|
Effectronica posted:That's not what I said. You're making inferences, but you're too stupid to do so, and should stop. When people say "human life has value", they are not talking about any concrete person's life. They are talking about an abstract entity that stands for human lives in general. So showing that individual, particular lives have different values to different people does not do what you want it to do. See, you're retreating again. You started out with the position that humans lives have unquantifiable value, now you admit that the value of a given human life can be quantified, and now you admit that I've shown that the value of a given human life can vary. You've retreated to asserting that "human lives in general" (what is that?) have value in an abstract sense (care to actually argue for your assertions at any time ever?) and that this is somehow problematic for my argument. (Again, you're not good on specifics.) Who What Now posted:Arglebargle are you just trying to make some pedantic point that human life doesn't have inherent value, just value projected by the overwhelming majority of society? If so, who gives a poo poo? Help me out here because everything you say is so stupid it makes my eyes go cross. Since you asked, I would suggest you start by looking up "utilitarian ethics." Scrub-Niggurath posted:Everyone gets what you're arguing against champ, it's just that you are wrong. SedanChair posted:On the one hand, it seems like we have all the people who share in the concept of human community and agree that all human life has inherent value, and on the other hand we have people who cannot see the value of anything unless it is assigned a value by those in power. I'm not sure if there is any thing else to communicate at this point, everyone has their positions. Scrub-Niggurath posted:I genuinely do not understand their stance however. If human life having some sort of inherent value is a principle agreed upon by a vast majority of the world, then doesn't that give it inherent value by definition? OwlFancier posted:A sum of all existing and potential experiences and capabilities of the life in question. Experience gives a life value by making it unique, and capability gives it value by making it useful. OwlFancier posted:That's not flailing, that's my answer. No, this is flailing and it's pathetic. I'm really disappointed that when asked to defend the value of human life, this is what you come up with. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Mar 21, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
Arglebargle III posted:See, you're retreating again. You started out with the position that humans lives have unquantifiable value, now you admit that the value of a given human life can be quantified, and now you admit that I've shown that the value of a given human life can vary. You've retreated to asserting that "human lives in general" (what is that?) have value in an abstract sense (care to actually argue for your assertions at any time ever?) and that this is somehow problematic for my argument. (Again, you're not good on specifics.) No, I categorically reject that. I have never said that you can translate said value into meaningful numbers that still reflect what people mean when they talk about people's lives having value, which is what is meant by "quantifiable" in the heads of people who don't run eagerly to say that rape and murder might be cool, you guys. Then you jump into dishonestly slicing off part of my post again. I think I should start lying about what you say in return, because that's about the only way to make your arguments intellectual as far as I can see. But you finally get down to the full blast of the trumpet. The part where you show that you are unable to read plain and simple sentences, or else are a compulsive liar. It's sad, and what's even more sad is that you can't tell what your own argument is once you post it. You said that because some people kill themselves (which you speak of in a way that suggests you're a depressive and this is you rationalizing your self-loathing) and people value self-preservation generally, human life has no inherent value. You are unable to respond to the point that people aren't talking about specific people's lives when they say "human life has value", and you're crowing about your victory. Well, you know, you can have your victory, OK? You can say that you've won to your heart's content, especially if it will get you to shut the gently caress up and go away.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:No, this is flailing and it's pathetic. I'm really disappointed that when asked to defend the value of human life, this is what you come up with. Defend it from what? That's how I assign value to life, it comes from the things it can do, the things that make it manifestly valuable to others. Things acquire value through utility, and that can be found in many ways. A thing that is unique is valuable because it can provide a unique experience, and individual humans are functionally very unique, you are unlikely to meet two people sufficiently similar to nullify that value. Each one is something that you will not be able to find again, and represents an irreplaceable, and potentially important part of your life. This further ignores the fact that almost every human can do something that another will find value in. Most can work, some can provide rare and valuable services such as healthcare or ingenuity, and some can provide nominally less rare but hardly less valuable companionship, conversation, and enjoyment. There is plenty of value to be found in human life simply from observation, what more do you require?