[RESOLVED] Death sentence and moral relativism

I made this thread to not trash pirate bay topic further with philosophy debate. The point made there by FlashLAckey (I think) was that, whenever two people (groups of people?) disagree on what's "good", one of them is wrong (i.e., "good" is universal). My point was, that they disagree because "good" is always "good for someone", and as such might differ for different people (i.e., relative).

An extreme example would be death penalty, a case when one man's "good" is opposed to the rest of society's. Surely, to die can not possibly be "good" for execution subject. Or can it?

Pizza is "good." I like pizza.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

I don't know where you see this stuff in "my logic". I could quote myself again, but it is already written up there, so what's the point :(

---

The irony here is that you should consider that you aren't communicating your point clearly. What you think in your head is "good" communication is not reflected well in the reality of what you have written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

I made this thread to not trash pirate bay topic further with philosophy debate. The point made there by FlashLAckey (I think) was that, whenever two people (groups of people?) disagree on what's "good", one of them is wrong (i.e., "good" is universal). My point was, that they disagree because "good" is always "good for someone", and as such might differ for different people (i.e., relative).

---

I think what is confusing about the way that you keep writing about this subject is that you have not clearly explained what you mean by "good." "Good" can be a lot of different things, depending on context. It could be what is good for someone in terms of health. Obviously, getting sentenced to death is not "good" for anyones health. Therefore, you could say, in that context, "good" is relative to who it is healthy for. "Good" could mean what is good for society. Obviously, allowing murderers to go free can be seen as not "good" for society. "Good" could also mean what is inherently good.

You are interchanging entirely different uses of the word into the same argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by argonauta

I think that's correct. Maybe there's a village out there where children are killed when they aren't strong enough (Spaaaarta! :) ). Some countries think women shouldn't have the same rights as men...other countries think all americans are stupid...it seemed the past US government thought torture was a very bad thing, but it was good if it could save thousands of people...I haven't watched that new Nixon movie, but in the trailer, the reporter asks: 'So you can say the president can commit illegal acts?' and Nixon replies 'No, I'm saying that when the president commits them, it's not illegal'.

The views about what's right and wrong is not absolute...is abortion good or bad? should religion be taught in schools? should all code be opensource? is it ok for you to buy an ipod, knowing that the same money could help a kid in Africa so he doesn't die of hunger? Why is it bad to through stones at prostitutes, if the bible doesn't see that act as horrible...why is it bad to say f*ck infront of a kid, but it's ok among your friends? why is it immoral for a woman to show her breasts, unless it's because she's about to feed her baby?

If you stop and think a bit, I think you'll realize that a lot of everybody's behavior is based on what you were taught to do. How you dress, how you speak, your manners, etc. You are a reflection of a small piece of the society you live in, but keep in mind there are all kinds of societies out there. You are programmed to think and act a certain way, but different people are compiled with different code. It amazes me how so many people think that their truth is the only truth.

in the words of Bill Hicks: "Hitler had the right idea, he was just an underachiever"

---

That people simply hold different beliefs does not further the argument that all of them are equally valid or good. Also, what is "good" is not necessarily the same thing as "right and wrong", morality, etc.

Assuming that you are referring to morality here, I disagree. There are things that are inherently wrong, regardless of where you learned them or if there is a whole village of people that partake. I think that, in those cases, you were taught wrong or are part of a group that is involved in doing things that are wrong. It's why, imo, all over the world, there has been a consistent pattern toward similar basic values. Deep down, I think people know and recognize when they are doing something fundamentally wrong, even if there is confusion due to peer pressure (ie. Nazi's taking orders, etc.) or distorted teaching (ie. Lee Boyd Malvo).

I agree that people are programmed to believe certain things and are influenced by society. For example, some people are programmed to believe that, in order to be considered open-minded, you have to believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I think what is confusing about the way that you keep writing about this subject is that you have not clearly explained what you mean by "good." "Good" can be a lot of different things, depending on context. It could be what is good for someone in terms of health. Obviously, getting sentenced to death is not "good" for anyones health. Therefore, you could say, in that context, "good" is relative to who it is healthy for. "Good" could mean what is good for society. Obviously, allowing murderers to go free can be seen as not "good" for society. "Good" could also mean what is inherently good.

