Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why should the morality of an act, from one person's perspective, change with regard to the identity of the person committing the act? That would negate the point of having an individual morality in the first place.

Actually that affirms individual morality. The morality of an act changes depending on the person committing the act.

I don't think you're getting it. Ramo was stating his individual moral view on why he felt retribution was always wrong. Ramo's views on what makes an act moral and immoral isn't likely to be affected by the identity of who is committing the act, hence bringing up that some people somewhere find it moral is utterly irrelevant to Ramo's beliefs. Why even mention it in an argument?

He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?

For most people, when you consider something immoral, you consider it immoral for everyone who does it. People don't get exemptions because their personal morality tells them otherwise.

It depends on how you view it. If you view something immoral, yes, you do consider it immoral for everyone else.

Which is the entire point of making a moral statement.

But what about the person who believes the opposite of you?

How is it relevant, when discussing an individual's moral beliefs, to counter with some unrelated person's moral beliefs?

Who is 'correct'? Neither really. The person's morality which is closest to society's morality has more power behind his individual morality, but it doesn't mean it is more 'right' than someone else's.

Were this the case, nothing would be immoral.

Yep, basically. Nothing is immoral to a person that believes his acts are moral. It is immoral to other people (outside observers).

Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So long as a person is a dictator, what he does is right?

Yes, at least in his own society.

Why are you even debating over the merits of capital punishment? If Texas wants capital punishment, it must be right, by your position for Texas to execute prisoners

Yes, it is.

He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?

Why shouldn't we care about that? I have never said my moral beliefs are correct in any way, shape, or form. It may be moral to kill someone's SO, if someone else murderd your SO.

Hell, if it happened to me, I may consider it right and just that I do so. You seem to think that reason is the only way humanity decides things.

Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate.

Why? If you ask for my moral beliefs and I do not believe my moral views are correct for all people, why does it matter what MY moral views are? Because, in the end, I don't think all my moral views SHOULD apply to society (it may mess things up, but it sounds nice morally - it is also the reason that politics curtails morality of individuals... they realize if they put into place all they morally believe the country would get ****ed up fast).

[SlowwHand]

Hey. You weepers best be glad we don't hang hoss thieves any more.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He then also asked for YOUR moral view on retribution in the scenario of murdering someone's SO, and you said yes, it was moral to murder someone else's SO. Why on earth would you answer "yes" to that if it wasn't your morality or the morality of the society in which you live? What possible use is it to answer "yes" on the minority of sociopaths who believe such a thing is moral, or on behalf of another society wherein such a thing is moral? Who the hell cares about that?

Why shouldn't we care about that? I have never said my moral beliefs are correct in any way, shape, or form. It may be moral to kill someone's SO, if someone else murderd your SO.

We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese?

Hell, if it happened to me, I may consider it right and just that I do so. You seem to think that reason is the only way humanity decides things.

Morality is based on reason. If you were to murder an innocent person based on this scenario because you felt it just retribution, that doesn't magically make it a moral thing to do if you believed the contrary was the case beforehand.

That you seem incapable of making an individual moral argument here is perplexing to me. You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality?

It seems that you not only believe your morals are irrelevant to society, but that they are irrelevant to yourself as well.

Again I have to ask why you even bother participating in moral debates, since all you seem to contribute is a platitude that no one has an absolutely correct morality. This is utterly useless to such a debate.

Why? If you ask for my moral beliefs and I do not believe my moral views are correct for all people, why does it matter what MY moral views are?

You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY.

Because, in the end, I don't think all my moral views SHOULD apply to society (it may mess things up, but it sounds nice morally - it is also the reason that politics curtails morality of individuals... they realize if they put into place all they morally believe the country would get ****ed up fast).

Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do?

Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese?

Well, if I said that I can't taste anything, then wouldn't it be reasonable for me to bring in someone not involved?

Morality is based on reason.

Only partly, and I say minorly. The major part of morality is and always as been emotion. Things are immoral that disgust us. We may not be able to say why, but we know they are bad.

You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality?

Satisfying a thrist for revenge seems a good justification for me. And yes, that can be a moral belief.

You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY.

What if it doesn't matter what my morality is?

The question may have been why do I consider retribution moral, but the UNDERLYING question was why is retribution moral at all. I merely chose to answer the underlying premise instead of the one posed to me.

Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do?

