Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  An eye for an eye?

Poll

An eye for an eye? Does anyone have the right to kill a murderer in revenge?

Yes
No

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: An eye for an eye?  (Read 18276 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

thomasjack

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #75 on: July 08, 2008, 01:15:33 PM »

I'm sure there may be some higher reasoning behind the belief revenge killing is okay,
A homo sapien that rapes and kills humans isn't a human/person.

This is what needs to be justified. Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?

Sure, it makes a bit of intuitive sense, but what's the justification?
Logged

mark_mnc1

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #76 on: July 08, 2008, 03:00:32 PM »

Fatcat-let me continue this even though i totally disagree with your point.  Is an eye for an eye justified under having no government or under anarcho-capitalism?  Ill try and make some points regarding both sides.  Just let me know me know because in our current system the government is doing an atrocious job at bringing perpetrators up on trial, prosecuting, sentencing them, as well as everything else in the current U.S. criminal justice system.
Logged

Blackie

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #77 on: July 08, 2008, 03:14:40 PM »

Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?
The "someone" never had any rights. That is the problem with assuming every homo sapien is a human, and has human rights.
Logged

thomasjack

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #78 on: July 08, 2008, 03:21:58 PM »

Why does someone who commits a crime forfeit their own rights proportionally (or, in your case, even disproportionally, since apparently rapists forfeit their right to life)?
The "someone" never had any rights. That is the problem with assuming every homo sapien is a human, and has human rights.

So, any homo sapiens who (which?) will commit rape or murder in the future is currently not a human? Then there's no way for me to know if someone's human until they're dead, right? Heck, I might not be a human!  :shock:

Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights. And how that's even a useful distinction, since we can't ever tell whether a living homo sapiens will commit murder in the future.
Logged

Blackie

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #79 on: July 08, 2008, 03:26:02 PM »

Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights.
Human rights only exist on paper, and in your head. They are made up. Have a nice day.
Logged

thomasjack

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #80 on: July 08, 2008, 03:33:29 PM »

Anyway, please explain why only a homo sapiens which never will commit murder has human rights.
Human rights only exist on paper, and in your head. They are made up. Have a nice day.

Alright, rights don't exist. That's not an unjustifiable position, but your political philosophy and mine are totally incommensurable. I was looking rather for a justification from those who believe that crime causes proportional forfeiture of rights, e.g.:

Quote from: Rothbard
We have advanced the view that the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights: the theory of "proportionality."
Logged

DogOn

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #81 on: July 08, 2008, 04:25:57 PM »

Fatcat-let me continue this even though i totally disagree with your point.  Is an eye for an eye justified under having no government or under anarcho-capitalism?  Ill try and make some points regarding both sides.  Just let me know me know because in our current system the government is doing an atrocious job at bringing perpetrators up on trial, prosecuting, sentencing them, as well as everything else in the current U.S. criminal justice system.

I don't see what government has got to do with eye for an eye.

I don't think you have the right to kill someone unless its in self defense. Now there are plenty of reasons behind why I believe this, and if you read through this thread you can see a bunch of them.

I don't disagree that most governments, including the U.S. have a really ineffective justice system, but I never made that point.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience. killing someone over rape? really? How many brutal assaults equal a rape? what if I paralyze 2 guys? that makes their life a lot harder than simply getting raped. what if i break 20 peoples legs? does that deserve murder?

No one on the pro side for revenge killings seems to make much of an argument beyond, I think its right, break rights and you lose rights. I can see that its coming from an emotional place in people, and maybe there is a blindingly obvious reason why its okay, but 90% of the points I've made have not been addressed, and I can't help but reach the conclusion that most people are just letting their emotional attachment to their beliefs remove the need for reason and evidence.

A lot of the, I don't need to talk about it, I know I'm right, nothing you can say will change my mind backs this up, I get a lot of the same shit from religious folks and they almost exclusive try to use emotion as a reasoning tool.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #82 on: July 08, 2008, 04:42:53 PM »

Quote
A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience.
  Uh, yeah, no shit.  If someone initiates force against another they are throwing their rights out the window.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Blackie

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #83 on: July 08, 2008, 04:58:02 PM »

A lot of the, I don't need to talk about it, I know I'm right, nothing you can say will change my mind backs this up, I get a lot of the same shit from religious folks and they almost exclusive try to use emotion as a reasoning tool.
I feel the same way about the people who talk about the existence of "rights".
Logged

DogOn

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #84 on: July 08, 2008, 05:13:17 PM »

Quote
A lot of the eye for an eye proponents seem to take it as, if someone harms you, they lose all their rights and you can do whatever the fuck you want with them with a clear conscience.
  Uh, yeah, no shit.  If someone initiates force against another they are throwing their rights out the window.

I don't have a problem with the point per say, I have a problem with that in this thread it has been made and largely unbacked, and any points made about it have been ignored in a wave of emotion.