---

Well, you're right, we can turn this discussion in this way: define "good". If you look at all these contexts, there is a reason why the word "good" is used there, and not "red", or "convex". It is because there is generic concept of "goodness" behind all these cases which is tied to that word (imho, but you are free to give your explanation here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

You are interchanging entirely different uses of the word into the same argument.

---

Or rather I am trying to make my argument independent of specific use case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

Well, you're right, we can turn this discussion in this way: define "good". If you look at all these contexts, there is a reason why the word "good" is used there, and not "red", or "convex". It is because there is generic concept of "goodness" behind all these cases which is tied to that word (imho, but you are free to give your explanation here).

---

No. That is not correct. In the English language, the same word can have different meanings and uses, depending on context. That is why, in dictionary definitions of words, there are often multiple definitions. For example, the word "good" has 58: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good

Which definition of good you are meaning completely changes the point you are trying to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

Or rather I am trying to make my argument independent of specific use case.

---

The uses of the word "good" are so varied that, without clarifying which you are referring to, you really have not made any coherent argument at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/number has 44, but you still did not explain why it is the same word in all that cases? random coincidence?

even your way, you can pick any context you want, and I will just repeat what I said before in that context.

ho ho ho, you have a point there:

Quote:

---

23. Informal. person; individual: the attractive number standing at the bar.

---

^^ I wonder where does this come from? In Russia, we certainly would not call someone "a number" :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/number has 44, but you still did not explain why it is the same word in all that cases? random coincidence?

---

I couldn't tell you the philological reasons why some words take on multiple uses and meanings. I can only show you that this is a fact and that in order to communicate clearly, you sometimes have to clarify how you are using a word with multiple uses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

even your way, you can pick any context you want, and I will just repeat what I said before in that context.

---

Ok. Then, about 90% of the time, you will be making no sense at all. The other 10%, you will be making various, completely different statements.

Is there one in particular that you are interested in discussing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

ho ho ho, you have a point there:^^ I wonder where does this come from? In Russia, we certainly would not call someone "a number" :/

---

Don't you have some expressions in Russia that use certain words in an unexpected way?

well, in russia I would expect the word such as "good" to be used in a way, which does not give it "completely different" meaning, about 90% of time, and more; too bad if it is not the case in English... though so far I never noticed that until now :) my feeling here is that you are trying to use one or two unrelated special case meanings, such as http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good #46 f, as a basis to dismiss my statement without actually having to defeat it.

as for definitions/concepts in general, I think what dictionaries do is simply avoiding them by listing all possible use of the word and leaving all the hard work up to dictionary user himself. the choise made by dictionary editors does not imply, imho, that this cannot be done at all. just like a child, who learns every concept from numerous examples, you are free to find common ground between all listed use cases, if you are really willing to do so, and not just looking to dismiss some inconvenient statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

An extreme example would be death penalty, a case when one man's "good" is opposed to the rest of society's. Surely, to die can not possibly be "good" for execution subject. Or can it?

---

The death penalty isnt about what society thinks about said person. Its about justice. the man on death row commited a crime on a level that warrented his death. to my knowledge the only way to guarentee a death penalty is to commit treason agains the united states, or to murder another person.

If this person that you want to debate doesnt deserve to be killed because it is not good for him, you first need to decide which is worse, making a singular self descion to kill someone like the person in the electric chair. or to have a jury of that person peers make a mutual choice that the act he created warrented his own death.

Or justifying murder.

The problem is death is permanent. If you believe that the death penalty is the only way to find justice in the case of murder then you also have to kill the judge and jury.

Joe kills Mary, Bob kills Joe for killing Mary. Police arrest Bob for murder not for easing the load on the court system.

There were numerous documented cases in the 1800's of convicting the wrong person. There also are quite a few cases from the last century of wrongly accused. And in this century many states with death penalties have placed a moritorium on death sentence convictions do to innocent people being sent to thier death thru the court system.

If your a sadist or believe in vengence and think the ultimate punishment is death. You are making an incorrect assesment. Once someone is dead you can punish them no more.

