[RESOLVED] Death sentence and moral relativism

[FlashLackey]

#3

[realMakc]

ok,

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.

ummm... you're right, so?

"Good" could mean what is good for society. Obviously, allowing murderers to go free can be seen as not "good" for society.

err... I agree again, so...

"Good" could also mean what is inherently good.

this could be interesting, but does not seem to be that "at length" thing you had in mind neither...

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.

oh wait, it does seem to be it. Could I just bring up an example, before I forgot that guy, Ashurbanipal - the proud creator of 1st library ever, who was also proud of the number of people he skinned alive....

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.

did I just mentioned Ashurbanipal? He's my favorite example, but I could, of course, bring up others. Seing how you (was that you ?) dismissed Sparta example before, I will not. Instead, I will agree with you (again) about "basic values" existance, but will not agree with your interpretation of those:

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).

My idea is that "basic values" exist simply because people are similar to each other (you know, genes and stuff). For example, murder is "bad" because, you know, they can kill YOU, too. My point was, however, that to be consistent with evaluating murder itself as "bad" this way, you should not pay taxes to government who lead wars or executes prisoners. My way, on the other hand, evaluation includes "who decides" bit, and so I can still pay taxes in a good faith in this case.

I agree that people are programmed to believe certain things and are influenced by society.

I think that perhaps far more than 90% of what we think is actualy what we have learned to think, but again, the topicfor another thread this is.

[realMakc]

just waned to add some twist for this one

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

actually, bad example, because nazies were thinking they do good for society, just as present day executors do.

[FlashLackey]

My idea is that "basic values" exist simply because people are similar to each other (you know, genes and stuff). For example, murder is "bad" because, you know, they can kill YOU, too. My point was, however, that to be consistent with evaluating murder itself as "bad" this way, you should not pay taxes to government who lead wars or executes prisoners. My way, on the other hand, evaluation includes "who decides" bit, and so I can still pay taxes in a good faith in this case.

Ok. Thank you. I appreciate the effort to further explain your idea.

So, to make sure I understand, you believe that morality is genetic, or learned? You seem to suggest both.

I think you need to clarify "bad" in this case. I understand that you are saying that if someone thinks killing is bad, they should be consistent about it. In fact, many people are and are against the death penalty for that reason. But, you're also ignoring that many people put forth a logical basis for why some killing is justified and others are not (ie. murderers damage society or the penalty of death deters the worst types of crimes). Technically speaking, murder is an illegal killing. So, being sentenced to death is not a "murder." They are two, similar, yet clearly distinguishable things.

Those people are appealing to the concept that the death penalty is good for society and murderers are not. So, you may see it differently. But, they are not being hypocrites. Their premise allows for some kinds of killing and not others.

just waned to add some twist for this oneactually, bad example, because nazies were thinking they do good for society, just as present day executors do.

I don't think it's a bad example. There are plenty of accounts of Nazi's regretting their actions and testifying that they knew it was wrong. Some resisted their orders. Sometimes, people do things that they know deep down are wrong.

[realMakc]

I don't think it's a bad example. There are plenty of accounts of Nazi's regretting their actions and testifying that they knew it was wrong. Some resisted their orders. Sometimes, people do things that they know deep down are wrong.

I wouldnt really like to discuss how these statements are obviously helpful to them so, assuming the opposite - even if they are telling truth, what they feel about it NOW does not change what they have felt about it back THEN.

So, to make sure I understand, you believe that morality is genetic, or learned? You seem to suggest both.

surely I did not said the morality is genetic? what I did say is that, since on the large scale people are very similar and live similar lives where they deal with similar situations, there's no wonder that they develop/accept similar values.

I understand that you are saying that if someone thinks killing is bad, they should be consistent about it.

Now that's a something...

But, you're also ignoring that many people put forth a logical basis for why some killing is justified and others are not (ie. murderers damage society or the penalty of death deters the worst types of crimes).

Not at all, I am not ignoring it. Am not. Really.

Technically speaking, murder is an illegal killing. So, being sentenced to death is not a "murder." They are two, similar, yet clearly distinguished things... Those people are appealing to the concept that the death penalty is good for society and murderers are not. So, you may see it differently. But, they are not being hypocrites. Their premise allows for some kinds of killing and not others.

Great, so what you said here is: supposed majority of society who votes for people who make laws and so define what is illegal, thinks that killing is not bad, and murder (= illegal killing) is. Meanwhile, minority who kill for "no reason" (c) silver, thinks murder is not bad, either, and some cases are even good (that's why they do it). And yet another minority who sits in electric chairs now thinks killing is actually bad in at least one case, too. All of this sort of fits in my "relativisim" thing; on the other hand, what it does not fit is the existance of universal "good" that our oppinions have to converge to - or else we could expect the law (that separates murder from killing, and many other things like that) to converge to same formulas over 1000s of year. Yet, we just do not see it happening. States and societies come and go, their formulas change all the time. Even now in XXIst century some americans are concerned with supposed homo killings in Iran or political killing in China, but the majority local people seem to approve those (since we know that legal status of those is direct result of their moral beliefs, right).