It ain't like I can turn my moral views off, though I don't know about you . I have them, I sometimes think about them, and they are there with me. Something in the mind wants people to come up with morality.

Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it?

'Cause its fun? I mean why bother debating at all? You gonna change the world by it? You really think you are going to change people's minds? Debating, at least on this site, is something we do for entertainment.

I hope you don't think I espouse about morality and debate it in my day-to-day life.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

We shouldn't care about it because it is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of our moral views. If we were debating the merits of cheese, and I asked you you liked cheese, why the hell would you bring up what someone else not involved in the discussion feels about cheese?

Well, if I said that I can't taste anything, then wouldn't it be reasonable for me to bring in someone not involved?

No! If I asked you if you liked cheese, why would I care what someone else thought about it?

And are you saying you have no moral opinion about murdering the SO of another for revenge, so you had to rely on bringing in another opinion that wasn't your own?

Morality is based on reason.

Only partly, and I say minorly. The major part of morality is and always as been emotion. Things are immoral that disgust us. We may not be able to say why, but we know they are bad.

So you never think about your moral views and why you hold them? That's so bizarre as to be astounding. You're obviously not stupid, so I don't understand how you could go through life not reasoning your moral beliefs.

You say you might consider it right if it happened to you. Why? Can you come up with any justification for it other than satisfying a thirst for revenge? Is satisfying a thirst for revenge the same thing as morality?

Satisfying a thrist for revenge seems a good justification for me. And yes, that can be a moral belief.

How on earth do you justify this? In what sense could a thirst for revenge make it justifiable to kill an innocent person? What is your rationale for believing that?

You just answered your own question! If someone asks you what YOUR moral views are, that's the ONLY thing that matters at that point! They want to know what YOUR morality is and WHY.

What if it doesn't matter what my morality is?

It matters when someone asks you directly what your morality is. Jesus Christ.

The question may have been why do I consider retribution moral, but the UNDERLYING question was why is retribution moral at all. I merely chose to answer the underlying premise instead of the one posed to me.

Even if I were to pretend this were a rational way of answering the question (it certainly isn't), I'd have to point out you still failed to provide any rationale for your statement. Answering a question of "is this act moral?" with the answer that "to someone somewhere it is," when it isn't moral to you or your society, is pointless. Taking moral arguments out of the context of society is not rational, helpful or even enlightening. It's just a stupid waste of time, as shown here.

Then why do you even bother having moral views? You obviously don't feel yours are any more right than anyone elses, so why not just adopt the morality of whomever is standing closest to you at any particular moment? Since there's no absolute right or wrong, wouldn't this be the most convenient thing to do?

It ain't like I can turn my moral views off, though I don't know about you . I have them, I sometimes think about them, and they are there with me. Something in the mind wants people to come up with morality.

You said yourself you could switch them, were you in the situation of murdering someone's SO in retribution. If you morally believe it isn't justified to that before the situation happens to you, but then change your mind after it does happen to you and decide it's ok to murder that person's SO, then you've just turned your moral views off.

Again, why do you even bother participating in moral debates when your morality is clearly so irrelevant? Everything is moral and justifiable under such logic, so why bother arguing with people about it?

'Cause its fun? I mean why bother debating at all? You gonna change the world by it? You really think you are going to change people's minds? Debating, at least on this site, is something we do for entertainment.

I hope you don't think I espouse about morality and debate it in my day-to-day life.

We're not talking about changing people's minds or the world. We're talking simply about stating one's own moral viewpoint. You can't, since you feel your moral views don't matter to anyone else and that anything is moral, because someone somewhere at somepoint might have felt it was moral. These make your contributions to moral debates pointless and, worse, obfuscating. Why not leave them to people who actually care about morality?

[SlowwHand]

Put them on a freaking deserted island, ala Papillion.
The problem will be solved, the result the same.

[DinoDoc]

I don't believe the purpose of prison is punishment/retribution.

Why not? It seems fairly self-evident that is one of its purposes.

[Ramo]

Imran, you are insane.

1. You believe your morality shouldn't apply to society. This is a ludicrous postion. Morality is nothing more and nothing less than a system of judgement of social interactions. So it by definition applies to society. Even things like real politik are moral beliefs (realism is based on the moral that state power is good).