This amateur philosophy trend is really tedious. Stupid too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hanratty21

Pizza is "good." I like pizza.

---

I don't like pizza. Pizza is "bad".

Which of us is wrong?




... it's me isn't it? :(

there is nothing not to like about pizza. it is the perfect food.

I read pizza as something else earlier. Oops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

well, in russia I would expect the word such as "good" to be used in a way, which does not give it "completely different" meaning, about 90% of time, and more; too bad if it is not the case in English... though so far I never noticed that until now :) my feeling here is that you are trying to use one or two unrelated special case meanings, such as http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/good #46 f, as a basis to dismiss my statement without actually having to defeat it.

---

I think it's the opposite. You are writing about semantics in order to avoid having to clarify and defend an actual position.

Your feeling is wrong. I was only trying to understand your point. I might throw in my 10 cents on it. But, I don't care to "defeat it" if we disagree. I just wanted to understand you. If you are secure in your belief, you shouldn't have to start making insulting statements in the face of reasonable questions.

In fact, I have started to address different interpretations of your statement. But, I'm not going to waste my time addressing every possible way it could be interpreted only to find out that isn't what you mean. That's why I've simply tried to get you to clarify your argument. Since you haven't done so, you haven't really even made an argument to "defeat."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

as for definitions/concepts in general, I think what dictionaries do is simply avoiding them by listing all possible use of the word and leaving all the hard work up to dictionary user himself. the choise made by dictionary editors does not imply, imho, that this cannot be done at all. just like a child, who learns every concept from numerous examples, you are free to find common ground between all listed use cases, if you are really willing to do so, and not just looking to dismiss some inconvenient statement.

---

I think that blaming dictionaries for your inability to clearly communicate a point is... interesting.

Yes, some concepts escape dictionary definitions. However, it is insufficient to simply pick a single word, say it, and then claim that you have delivered some unique concept. If you want others to understand what you are trying to say, you have to explain what you mean by new usages of words. People do it all the time. The fact that you got all defensive about it tells me that maybe you haven't really given this subject much thought?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctranter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hanratty21

Pizza is "good." I like pizza.

---

I don't like pizza. Pizza is "bad".

Which of us is wrong?

---

this is actually exactly my point here, ha ha. FlashLackey must be, indeed, too tired to not see it (humm, to FL: sorry if anything up there insults you, btw... perhaps it was those bad other meanings of my words again).

I was just kiddin', everyone likes pizza

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctranter

I was just kiddin', everyone likes pizza

---

Agreed.

@gerbick - everyone likes p***y too.

Maybe those that don't like pizza should be given the death sentence.
</hijack>

Quote:

---

I was just kiddin'

---

doesnt matter, I could just as well write that myself. oh noes, hanratty21 reloads his shotgun. I'd better go now.

is relativisim even a word.

huh? I dont think I misspelled it, did I... any way relativisim is a word, and since it is not claimed by any dictionary, noone can tell me it has multiple meanings now, mu ha ha >:->

the fact that its not claimed by a dictionary normally means its not a word.

normally

gee, what an intersting read...it has been 'good' ...there are some 'good' words here, and I feel 'good' now after having read it.

Soon I have to go to work, that is 'bad' although in some ways I guess it is 'good' as I earn my living from it.

Good on you for raising the issue.

davidp

...btw we sell goods, not services.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

If this person that you want to debate doesnt deserve to be killed because it is not good for him, you first need to decide which is worse, making a singular self descion to kill someone like the person in the electric chair. or to have a jury of that person peers make a mutual choice that the act he created warrented his own death.

---

If he receives a death sentence, it means we (the jury, guys who appointed the jury, guys who made laws about appointing the jury, guys who voted for guys making laws, etc) have already decided that it is better for him to die, doesnt it? btw, is descion even a word? but note that I dont bіtch about it, and reply to you like if nothing happened :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

If he receives a pizza, it means we (the jury, guys who ordered the pizza, guys who made the call on no anchovies, guys who voted for extra cheese, etc) have already decided that it is better for him to have only one slice, doesnt it? btw, is slice even a word? but note that I dont bіtch about it, and reply to you like if no one ever ordered the pizza in the first place :D

---

Uh...ok.