Some people here are saying its okay to kill over a rape. If you can make that connection then you can span it to fit murder for assault, or murder for theft. No other case has been made except, I think its right/okay or I'm going to do that no matter what. If that is your justification then you can square slicing a guys face open for looking at you funny.

Point is those people only support the losing rights if you violate rights in a specific number of cases, i.e. whenever they feel like they should be able to take revenge. When questioned on logical parallels that they don't follow the points have been largely ignored.

I take the stance that you only lose rights to the degree that the right to restitution of the victim. For reasons I've mentioned before, I don't think murdering someone counts as restitution in any way, except how you feel, but I also talk about how you feel doesn't have anything to do with the restitutive process. Also from a purely moral standpoint I've made some points on how its never moral to kill except in self defense. I've written some really lengthy ass boring posts on this shit. I'd like to talk about the basis for these claims but most people seem to be fine with just accepting they are correct without talking about it.
Logged

mark_mnc1

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #85 on: July 08, 2008, 05:30:29 PM »

Okay I was going to make a longer reply but you pretty much answered my question.  I was going to say that most people have a line in the sand that they draw on this sort of topic-how bad can the initial act of violence be for retaliation to occur.  Porportionality is also important.  I dont think most people would permanently injure or kill someone over stealing something but if rape occured or if that initial act was murder then they might justify it. I was then going to ask you where your line in the sand is, if you had one.  If you say that killing in self defense is justified then thats fine but "what self defense is" can be a hairy topic in itself.   
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #86 on: July 08, 2008, 06:04:42 PM »

Is killing approximately equivalent to rape?  If not, then it wouldn't fall under "An eye for an eye" which means the punishment should be equivalent to the crime (perhaps plus interest).  It doesn't necessarily mean that if someone rapes your mother, you get to rape their mother.  It means that if someone rapes your mother, she is entitled to reciprocation up to the point of equivalence (and perhaps plus interest).
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

DogOn

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #87 on: July 08, 2008, 06:06:27 PM »

If you say that killing in self defense is justified then thats fine but "what self defense is" can be a hairy topic in itself.   

I agree its a huge hazy area of moral, rights and epistemology, and its sometimes quite difficult to define a real logical basis when the question, how do we know what we know has to be answered on so many levels.

At the highest level, I would say my belief in killing only justified in self defense comes from a mixture of the NAP, for which there are lots of reasons for, some of which I don't think our valid, and the nature of self ownership.

Basically someones right to life no longer matters as long as that person is attempting to end your life. Assuming people have the right not to be killed, or don't have the right to murder, however you want to look at it, as soon as you attempt to murder someone else, you make it necessary for them to injure or kill you to protect their own life and their own rights.

I don't believe that you gain the right to kill because someone violated your rights. As soon as someone stops being a threat to you, I don't think that you have the right to kill just because they once tried to kill/rape/injure you. Your right to kill comes from the right to protect your life against aggressors. As such that right to kill only applies if it is in self defense. Killing someone in cold blood as punishment does nothing to protect your life, it can only satiate some primal urge for violence and revenge, and in the long run I think it is a self destructive path to take, even ignoring the morals and rights of the issue.

Get restitution for harm done to you, by all means, but keeping all that hate inside you is only damaging your own life, and while killing someone you want to might make you feel better temporarily, its not going to bring anyone back, its not going to fix anything in your life, and it certainly doesn't make you a better person.

There are obviously alot of deeper reasons that the ideas I mentioned are correct, and I try to cover some of them earlier in this thread, though for half it I have been trying to convince people to actually debate the issue, so my position and the legitimacy of my beliefs is pretty blurred at the moment, though as long as people want to debate based on reasoned discussion rather than emotion or what they desire, then I'll keep my hat in the ring and debate with anyone who still has points to make.
Logged

mark_mnc1

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 265
    • View Profile
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #88 on: July 08, 2008, 07:54:33 PM »

Right on well put.  I know that I say i would kill, or permanently injure, someone in a different situation but like I said given certain situations with emotions, adrenaline, anger, etc I would like to be able to act in the most rational way but Ive never been put in a situation like that.

Logged

DogOn

  • Guest
Re: An eye for an eye?
« Reply #89 on: July 08, 2008, 08:09:07 PM »

Right on well put.  I know that I say i would kill, or permanently injure, someone in a different situation but like I said given certain situations with emotions, adrenaline, anger, etc I would like to be able to act in the most rational way but Ive never been put in a situation like that.

Sure, I totally understand the sentiment of wanting to get revenge. Someone fucks with you its only natural to want to get them back.

There's situations where I would probably try to kill someone, but I'd never try to twist my perception of reality to make me think its right.

Killing someone won't really make your life better. A dead person can't feel pain, they can't feel remorse, they can't make amends for the harm they have caused.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Polling Pit
| | |-+  An eye for an eye?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 37 queries.