2. Anything can part of a moral system. Someone could believe that it's immoral to stick bananas up one's ass less than once a day. There's no reason that can't be possible. When I ask you if think something is moral, I'm asking just that. I'm not asking whether most people in some society on the other side of the globe thinks this thing is moral.

3. Speaking of which, I have no idea why you persist on this silly stuff about societal morality and democracy/dictatorship. I don't think anyone gives a **** about that. You're just constructing arbitrary definitions with little practical value. When most people talk about morality, they are referring to personal beliefs.

4. You still haven't justified the morality of retribution. If you can't justify it within your moral system, you can of course assume that retribution is moral. But then you'd have to take the position that any act of retribution is moral; including my 9/11 - nuke the Middle East example.

5. No, a vindictive justice system that executes people does not reduce crime. I again reference ours or Russia's "justice" system which have huge crime rates compared to the rest of the West, but have draconian penalties for crime compared to the rest of the West.

[Ramo]

Why not? It seems fairly self-evident that is one of its purposes.

But I don't think it should be. I think that's an immoral use of force.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And are you saying you have no moral opinion about murdering the SO of another for revenge, so you had to rely on bringing in another opinion that wasn't your own?

I was saying my moral opinion doesn't have more weight than someone who would believe the act was proper.

So you never think about your moral views and why you hold them? That's so bizarre as to be astounding. You're obviously not stupid, so I don't understand how you could go through life not reasoning your moral beliefs.

Can you show me that the 'reasoning' isn't simply justifications for emotional beliefs? For many people it is. Only a very, very few, rationally go through the arguments and then decide.

How on earth do you justify this? In what sense could a thirst for revenge make it justifiable to kill an innocent person? What is your rationale for believing that?

Because it would feel right, emotionally. It isn't like people haven't done things on the basis of emotion when it bordered on irrationality. Hell, dying for a belief is an emotionally based action, but to many it is moral.

It matters when someone asks you directly what your morality is.

Depends on the reason for the question. If they were doing it just to be curious, then yah, but when it is to set up something underlying, then no.

Answering a question of "is this act moral?" with the answer that "to someone somewhere it is," when it isn't moral to you or your society, is pointless.

Perhaps to you. It isn't to me. If someone asks me if something is moral, I consider 'to somone, somewhere it is' to be a good answer.

You said yourself you could switch them, were you in the situation of murdering someone's SO in retribution. If you morally believe it isn't justified to that before the situation happens to you, but then change your mind after it does happen to you and decide it's ok to murder that person's SO, then you've just turned your moral views off.

No, No, No, I've just changed my morality after that instant in time (it is likely that I will now consider that killing a moral act for the rest of my life). Morality doesn't have to change simply by reason, it can easily change by emotion as well.

I mean when you say someone is bad. It starts off as an emotional plea inside of you that you end up justifying by reason. You decide first, then reason, as most people do.

These make your contributions to moral debates pointless and, worse, obfuscating. Why not leave them to people who actually care about morality?

What'd be the fun in that?

[SlowwHand]

Why don't you start a boarding house, Ramo ?
We can just send the little darlings to you for pampering.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
But I don't think it should be. I think that's an immoral use of force.

How do you have a credible rehabilitation program without some element of punishment to go along with it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

you can of course assume that retribution is moral. But then you'd have to take the position that any act of retribution is moral; including my 9/11 - nuke the Middle East example.

Now can I call you insane for repeated this utterly idiotic argument time and time again?

Example: You can assume deterance is moral, but then you'd have to take the position that any act of deterance is moral; including my chopping your arm off for stealing a pack of gun.

I'm sure this example will illustrate the idiocy of this style of argument. Since you agree with this reason for punishment, you have to agree with the worst for the punishment for the smallest thing.

What part of the 'punishment must fit the crime' (which is a retribution concept) don't you understand?

No, a vindictive justice system that executes people does not reduce crime. I again reference ours or Russia's "justice" system which have huge crime rates compared to the rest of the West, but have draconian penalties for crime compared to the rest of the West.

What came first, the chicken or the egg? What is to say that our crime rate wouldn't be even higher without vindictive punishments? Just because you assume it might, doesn't mean it will.

[Ramo]

How do you have a credible rehabilitation program without some element of punishment to go along with it?

Why can't you? Authoritarian rehabilitation programs such as ours fail miserably, while less authoritarian rehabilitation programs such as the Finns' are much more effective. Look at the crime rates in both societies.