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You are unable to respond to the point that people aren't talking about specific people's lives when they say "human life has value", and you're crowing about your victory. You haven't made a point. You make bald assertions, and every time you're asked to justify them you either retreat or post something gob-smackingly stupid. If you'd like to go ahead and EXPLAIN what "people are talking about" (lol) when they say "human life has value" then you might make a point, but I at this point I doubt you have anything more than a vague idea of what you mean. Also Effectronica please back off with the personal insults, you've called me a liar and a depressive, and told me to shut up and go away in one post. OwlFancier posted:Defend it from what? Defend it rhetorically.  OwlFancier posted:Things acquire value through utility, and that can be found in many ways. A thing that is unique is valuable because it can provide a unique experience, and individual humans are functionally very unique, you are unlikely to meet two people sufficiently similar to nullify that value. Each one is something that you will not be able to find again, and represents an irreplaceable, and potentially important part of your life. This is a start. C for effort I guess. So you've finally mentioned utility and proposed that the value of human life derives from social utility. Now that we've finally arrived at this point, we could start discussing the harm that "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles." cause at least in terms of loss of value, though we still have the thorny issue of the costs of human life to approach.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Now that we've finally arrived at this point, we could start discussing the harm that "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles." cause at least in terms of loss of value, though we still have the thorny issue of the costs of human life to approach. Are you going to tie this back to the OP's questions around prison conditions? I am trying to forecast the line of argument but it only seems to lead to a debate over whether or not some set of actions should be considered illegal. This does not really seem relevant to the questions around conditions and sympathy. Interesting enough discussion, mind you, but maybe more suitable to the 'right to life' or 'criminal justice' threads...
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
This thread seems like a good example of why the academic study of ethics is less useful than simply "liking people" and "not wanting to be an rear end in a top hat" when it comes to formulating ethical positions. Like if someone asks you "Would you be happy if I killed your significant other but gave you some money afterwards," and your response isn't "hell no," then you either have serious personal issues or you're so invested in your intellectual schema that you value it more than not sounding broken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a start. C for effort I guess. So you've finally mentioned utility and proposed that the value of human life derives from social utility. Now that we've finally arrived at this point, we could start discussing the harm that "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles." cause at least in terms of loss of value, though we still have the thorny issue of the costs of human life to approach. That's not the question that the thread is asking, though. The question that the thread is asking is whether or not compassion is possible for people who have- by definition- caused harm. You are now attempting to whether or not they have actually caused harm. That's not really relevant. The fact that they have caused harm is set. "Monsters, axe murder[er]s, and paedophiles" is a nice verbal dressing for the real meaning of "Human beings who have caused severe harm." If you disagree with that statement, you are disagreeing with the OP's definition as put forward in the first post. Murder and paedophilia were brought up specifically as examples of the wider concept of 'unconscionable acts.' That is, acts which by definition cannot be done with a clean conscience. That means acts which definitely are bad and definitely cause harm to people. Let me set forth two postulates here: 1. Human lives matter. 2. Humans can act in ways which cause irreparable harm to the lives of others. These points are necessary for any discussion on the matter of compassion for 'monsters' to proceed. Arguing the fine points of the axioms is all well and good, but you're devoting tedious pages and pages to what is really a note in the margin in terms of the discussion of compassion. Can we move on to the part where you stop this nonsensical tirade against human value and actually address the question of compassion? Oh, wait. Arglebargle III's first post posted:Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? You are arguing that compassion is meaningless from an objective perspective that you refuse to turn on your own life. In one sentence you have destroyed the value of your argument, because you won't look at yourself objectively, but you are asking all of us to ignore that and argue about the lives of others who you then define as 'only the people who don't matter to me.' There is no point in arguing objective value with someone who sees no purpose in explaining their own objective value. Why would you take the time to explain that you wouldn't want harmless acts to happen to you? Because, obviously, you do not consider the acts harmless. But in any case, it is clear that compassion, in your mind, only works on the very personal scale, because you expect us to feel compassion for you and the harm done to you. Very well. Let us say that you, personally, were assaulted. Would you want the perpetrator to be shown compassion by others? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 12:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:No, this is flailing and it's pathetic. I'm really disappointed that when asked to defend the value of human life, this is what you come up with. What could be less consequential that the disappointment of a person who doesn't understand the inherent value of all human life?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 13:30
