*Long fucking post warning*
If you think you're being moral just by virtue of your will and certainty then you make me sick.
I don't live or act to please you. I have my own set of morals and values, and obviously they differ from yours.
Hey thats cool, theres place for all sorts of mindsets, and I'm of one who wants objectively verifiable logic and fact to back my belief, especially if it pertains to ending lives. If you don't want to have an exchange on the merits and reasons for morals thats okay to, just seems odd to come on a discussion forum to not discuss.
If all I had for a belief was I think its right for some unnamed reason and I have a strong emotional response to do it, I wouldn't bother reiterating that point multiple times in the same thread.
Either way I have no grudge or dislike of those who hold the opinion its okay to kill as revenge, thats just your misguided belief, and the base reality is that most people will never take part in revenge murder, if not only for the fact most people don't get murdered, yet I'd still prefer if you could provide deeper backing for your belief, and even more so that you would care about doing so.
To vosti, I wasn't saying that a crime should be have anything to do with a persons opinion of the crime. Obviously if you steal a penny from me and I want you to die for it, it doesn't matter what i think.
During restitution neither party should have control over the nature of the restitution. A victim cannot demand more than is owed, and the criminal cannot refuse less than he owes. What is owed is defined by the objective nature of the crime. If a man steals $50 then the victim has a right to get back the $50 plus what it cost him to get it back and what it cost him during the time between theft and restitution. How much the rest will be will be determined largely by how effective the arbitration is at defining the harder to define costs. In the case of murder, a huge amount of value has been destroyed, I believe in most cases criminals would agree with their victims to trade amounts of financial restitution for amounts of time spent in jail, or even physical violence. In any case as long as the criminal is being non violent and is willing to restitute for his crimes then he still retains the right to life.
All the arguments for why killing people is bad still maintain when the person has killed, apart from, that they have violated a persons right, but I don't see any logical system for one violation of rights leading to no rights for the criminal. You are only liable for the rights you have violated, and to the extent of repairing the damage you caused.
You don't get to take a power drill to someones ribcage just because they broke your nose, you don't get to take someones house just because they stole a dollar from you.
In the same way, you don't get to kill someone just because they killed someone you liked. You killing them not only does nothing to repair what you have lost, but it actively ends any possible manner of restitution in future, and at the same time you are violating one of their basic rights for no benefit to healing your own rights violation.
You don't have a right to feel satisfied at the death of someone. You don't have the right to feel or think anything. If that where true I could make people fuck me just to . If you're allowed to kill to make yourself feel better, why can't you beat someone to make yourself feel better from a robbery?
The logic that killers should lose their right to life because they violated another person, has a very logical aesthetic, but it would only be logical if by killing someone you could bring back another, and killing was the only way to do it.
We accept killing as just in self defense because the victims rights are under direct violation and the only way to defend their rights is to use aggression against the aggressor. If you initiate violence then you have no right to not have violence used against you. This does not mean it suddenly becomes moral to kill anyone who has ever been violent , you have the right to do whatever you want so long as you harm no one else, if someone harms you then you have the right to do whatever you need to do to be restituted for the harm done to you. As soon as you do MORE than what is necessary to restitute you, then it becomes harm again. Much like if someone steals my candy bar, and I steal their house, I have passed the point of restitution long ago, and now it is the original criminal who is the victim. The same goes for murder.
Morality is not up for opinion, it does not respond or relate to your emotions. Killing any man when you didn't have to is always immoral. Theres no zero sum, no points to lose or gain, every action you make is either moral, amoral or moral. Killing a bad man is still killing a man. They may have a much lower sense of compassion, they may be mindless and violent, but they are still a sentient being and them being bad doesn't make you killing them good. Don't fool yourself that killing a "bad person" is doing good. You do good by helping, by trading, by producing, by defending yourself and others. Killing and being violent when it doesn't save lives isn't good, its not just or noble. Don't pull out the "well killing a bad person will stop deaths in the future" bullshit, keep that thought crime shit in the drug war and fiction.
The only real argument I've seen for revenge killing is that its okay to kill a bad person. If you don't accept relativism in your right to use drugs and guns or invading a nation, why accept it in your right to be unharmed and the right to restitution?
This is a huge issue, and I'm trying my best not to overwrite without getting feedback, but if no one on the side of revenge cares any more about defending their beliefs than to just repeat a few basic platitudes with a whole heap of machismo and emotion, its just gonna look like mindless violence, which is swell and all, but you're not benefiting nothing but your pride when you tell people how you don't care what they think and you don't need to discuss it to be right.
The Free Talk Live BBS
Poll
Author
Topic: An eye for an eye? (Read 18374 times)