes.

But I don't think it should be. I think that's an immoral use of force.

	24-03-2003 20:37									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: And are you saying you have no moral opinion about murdering the SO of another for revenge, so you had to rely on bringing in another opinion that wasn't your own?

I was saying my moral opinion doesn't have more weight than someone who would believe the act was proper.

quote: So you never think about your moral views and why you hold them? That's so bizarre as to be astounding. You're obviously not stupid, so I don't understand how you could go through life not reasoning your moral beliefs.

Can you show me that the 'reasoning' isn't simply justifications for emotional beliefs? For many people it is. Only a very, very few, rationally go through the arguments and then decide.

quote: How on earth do you justify this? In what sense could a thirst for revenge make it justifiable to kill an innocent person? What is your rationale for believing that?

Because it would feel right, emotionally. It isn't like people haven't done things on the basis of emotion when it bordered on irrationality. Hell, dying for a belief is an emotionally based action, but to many it is moral.

quote: It matters when someone asks you directly what your morality is.

Depends on the reason for the question. If they were doing it just to be curious, then yah, but when it is to set up something underlying, then no.

quote: Answering a question of "is this act moral?" with the answer that "to someone somewhere it is," when it isn't moral to you or your society, is pointless.

Perhaps to you. It isn't to me. If someone asks me if something is moral, I consider 'to somone, somewhere it is' to be a good answer.

quote: You said yourself you could switch them, were you in the situation of murdering someone's SO in retribution. If you morally believe it isn't justified to that before the situation happens to you, but then change your mind after it does happen to you and decide it's ok to murder that person's SO, then you've just turned your moral views off.

No, No, No, I've just changed my morality after that instant in time (it is likely that I will now consider that killing a moral act for the rest of my life). Morality doesn't have to change simply by reason, it can easily change by emotion as well.

I mean when you say someone is bad. It starts off as an emotional plea inside of you that you end up justifying by reason. You decide first, then reason, as most people do.

quote: These make your contributions to moral debates pointless and, worse, obfuscating. Why not leave them to people who actually care about morality?

What'd be the fun in that?

	24-03-2003 20:39									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why don't you start a boarding house, Ramo ?
We can just send the little darlings to you for pampering.

	24-03-2003 20:40									#148
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Ramo But I don't think it should be. I think that's an immoral use of force.

How do you have a credible rehabilitation program without some element of punishment to go along with it?

	24-03-2003 20:42									#149
	Put an end to popups!

quote: you can of course assume that retribution is moral. But then you'd have to take the position that any act of retribution is moral; including my 9/11 - nuke the Middle East example.

Now can I call you insane for repeated this utterly idiotic argument time and time again?

Example: You can assume deterance is moral, but then you'd have to take the position that any act of deterance is moral; including my chopping your arm off for stealing a pack of gun.

I'm sure this example will illustrate the idiocy of this style of argument. Since you agree with this reason for punishment, you have to agree with the worst for the punishment for the smallest thing.

What part of the 'punishment must fit the crime' (which is a retribution concept) don't you understand?

quote: No, a vindictive justice system that executes people does not reduce crime. I again reference ours or Russia's "justice" system which have huge crime rates compared to the rest of the West, but have draconian penalties for crime compared to the rest of the West.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? What is to say that our crime rate wouldn't be even higher without vindictive punishments? Just because you assume it might, doesn't mean it will.

	24-03-2003 20:47									#150
	Tired of ads?

quote: How do you have a credible rehabilitation program without some element of punishment to go along with it?

Why can't you? Authoritarian rehabilitation programs such as ours fail miserably, while less authoritarian rehabilitation programs such as the Finns' are much more effective. Look at the crime rates in both societies.