[RESOLVED] Death sentence and moral relativism

[silverx2]

i dont understand in starting a thread about how the death penalty is wrong. and then by the second page admitted that killing someone for killing thier family is what they would want.

Its a pointless thread, made by a person with no point. it is a black hole of logic. even the tags agree with me.

[gerbick]

Doesn't mean that you can't keep your calm.

[silverx2]

I'm calm as a cucumber on a salad.

[realMakc]

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

2nd time you have nothing better to say, maybe you should shut a *cough up then.

[silverx2]

ok why did you start this discussion? Nothing will ever be achieved because you are biased.

If someone says the death penalty is right you will argue they are wrong. those people dont deserve to die.

if someone kills your family you want to have them killed.

pointless discussion, with no goal created by a person wasting other peoples time. the ultimate troll.

[silverx2]

lolcat hijack

[realMakc]

I never ever eva neva eva actually said death penalty is wrong. Did I? Did not! Don't think I did. What I said was, chances are that execution victim does not see his own execution as a "good" thing to do.

[silverx2]

I'm sorry, I didn't see an lolcat in your post so I didn't read it.

[realMakc]

[gerbick]

So what is your stance? One sentence.

[WannaBe_80z]

I like peanut butter.

[david petley]

gee, this is a good thread

I think there is universal good ...and then there are just lots of people using the word 'good' inappropriately.

No matter how many positive results may flow from an action for an individual, the action cannot really be placed in the 'good' basket unless there is some more universal benefit involved.

but this is silly...I was just forced to think for a second about something irrelevant.

davidp

[FlashLackey]

pointless discussion, with no goal created by a person wasting other peoples time. the ultimate troll.

Bingo. Kind of pointless to discuss anything with a person who actually tries to defend their own lack of clarity. Dude may have invented a new logical fallacy...

[FlashLackey]

... nope!

He doesn't even get credit for that: equivocation.

[gerbick]

Wait.

Did I just see you agree with silver!?

[FlashLackey]

Hah! Yes.

I haven't always agreed with him on things. But, I hope it has never seemed that I was anti-silver personally. I'd give him a good referral, a beer, a ride to the airport, etc. He's cool by me.

[realMakc]

the action cannot really be placed in the 'good' basket unless there is some more universal benefit involved.

why?

So what is your stance? One sentence.

if that's directed at me, please refer to post 17 on page 1 for that kind of compression.

a person who actually tries to defend their own lack of clarity

a) I have felt no need in narrowing down the vague concept, and b) I told you, if you feel like there is such need, to pick a "context" you want (which you did not). What should I be defending from?

[gerbick]

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?

There is no stance nor one sentence that clearly states what your stance is.

Now. Allow me to demonstrate what I mean by "one sentence" in regards to your stance.

"Good" and "bad" will remain to be vague due to societal influences and measurement on those terms; therefore I believe simply that if you break society's rules to the extent you cause death, you should expect it back.

No need to expound on that. It's simple to digest as-is.

[FlashLackey]

a) I have felt no need in narrowing down the vague concept, and

I know. That's why your argument is a fallacy known as equivocation.

b) I told you, if you feel like there is such need, to pick a "context" you want (which you did not).

How does that make any sense? I asked you to clarify what you mean. And your response is to ask me to choose what you mean for you?

And anyway, I did write at length about a particular reading of your argument. Did you miss that?

What should I be defending from?

You can't. As of right now, the argument you have made is a fallacy and is thus defenseless. What you should do is to think about what you mean more specifically and explain it. Then, maybe, the discussion can progress past the first step of "what in the hell are you talking about?"

[realMakc]

@gerbick, that's wrong post, I told you go to #17.

@FL,

I did write at length about a particular reading of your argument. Did you miss that?

I guess so, post #, please?