Man cuts his teenage daughter's throat for no good reason

[yavoon]

if i was whoever she was going to run off w/ I would have killed the father. course there's the whole jail thing. but i would have definitely wanted to.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Verres
I cant believe that question even needs asking!

its a biting criticism of relativists. its not so much that they think its morally right. but that possibly their intellectualized views on morality make it hard for them to say its wrong.

[DanS]

I am just looking at the way I saw kids in Britain and France. I don't know how it is in the US.

Not the same, apparently.

[Az]

Originally posted by Verres
I cant believe that question even needs asking!

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Truth is, moral relativists throw away not only the moral rules ( morality as in a customary code of behavior in societies, not based on logical conclusions ) but also the ethical ones (based on logical conclusions in philosophy). according to this theory, you can't judge any action made by anyone. Planting flowers in the garden, and masterminding a genocidal warmachine the goals of which will be to enslave the human race, have equal ethical value: ZERO.

You can't judge a person's actions, if his actions are part of the customary code he's accustomed to.


Elijah, I am once again terribly sorry that my anti moral relativist posts seem to target you. Otherwise, I hold you in great respect, and as generally, an interesting poster. It's just you're the one that most often defends that p.o.v. .

[MrFun]

So in other words, Azazel -- those people are fvcked up??

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Link please?

I'd be very suprised to hear a Christian honour killing, since honour from a Christian worldview, is always less valuable than a person's life.

Obviously you've never dealt with Beirut Christians.

[DanS]

You do have a point there, MtG. Some of those are hard core mfers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SnowFire
How is it "moral" to worry about the innocence or guilt of a capital defendant, while not concerning yourself equally with the guilt or innocence of a non-capital defendant nevertheless sentenced to die behind bars, just a bit more slowly?

I happen to be in favor of the death penalty in rare situations, but this is a specious argument. If you're worried about innocence/guilt, then putting somebody in prison for life gives more time to make sure that was the correct decision. If somebody confesses to the crime a year after somebody was executed for it, all the State can say is "Oops." If they put them in jail for life, they would at least be able to give them the rest of their life back.

Now, if the truth is found out a hundred years later? Sure, they were both death sentences. But the "ten years later" case is more relevant for what people are worried about.

Actually, it's not a specious argument if you come to accept that those B&W Perry Mason reruns don't reflect the realities of the American criminal justice system. How many provable confessions (not just attention starved nutbags) have come out to exonerate an already executed capital convict in say, the last 50 years? How many provable confessions have exonerated life, term to life, or LWOP convicts in a similar period?

The simple fact is that LWOP convicts have no mandatory appeal rights in almost all (maybe all) states, and without lawyers, clerks and investigators taking apart a case file and trying to work it for years, "new evidence" adequate to convince an appellate court to vacate and order a new trial just doesn't come out of the woodwork. DNA testing is expensive, investigators are expensive, and if you're not about to fry, you don't get the attention.

The simple fact is that the vast majority of LWOP convicts just disappear into the maw of the prison system and are then essentially forgotten by the legal system. Presumably, serious prosecutorial error (and/or misfeasance or malfeasance by prosecutors, police, or witnesses) are at least as common in these cases than they are in capital cases, or more so (one would hazard a guess that prosecutors try a bit harder in capital cases, and/or they select favorable cases for capital prosecution due to the higher profile of a capital trial.)

[Ben Kenobi]

Beirut Christians.

MtG:

Well then, expand my limited experience.

Thanks again for helping me install my cd-rom drive.

[Odin]

This is why I hate religion, ALL religion.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel


that's not the way to do it.

what you should write is

* Azazel raises middle finger... moderators have it pixelated

and a bit more on-topic, though I understand your uncomfort, I have no other choice but to remind you that your point of view is because in the belief system of their culture, this is acceptable, that action cannot be judged.

come on, you're a moral relativist, aren't you? The father was commiting something customary to his culture. Why all of a sudden you consider it a bad thing?

you can get frustrated and upset all you want, this is the truth, and if you have any consistency, you should demand that this man would be set free.

Has it occured to you that it is because morality is relative that one can find this immoral, when the man who did it (and others from the same school of thought) obviously do not?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


MtG:

Well then, expand my limited experience.

Thanks again for helping me install my cd-rom drive.

Prior to the real FUBAR in the early 80's, the 70's civil war in Beirut had nominally Roman Catholic, Maronite, and Orthodox factions fighting each other as well as everyone else. As with early Japanese Christians (Sengoku jidai or warring states era), "Christianity" was always adapted a bit to serve one's cultural mores. Vengeance killings, and even large scale terror attacks by one "Christian" group against another at church during Sunday mass occurred, and "fraternization" between Christians of different sects was extremely dangerous for those involved.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Osweld


Has it occured to you that it is because morality is relative that one can find this immoral, when the man who did it (and others from the same school of thought) obviously do not?

This leads to a bit of a semantic problem. Is it morality itself which is relative, or is it certain people's self-serving claims of moral justification?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Is it morality itself which is relative, or is it certain people's self-serving claims of moral justification?

One and the same. Morality isn't some sort of supernatural entity that judges us, it's just our own person views on different matters.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Christianity" was always adapted a bit to serve one's cultural mores.

Syncretisation? Always a problem with any religion, particularly one like Christianity open to all cultures.

I think these folks are more Lebanese than any kind of Christians. Sad that they would value honour over a person's life. Especially sad that the individual groups would fight amongst themselves rather than working together.