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You haven't made a point. You make bald assertions, and every time you're asked to justify them you either retreat or post something gob-smackingly stupid. If you'd like to go ahead and EXPLAIN what "people are talking about" (lol) when they say "human life has value" then you might make a point, but I at this point I doubt you have anything more than a vague idea of what you mean. I don't know what exactly you expect. I cannot put it any clearer than to say that when people say the words, "human", "life", "has", and "value", in that order, they are not talking about any particular person's life, any single life. They are not talking about an average of all persons. They are talking about an abstract concept, an idealized human being which has no specific characteristics. It is this concept, free from anything entangling, which is what they mean by it having value, because each individual person will have different things that lead people to value them in lesser or greater amounts, especially in different contexts. I suppose that you want proof of this, you want evidence of something that is blatantly obvious from simple context and human interactions, because you have shattered your own intellect in the pursuit of- what, exactly? quote:On the other hand, is killing or otherwise victimizing people wrong in the first place? There are so many of them; too many really. Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? What's the environmental externality this potential person would have inflicted on the world? What would he really have accomplished in a lifetime of gorging on cheap calories, mindless consumerism and unfulfilling relationships? What if, god forbid, he or she should have children? And, in the long run, and with the impenetrable loneliness of the human condition, does it matter what pains or indignities this putative person suffered in his or her moments or hours of being dispatched? Not in any tangible sense. Maybe we should rethink the harm, or indeed the value of the "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" of society. Of this. Mhm. I suppose there is one piece of evidence. You could ask people if the value of human life would increase if everyone were a [pick your own resolutely moral person] to determine if it is a concrete averaging or not, and when they look at you and realize that there is something deeply wrong with you, you can yell at them. Granted, you asked for a rhetorical defense but didn't know that rhetoric includes nasty things like insults, shouting people down, and tricking them into saying increasingly vile things, because rhetoric is about winning people over and persuading them, not about the search for the unvarnished truth. And frankly, the things that you've said all on your own have been so vile and so stupid that you deserve far worse than what I can fling at you.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 13:45
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You are arguing that compassion is meaningless from an objective perspective that you refuse to turn on your own life. In one sentence you have destroyed the value of your argument, because you won't look at yourself objectively, but you are asking all of us to ignore that and argue about the lives of others who you then define as 'only the people who don't matter to me.' There is no point in arguing objective value with someone who sees no purpose in explaining their own objective value. Why would you take the time to explain that you wouldn't want harmless acts to happen to you? Because, obviously, you do not consider the acts harmless. Over the last 20 years there's been this sort of cultural shift to the idea that hypocrisy is the ultimate intellectual sin; that hypocrisy invalidates and renders crapulous anything it touches. This is profoundly wrong-headed, since hypocrisy is a necessary result of the human condition. Of course the individual values his or her life differently and according to different criteria than an outside observer might value it. You're right, I see harm to me as different than harm to other people, as does everyone, necessarily, since we do not experience other people's lives. You may empathize with harm done to others, disapprove of it, etc. but harm done to others does not harm you, nor does it necessarily harm society. Harm done to others can materially help you. Do you oppose the death penalty on the grounds that killing a murderer is a harmful act? Effectronica posted:I don't know what exactly you expect. I cannot put it any clearer than to say that when people say the words, "human", "life", "has", and "value", in that order, they are not talking about any particular person's life, any single life. They are not talking about an average of all persons. They are talking about an abstract concept, an idealized human being which has no specific characteristics. It is this concept, free from anything entangling, which is what they mean by it having value, because each individual person will have different things that lead people to value them in lesser or greater amounts, especially in different contexts. I suppose that you want proof of this, you want evidence of something that is blatantly obvious from simple context and human interactions, because you have shattered your own intellect in the pursuit of- what, exactly? Who are they, and what evidence do you have that they mean this when they say... that? I think it's pretty funny that you think you've tricked me into saying anything. I am "laughing out loud."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Who are they, and what evidence do you have that they mean this when they say... that? I think it's pretty funny that you think you've tricked me into saying anything. I am "laughing out loud." I suppose that is an emotion, which is a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:02
