Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[Ramo]

Retribution is causing people to face consequences for their actions. Again, you just restated the premise that retribution is moral.

Let's say you kill my SO, and then I kill your SO. That's an act of retribution. Is it therefore moral? Since retribution is moral.

[Az]

"Making people face the consequences of their actions", is somewhat incorrect, or to be more precise, it is not the root reason, it spreads over the other reasons.

a) Them suffering in jail, or being electricuted is NOT a natural consequence of their actions. It is a consequence because the society, trying to ensure the most ethical run of things, persecutes such an action.
b)why does it persecute it? to prevent it from happening. what are the effects that contribute to the prevention of future crime?: deterrance of other potential criminals, the reeducation of the criminal, and the removal of the criminal from society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Retribution is causing people to face consequences for their actions. Again, you just restated the premise that retribution is moral.

Seeing that retribution is a moral concept, a definition of it is why it is moral. If I asked you why you thought rehabilitation was moral, a defintion of rehabilitation would suffice.

Let's say you kill my SO, and then I kill your SO. That's an act of retribution. Is it therefore moral?

Yes. It is not legal, but it is moral.

Them suffering in jail, or being electricuted is NOT a natural consequence of their actions.

When did I ever say it had to be a natural consequence?

[korn469]

Seeing that retribution is a moral concept, a definition of it is why it is moral

and let me guess, this comes back to might makes right? since the case can execute people, it should have that power, correct?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You mean, since the 'state' can execute people?

Well that and the fact that most people within that state agree that is the best course of action to take.

[korn469]

Imran

yes i meant the state, sorry for the typo, but so as long as a majority of people believe something that makes it morally right?

would that mean if the majority of southern agreed with lynchings then it'd be moral?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well yes.

I've constantly said that morality is a democratic thing in democratic states. If a majority of the people believe something is moral, then it becomes societally moral. In non-democratic states, morality is the province of the rulers.

[korn469]

so then saddam was a very moral leader then i guess

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by korn469
so then saddam was a very moral leader then i guess

well, if the majority of Iraqis think he is moral, than under Imran's standards then he would be.

Imran's reasoning makes sense to me. In democratic states, the majority make the laws. So if the majority think somethn is moral/immoral, then they could make a law that demonstrates as much.

I think this is stupid tho, I think laws should be made independently of morals... my reasoning on how to do so is complicated however.

EDIT: the south could legalize lynchings if the majority wanted it, however the supremecy clause of the Constitution would not allow this, as the majority of the entire US does not see this as moral, and federal laws reflect this.

[SlowwHand]

Answer me this, or start a poll. I don't have time, I'm leaving.

If YOU murder someone, and you know you did and the evidence is there; would you rather be imprisoned for the rest of yor life, or executed by lethal injection ?

Guynemer. Put yourself to good use for a change, and start a poll, ok ?

[Immortal Wombat]

imprisoned. All the best works of philosophy have come from jail cells.

[Guynemer]

Good to have you back, Sweetheart.

Anytime you'd like to make yourself useful and provide some evidence for your claims, feel free.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
imprisoned. All the best works of philosophy have come from jail cells.

mein kompf?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kramerman, exactly!

I also agree that laws SHOULD be made amorally (which I know is a moral choice of mine, btw ), because I always thought the protestation of imposing your morality upon me was always valid, and every law is basically imposing morality upon someone else.

so then saddam was a very moral leader then i guess

Depends on who you ask? In the world society he isn't, but in his own corner of the world, he is.

[korn469]

Imran's reasoning makes sense to me. In democratic states, the majority make the laws. So if the majority think somethn is moral/immoral, then they could make a law that demonstrates as much

Kramerman

I disagree, that is little more than mob rule. I think that laws shouldn't be shifting and capricious. At one time the Mullet was in, yet that doesn't mean it was a haircut that actually looked good on people. I personally believe that some actions are just self evidently just or unjust. There are others that are fairly ambivalent. Yet I believe that all people are entitled to a large amount of rights that don't inflict harm on others. I don't think a majority should ever have the justification to take away these rights.

I think this is stupid tho, I think laws should be made independently of morals... my reasoning on how to do so is complicated however.

I shouldn't have used moral, I should have used just, because I too think that laws shouldn't rely on traditional morals, but more utilitarian justification, that take into account people's individual rights. Please explain how you think they should make laws.

I also agree that laws SHOULD be made amorally (which I know is a moral choice of mine, btw ), because I always thought the protestation of imposing your morality upon me was always valid, and every law is basically imposing morality upon someone else.

Imran,

I agree that laws are basically imposing a certain group of morals on people, but I only agree with this to a point. I think that laws should ensure a reasonable degree of safety for all people, but I think that morality can certainly be used as a justification to take away individual rights, which to me is a bad thing.

As far as the death penalty goes, I don't support it in the vast majority of cases, but there are certain criminals I think it is appropriate for, serial killers being the ones that comes to mind.