That was a misspelling. You made up a word.

I only skimmed this thread as it is sorta a pointless argument just like religious beliefs. But what would you say about that recent story of the women catching that man on fire? This guy took her daughter off the street and raped her with a knife to her throat and he was sentenced 9 years. He was released and was on a 3 day leave back home and saw her on the streets and as they walked past each other he asked how her daughter was doing. She then proceeded to get a container of gas and douse him with it and catch him on fire and after 2 weeks in intensive care died. Who was wrong in this situation?

Also I will have to agree that Pizza is good. But what do you all think about calzones?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

If he receives a death sentence, it means we (the jury, guys who appointed the jury, guys who made laws about appointing the jury, guys who voted for guys making laws, etc) have already decided that it is better for him to die, doesnt it? btw, is descion even a word? but note that I dont bіtch about it, and reply to you like if nothing happened :D

---

here ill make it simple.

i murdered your mom, sister, father, girlfriend, wife, all of your kids, pretty much everyone you have ever loved. Me alone. i did it, nobody else. why you may ask? meh i was bored, felt like doing some killing.

Should i remain alive? living out my life in a dry jailcell? 3 meals a day, a few hours a day to exercise. i can get an education in prison, **** over in europe they give guys like me nintendo Wii's and ps3s. **** yes sign me up for some of that ****. maybe ill put some peanut butter up my ass and on the first day of the trial get a handfull and eat it. then its 6 months in a mental house before im declared sane again and back on the streets.

The death penalty isnt about right, it isnt about wrong. its about justice. balance. If you kill someone, if you brutally murder someone, you dont deserve to live. 12 people will be given facts about the crime you may have committed. then they will discuss it, and make a group descision. As soon as someone kills someone else for no reason you have lost any right to live.

if you dont understand that then your ****ing retarded.

i fail to see how a wiki on Neologism proves relativisim is a word.

psst, silver...

jus·tice (jsts)

NOUN:

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. 
   
   
   a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
   b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness
3. 
   
   
   a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law
   b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.

IDIOM:
do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation: The subject is so complex that I cannot do justice to it in a brief survey

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WannaBe_80z

Who was wrong in this situation?

---

surely you should see that, once accepted relativisim, you wouldn't even hve to ask this question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

As soon as someone kills someone else for no reason you have lost any right to live.

---

What you mean "no reason"? Oh yeah, you mean the reason is not "good" enough, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverx2

if you dont understand that then your ****ing retarded.

---

that's pathetic.

No I really don't know. What they both did was ****ed up. Do you think she was right in doing that or?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realMakc

surely you should see that, once accepted relativisim, you wouldn't even hve to ask this question.What you mean "no reason"? Oh yeah, you mean the reason is not "good" enough, eh?that's pathetic.

---

ok for no reason, other then they were bored one sunday. a person has just murdered every person you have ever loved.

what should happen to them?

@wanabe80, the thing is, if you tie "good" to context (ok, now I feel like stealing words here), i.e. to a person who decides if it is good or not, the question vanishes. e.g., for some reason it looks to her like it is better to burn him than to let him walk away. for some other reason it looks to you that to burn him is "****ed up". so, it is good for her, and bad for you; what's the question, again? this can even vary for the same person, e.g. this guy _may_ feel differently about the rape years after ("I swear to Lord I would never do that now" type of сrap), i.e. it does no longer seem to be such a good idea to him... but if you try to fit all of this into tiny space of "universal good" concept, you will end up with "why the hell people do bad things" and "how do we judge certain act correctly" nonsense questions. with relativisim, people always do what they think is good for themselves, and to judge them you simply ask yourself would you want them to do it (again).

@silver, that's easy one, I would like him to die. but that's sort of in line with all I said here.

So what you're trying to say is- this thread is a waste of time. Ok I'll agree with you there.

ha, well, you're right, I didnt start it to find One True Goodness, and I believe noone will find it, evah. I just started it to leave Pirate Bay thread alone.

no you started it because your ****ing retarded

whoa, whoa. c'mon folks, keep it calm.