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Who are they, and what evidence do you have that they mean this when they say... that? I think it's pretty funny that you think you've tricked me into saying anything. I am "laughing out loud." My evidence is that I have had conversations with other people, in which they have expressed those sentiments, and from the context, it is absolutely clear what they are referring to. I suggest you try it sometime. And, no, I specifically said that you've said all the abhorrent poo poo on your own, boyo.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Over the last 20 years there's been this sort of cultural shift to the idea that hypocrisy is the ultimate intellectual sin; that hypocrisy invalidates and renders crapulous anything it touches. Please show your work regarding your claimed cultural shift in the past two decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:On the other hand, is killing or otherwise victimizing people wrong in the first place? There are so many of them; too many really. Obviously I don't want to be raped and/or murdered, but from an objective standpoint what's the net effect of, say, some random kid being violently and painfully killed? What's the environmental externality this potential person would have inflicted on the world? What would he really have accomplished in a lifetime of gorging on cheap calories, mindless consumerism and unfulfilling relationships? What if, god forbid, he or she should have children? And, in the long run, and with the impenetrable loneliness of the human condition, does it matter what pains or indignities this putative person suffered in his or her moments or hours of being dispatched? Not in any tangible sense. Maybe we should rethink the harm, or indeed the value of the "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles" of society. This line of reasoning appears self-defeating. The reasons you give for why we might entertain the idea that human lives have zero or negative value (consumption of finite resources, pollution, contribution to environmental destruction) are only considered bad because of their deleterious effects on human life. If we don't care about human lives then there's no more reason to be sad about climate change than there is to be sad about the oxygen crisis that once exterminated 99% of life on earth. If I agree with you that humans have no value, then I have no reason to care about the destruction of human civilization, but that's the only reason you've offered that I should agree with you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is a start. C for effort I guess. So you've finally mentioned utility and proposed that the value of human life derives from social utility. Now that we've finally arrived at this point, we could start discussing the harm that "monsters, ax murders, and pedophiles." cause at least in terms of loss of value, though we still have the thorny issue of the costs of human life to approach. Assess that on a case by case basis? Use your best judgement and try to secure an outcome which minimizes further damage and meets with the greatest possible satisfaction of all parties involved, while further serving the greater social utility by attempting reform where possible? I really don't get what you're trying to argue. You seem to be just complaining about everything without presenting a point of your own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Do you oppose the death penalty on the grounds that killing a murderer is a harmful act? Yes. Obviously. Killing does not justify killing in return. If you had read my first post, you'd know that. You'd also know that I oppose calling a person 'a murderer' on the grounds that it makes it easier for people to justify killing them. Please note that I have answered your direct question and you have yet to answer mine. You also failed to address my suggestion that the value of human life is a necessary postulate of this discussion. You suggest that "of course" other people's lives are not valuable. I disagree. One cannot apply a single standard of right and wrong to one's own life and a second standard to everyone else's. Harm done to others does harm me. I do not read about a massive, fatal car crash on the internet and think, "Good, another nine resource-takers removed from the pool. Hope that the four-year-old dies in hospital, that'd make it a nice round ten." I think that you are arguing in bad faith, ABIII. I think that you are attempting to hijack this thread and turn it toward your own personal battle in the hopes of being able to claim a victory. This is because you are afraid of the kind of arguments that would be brought against your position of "Human life has no value" if that were the title of the thread. Instead, you are attempting to hide your theoretical argument in a thread that is about practical