[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2011-September-21, 19:10, said:

In my opinion, capital punishment is morally wrong. The State cannot have the power to do things that individuals have no right to do.

blackshoe, on 2011-October-03, 18:51, said:

Note, btw, that I have no problem whatsoever with any citizen retaliating to deadly force with deadly force.

If it is not morally wrong for citizens to retaliate with deadly force, why is it morally wrong for the state?

[Bbradley62]

PassedOut, on 2011-October-04, 07:02, said:

blackshoe, on 2011-October-03, 18:51, said:

Note, btw, that I have no problem whatsoever with any citizen retaliating to deadly force with deadly force. There was a case here a few years ago. Guy walked into a crowded bar, pulled a gun, pointed it at the ceiling, looked up, fired the gun, yelled 'this is a stickup!' and looked at the room, expecting, I guess, to see everybody cowering in fear. What he saw instead was the muzzles of forty two guns. He'd picked a cop hangout to rob. The robber surrendered immediately, so "stupid, not crazy" fits. But if he hadn't, I wouldn't have had a problem if he'd ended up full of holes. I wouldn't have had a problem if none of the forty two had been cops, either.

If it is not morally wrong for citizens to retaliate with deadly force, why is it morally wrong for the state?

It appears to me that Blackshoe simply had an unfortunate choice of word here... it appears that he meant to say that he has no problem with citizens responding with deadly force in a self-defense sitation. I expect he would still say that after-the-fact retaliation (you killed my brother, so the next day I find and kill you) by a citizen is wrong.

[Lobowolf]

hotShot, on 2011-October-04, 01:52, said:

A society believes that killing people is wrong, so they kill murderers.
They consider killing people to have a finanzial advantage is even more unethical, but they argue that executions are cheaper than paying for a lifetime in jail.

Moral is hard .......

It's a very small minority who believe that "killing" people is (inherently) wrong. I believe all 50 states, for instance, recognize a right to use lethal deadly force in self defense in certain circumstances. It's murder that's wrong.

[hotShot]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-04, 16:05, said:

It's a very small minority who believe that "killing" people is (inherently) wrong. I believe all 50 states, for instance, recognize a right to use lethal deadly force in self defense in certain circumstances. It's murder that's wrong.

I don't think that the belief that killing is wrong implies that you accepted to be killed without resistance.

[mike777]

If you believe killing is wrong you are a pacifist.

Lets not confuse words.


really silly comments. If killing is wrong so be it that ends the discussion.

In fact people have no idea what do with killers and rapists, they concede there is no money.


They beaT their chests AND CLAIM THEY ARE MORAL as injustice and present no solutions......

[Lobowolf]

hotShot, on 2011-October-05, 00:05, said:

I don't think that the belief that killing is wrong implies that you accepted to be killed without resistance.

You're allowed to kill someone, if necessary, to prevent someone from doing things other than killing you. The point, though, was not that the belief that killing is wrong implies anything, per se, but rather that the vast majority of people DON'T believe that killing is wrong. If you don't like lethal self-defense as an example, here's another - euthanasia.

What most people believe is that murder is wrong, which is another matter entirely. Equivocating most people's anti-murder stance to an anti-killing stance, then using it as a platform from which to make further points is rhetorical sleight of hand.

[kenberg]

I prefer that we, as a society, stop executing people. If balancing the scales were the only issue then some people should be given a drug that would cause them to die slowly and painfully. It has its allure. But we don't do that and I think we are the better for it. I think we would also be better as a society if we simply dropped the executions. The choice is for us, not them.

[phil_20686]

Lobowolf, on 2011-October-05, 16:28, said:

You're allowed to kill someone, if necessary, to prevent someone from doing things other than killing you. The point, though, was not that the belief that killing is wrong implies anything, per se, but rather that the vast majority of people DON'T believe that killing is wrong.

I feel that these arguments are badly constructed. It is perfectly possible for an action that is "morally wrong" to still be the "best possible moral choice". Some people hold to a strictly utilitarian position that the best possible course of action is necessarily "right", but it seems to me to be a flawed way of looking at human behavior. The point being that often when other people are making morally wrong actions, your choices are restricted.

Here is a thought experiment along those lines:

You are part of a commando unit operating behind enemy lines in a failed state. You come across a group of local men gang raping some local women. There is neither the time nor the resources for either a trial or imprisonment. Your choices of action are:

a) Ignore it and go on with your mission.
b) Kill all of the offenders.
c) Drive off the offenders, possibly killing some, and leave. (I.e. allowing them to continue in the future).

My vote goes for (b), but that does not mean that I believe that that (b) is a morally right decision, it is just the least bad course of action.

[blackshoe]

One of the considerations in that example case has to be whether interfering with the rape will compromise the mission. If it is likely to do so, a) may be your only option, like it or not. There may also be rules of engagement to consider.

Aside from that, discussing "fringe" cases is pointless when we haven't established what the "normal" action should be.

Change the scenario. You come upon a man raping a woman. You are armed. Do you a) shoot him in the head, then call 911, b) call 911 and let the cops deal with it when they get there, c) attempt to arrest him, then call 911 d) something else. If c), what do you do if he resists? If you are not armed, how does your answer change? If he is armed, how does your answer change?

Note that the moral position in this scenario is one thing. The legal position may be different depending on where you are, even within the United States.

[hotShot]

Although these examples are interesting to discuss, let's keep the focus on topic.

In the case of a convicted and imprisoned criminal , the state should be under no pressure to do anything else than what is morally right.

[mike777]

hotShot, on 2011-October-16, 13:56, said:

Although these examples are interesting to discuss, let's keep the focus on topic.

In the case of a convicted and imprisoned criminal , the state should be under no pressure to anything else than what is morally right.

And of course in the real world the state is under pressure. The state or country is near broke.

As I pointed out instead of executing people, they lock them up and let gangs carry out prison justice through rape and murder. Not morally right but this has been going on for decades and no one stops it. It easy for us posters to beat our breasts and say states should do what is morally right.

[blackshoe]

hotShot, on 2011-October-16, 13:56, said:

Although these examples are interesting to discuss, let's keep the focus on topic.

In the case of a convicted and imprisoned criminal , the state should be under no pressure to do anything else than what is morally right.

That presupposes that imprisonment is morally right in the first place.

[phil_20686]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-16, 19:11, said:

That presupposes that imprisonment is morally right in the first place.

Whereas your comment presupposes that
a) There is a morally right course of action and
b) That the state is under some obligation to take the morally right action regardless of the cost.

[blackshoe]

The State asserts that it can do pretty much whatever it likes. I guess you're okay with that.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on 2011-October-19, 00:13, said:

The State asserts that it can do pretty much whatever it likes. I guess you're okay with that.

Certain state actors may make that claim, but "the state" as a whole is limited by the Constitution. Many individuals and bodies of "the state" have had their efforts to do whatever they like thwarted. The fact that you may disagree with where the limits are drawn, or whether they're drawn in a particular case, doesn't imply that there are no limits.

[blackshoe]

When I referred to "the State" I wasn't speaking of the United States in particular, but of States more generally. The US Constitution only applies in the US (and it's by no means perfect, nor perfectly followed).