[realMakc]

btw, homo killings theme is funny subject to think about in numbers. if we have 4 people who think that it's ok to kill gays, and 10 gays, those 4 are obviously in minority, and are potential murderers. now, if they kill 8 gays over night X, they are now in majority and, by the true democracy spirit, can outlaw homosexualism, and kill the rest 2 gays, but it will no longer be murder. allthough their motivation is the same as it was before. in the end, we have society of 4 persons who all believe killing gays is ok. have their moral belief now converged to universal "good", or should we still count beliefs of now dead gays? but, if so, why not also count beliefs of Hitler or Ashurbanipal.

edit: my appologies to gay people, if you find this offensive, substitude gays with gingers, or people who like green tshirts or whatever.

[silverx2]

^ this goes back to the Nazi's
there is the poem(i dont remember the name) about how they came for one group and everyone looked the other way, they came for another group but everyone looked away. and it kept going till they came for the writer, and there was nobody left to help him. Those 4 people are murderers, after the first person is killed they should have been locked away/ put to death. If it gets to a point where the people in charge are not doing whats best for the people they will be judged by the people as a whole (uprising, mutinany) you can see evidence in that throughout history.

This goes in line with the above. People need to help each other. Murder is against the law. Law needs to be followed for peace to exist. if the law says "those that kill will be sentenced to death" people that kill forfiet thier right to live.

The law of gravity says what goes up must come down. im not going to throw a rock in the air, and then get mad because it hit me in the head on the way down.

[realMakc]

the law of gravity? wtf? ok, that's it. you're fk'n done it. after a hour on wonderfl this thread now seems utter waste of my own time over two days. where do I sign that you're right?.. am not coming back here

[WannaBe_80z]

another one bites the dust.

[silverx2]

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/l...ewtongrav.html

everything on earth attracts another item. if i throw a rock directly up, its going to come directly down on top of me. thats called gravity. In science when something is understood to be fact and true it becomes law. thus the laws of gravitation, or gravity.

Using that same theory, When you live in a state that has a law that says if you murder someone you can be put to death. Then when you murder someone you should expect to be put to death.

its pretty simple really, i dont understand how you dont understand it. someone un resolve this thread because realmaxipad doesnt understand what resolved means either.

[FlashLackey]

Great, so what you said here is: supposed majority of society who votes for people who make laws and so define what is illegal, thinks that killing is not bad, and murder (= illegal killing) is. Meanwhile, minority who kill for "no reason" (c) silver, thinks murder is not bad, either, and some cases are even good (that's why they do it).

No. I said something quite different. I said that people know, deep down, when they are doing something fundamentally wrong. I don't think that some minority of people kill because they don't think murder is bad or that it's good. I think they know it's bad but they do it anyway. Thus, what truly is good morally, in that case would not be relative to interpretation.

And yet another minority who sits in electric chairs now thinks killing is actually bad in at least one case, too.

This is why I suggest that you need to define bad. Bad for who? Bad for what? For the persons health? For society?

You're assuming that all people who die in the electric chair don't believe in the death penalty themselves. That same person, had they not committed their crime, could very well be the biggest pro death penalty advocate around. The only reason they may be against it in that case is for fear of dying. Not because they have some alternative system on what is morally good. Again, this argument does nothing to further your relativism idea.

All of this sort of fits in my "relativisim" thing; on the other hand, what it does not fit is the existance of universal "good" that our oppinions have to converge to - or else we could expect the law (that separates murder from killing, and many other things like that) to converge to same formulas over 1000s of year.

On certain fundamental values, I think different societies have converged. That there are remaining differences between cultures does not demonstrate that all values are relative. Again, you have assumed that all people automatically choose to do what they think is good. They don't. People choose to do wrong, even when they know or feel that it's wrong, for all kinds of reasons.

Yet, we just do not see it happening. States and societies come and go, their formulas change all the time. Even now in XXIst century some americans are concerned with supposed homo killings in Iran or political killing in China, but the majority local people seem to approve those (since we know that legal status of those is direct result of their moral beliefs, right).

Frankly, I think that a lot of people are concerned about those killings because those killings are clearly wrong. I believe that the people involved in them know it too. For whatever reason, their fear, paranoia and extremism over-rides their moral compass, leading them to commit wrong or evil acts.

As I've said before, the simple quantity of people choosing to do something doesn't say anything toward what is good, bad or relative. The Nazis carried out massive atrocities as a group. Most people see that it was wrong just on the face of it. Not because they grew up in a different culture.

[Taidaishar]

Digging up a 3 month old thread. MY BAD! I just somehow got here from the piracy thead and wanted to say that I think I know what realMakc was getting at. DISCLAIMER: I in no way endorse his views, I'm just trying to explain what I think he meant.

A lot of you were thinking of "good" and "bad" in terms of "good = right" and "bad = wrong". realMakc wasn't saying that right and wrong were relative, but that good and bad were.

For instance, let's take a serial killer who kills 20 women after raping all of them. Clearly we would all say that his actions are "bad". However, the killer would say his actions were "good" because they made him feel good. He got off on them or whatever. So, to him, they were good.

Here's where the disconnect comes for me and everyone else realMakc (if you're still here).

I think you're trying to separate "good & bad" from "right & wrong" when they are actually somewhat intertwined. If something is inherently wrong, it can't be "good". Whether or not someone thinks it's good, it's not. If a man rapes a girl, it's "wrong" and it's "bad". It doesn't matter what the man thinks about it. It doesn't matter if the man THINKS it's "good", it's "bad".

Anyway, probably not adding anything new to the discussion...