responses to harm, in order to avoid having to face that kind of opposition. Again, I will ask you a practical question. Please show me the courtesy I have shown you and respond to it. Let us say that you, personally, were assaulted. Would you want the perpetrator to be shown compassion by others? Why or why not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Only if the existence of God being believed by a majority of people in the world makes the existence of God objectively true. The difference is that "value" is a meaningless concept outside of a social viewpoint. If people by and large do not personally value something, it has little to no value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Also Effectronica please back off with the personal insults, you've called me a liar and a depressive, and told me to shut up and go away in one post. Lmfao
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Scrub-Niggurath posted:The difference is that "value" is a meaningless concept outside of a social viewpoint. If people by and large do not personally value something, it has little to no value. Which is in opposition to the notion of inherent value, which is the idea that a thing has absolute value, assigned to it by some universal force or truth, which cannot be nullified by circumstances or the actions of others. A thing having inherent value and a thing being very commonly valued by many people aren't the same thing, Gold is held to be near-universally valuable but there are problems trying to base an economy off the idea of it being inherently valuable. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Mar 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Which is in opposition to the notion of inherent value, which is the idea that a thing has absolute value, assigned to it by some universal force or truth, which cannot be nullified by circumstances or the actions of others. I guess we're talking about different notions of inherent value then
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
I mean the inherent value is agreed upon, it is not a particle that we view on the subatomic level or something. I like my life; I like and value my family's life. Yes? I would prefer that none of them be ended. It's not a simplistic "modern obsession with rooting out hypocrisy" (paraphrasing arglebargle) to decide that since everybody without clinical depression feels that way about themselves, we should try to force ourselves to extend that empathy field outward as much as we can, for the sake of all humanity. Jesus Christ is that basic enough?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
I don't know about you guys, but when I say people have value I'm referring to the sum total of their individual parts when sold on today's global market. I know some guys who insist on measuring it in potential lifetime productivity but that's way too vague if you ask me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
$260,000 for a kidney in the U.S., if that isn't inherently worthwhile I don't know what is!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:$260,000 for a kidney in the U.S., if that isn't inherently worthwhile I don't know what is! Those are US dollars, your argument is invalid
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
So you want it in pounds or Euros then? Or you a gold and silver kinda goon?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:So you want it in pounds or Euros then? No I'm more of the "value is a shared illusion" type, but I'm also a hypocrite since I still negotiate with my boss every year...
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Yeah well if the shared illusion isn't measured in some sort of currency then you're wasting whole square inches of human skin worth of my time bucko.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah well if the shared illusion isn't measured in some sort of currency then you're wasting whole square inches of human skin worth of my time bucko. The impetus for my comment was the concept of inherent value. While it may not be wholly arbitrary, that value is extremely contingent. edit: stupid tense shift... Bel Shazar fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
well now you are just posting nonsense words, do you want to buy the liver of PRC death row inmate or not?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Yeah well if the shared illusion isn't measured in some sort of currency then you're wasting whole square inches of human skin worth of my time bucko. Does skin have more value as a medical product, or as advertising space for tattoos? I think this would go a long way to resolving the burning question of whether a live human is more valuable than a dead one. edit: I guess we'd have to first ballpark the number and revenue of sponsors buying the tattoos, and then account for whether the person receiving the skin transplant has a higher social media presence than the donor (in case they get the new skin tattooed with logos). Sharkie fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
The question is kind of a weird one. If I was the dad of one of the young children that Tsutomu Miyazaki killed, then had sex with, then ate, I can tell you I would have absolutely no qualms with beating him to death if it were offered. If it would be okay for me to do that, I can hardly criticize if other victim's families feel like they want the same revenge either, and nor can anyone else. Whether it's all philosophically, pedantically okay or not, isn't really here or there. I wonder who it is that misses these people when they are executed, or who it is that sympathizes with them when they suffer in prison. I dunno but it just sounds a bit spergy for anyone to get up on some kind of liberal high-horse and preach of Human Rights in a case that did not involve their kid being, say, locked in a cage in a basement and raped for years and years and years. Rakosi fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Mar 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
woah someone's feeling salty today!Rakosi posted:If it would be okay for me to do that pro tip it wouldn't hope this helps Sharkie posted:Does skin have more value as a medical product, or as advertising space for tattoos? I think this would go a long way to resolving the burning question of whether a live human is more valuable than a dead one. Hmm, I dunno Sharkie I haven't seen info on the returns for money spent on skin advertisements, but I always get the feeling that marketing is just blowing smoke up everyone's asses to convince us their job is hard and important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:pro tip it wouldn't hope this helps I don't see many costs to myself or society if I did it, so why wouldn't it be okay?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Private citizens murdering other people of their own volition is a bad idea. Also murder is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I don't see many costs to myself or society if I did it, so why wouldn't it be okay? Yeah vigilanteism by private citizens who feel certain about who the criminal elements are sure doesn't have any disturbing history in the United States, nope!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Private citizens murdering other people of their own volition is a bad idea. Rakosi posted:If I was the dad of one of the young children that Tsutomu Miyazaki killed, then had sex with, then ate, I can tell you I would have absolutely no qualms with beating him to death if it were offered. Murder is only unlawful killing. If the state legalized it it wouldn't be murder, but putting that aside I'm interested why you would care at all about the welfare of someone like in my hypothetical situation. I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed and it was you that had your kid killed, raped and then eaten you wouldn't be so quick to say, categorically, "murder is wrong".
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
Will it help stymie the hand-wringing in this thread to point out that Arglebargle's point is really just the kernel of moral skepticism? That human life has no objective value because there is not such thing as Value out there in the world to quantify is hardly a new idea, or a terrifying one that you could only expect psychopaths to hold. I mean, yes, they're being a bit of a smug poo poo about it, but their argument doesn't warrant the fussbaggery that's being displayed. We can value things without thinking there is a universalisable reason for valuing it without society and all ethics crumbling. Read some John Mackie and calm the gently caress down, people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Murder is only unlawful killing. If the state legalized it it wouldn't be murder, but putting that aside I'm interested why you would care at all about the welfare of someone like in my hypothetical situation. I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed and it was you that had your kid killed, raped and then eaten you wouldn't be so quick to say, categorically, "murder is wrong". Even if I would react violently to someone who hurt my kid, that doesn't prove that my impulses were proportional and just, nor does it validate torture. There's a reason we put decisions about guilt and sentencing up to parties who aren't directly involved, because going with the gut feelings of relatives of the victims doesn't make for a consistent and fair legal system. For example, what if dad wants to beat the guy to death but mom doesn't? What now, just go with the impulse of the most violent victim? Let everyone have a turn? What if brother is just a psychopath and wants a legal excuse to torture someone to death?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Murder is only unlawful killing. If the state legalized it it wouldn't be murder, but putting that aside I'm interested why you would care at all about the welfare of someone like in my hypothetical situation. I get the feeling that if the roles were reversed and it was you that had your kid killed, raped and then eaten you wouldn't be so quick to say, categorically, "murder is wrong". Actually the state killing people is murder. I care because what can be done to the least and worst of us can easily be extended to anyone. And, since your using a worthless appeal to emotion to back up "murder is good if you do it to the right person", I get the feeling that you should take all the world's dicks, shove them up your rear end, and then light yourself on fire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:32 |
|
|
paragon1 posted:Actually the state killing people is murder. I care because what can be done to the least and worst of us can easily be extended to anyone. And, since your using a worthless appeal to emotion to back up "murder is good if you do it to the right person", I get the feeling that you should take all the world's dicks, shove them up your rear end, and then light yourself on fire. Hmmm, so my previous quip that this whole conversation seemed "spergy" was right on the money I suppose. I don't get how you feel appeals to emotion are worthless when it is impossible to discuss a topic as emotionally dark as murder if you want to reach any other conclusion than that which a computer could do just as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2015 08:09
|
|