Texas Executes 300th Inmate

[SlowwHand]

"quote:
Let the punishment fit the crime.


Why?"


Outstanding rebuttal, Ramo.
Marvelous. Fascinating. Dare I say? Even Rad.

[Ramo]

It's a simple question, Sloww. Why do you advocate an eye for an eye?

[Az]

Yeah, Slowwhand! why?!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: that doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for something better, or else what's the point?

I'm not sure that there IS a point at all.

I'm not referring to social morality. Societal morality is totally irrelevent to the issue. I'm asking you why you think retribution is moral. Not if most people think retribution is moral.

I already told you. Just desserts. You beat up some dude, you go to jail. It's what you deserve. You shouldn't do something 'bad' and get away with it simply because it was done in the heat of passion.

I don't believe the purpose of prison is punishment/retribution. It should exist to protect society. Societ is not protected if you go about offing people because you feel a hankering for vengeance.

So you don't want to punish anyone for committing crimes? Wonderful . In Ramo's society the murder rate has just jumped incredibly, because the only people that will go to jail are those who have a strong likelihood of doing it again.

[Az]

Punishment and retribution are different things.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Punishment and retribution are different things

Yes, but all punishment INCLUDES some retribution in it, a feeling that the person deserves the punishment he is getting. It doesn't matter if it is deterrance or incapcitation, retribution is behind them both. Only rehabilitation doesn't include retribution.

[SlowwHand]

If you lock someone up for life for habitual crime, or for 3 time loser status, how does one justify anything but "eye for an eye".

You can't, and shouldn't, set habituals back on the street.
It's retarded thinking to do so.

Increments of punishment finalize in execution.



I'll advocate lopping off hands of thieves, if you'd prefer that aspect.
Or lopping off..other, for rapists.

The penalties must be relative to the crime.
End of my input.

[Immortal Wombat]

You stole a cookie from the cookie jar! No more fingernail on Mr Pinky!!!1!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Boris, that's a difference between societal morality and individual morality. Societal morality is based on laws, individual morality surely isn't.

Explain how it is moral to kill an innocent person in response to someone else killing an innocent person? In what society is this considered moral? Certainly not in ours!

It's been moral for centuries and still is in some cultures. The whole idea that since you killed my children, I will kill your children has been well established.

That doesn't explain anything. You say it's moral. So it's either moral by your personal morality, or by the morality of society.

It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of. Since that's the case, you must be saying it is moral by your standards.

So explain to me, rationally, how it is moral to murder an innocent person in retribution for the murder of another innocent. I can't believe you would seriously adhere to such a viewpoint.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of.

You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It is clearly not the morality of the society in which you live, nor in most societies today that I can think of.

You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

Dodging the question. You said it was moral. Your society says it isn't. So it must be moral to you personally. If so, I want a rational reason why you think it is moral.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't personally think it is moral, but if the goal of society is equality then it is reasonable to kill your children if you kill someone else's children. You have equalized the situation.

[korn469]

You know Western society. In MANY Asian and African societies it is perfectly moral. Especially in Indian society and Mid East society. African society holds to be moral as well.

Imran,

I think the problem here is that if you say hey it was/is moral in society x, that somebody could easily present an argument that it wasn't moral in society y. I mean under that standard human sacrifices to various gods would be moral because of a number thought it was moral. I doubt we're going to sacrifice Iraqi POWs to Huitzilopochtli (the Aztec god of war) when the war in Iraq is over, and say it's moral because the Aztecs did it.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't personally think it is moral, but if the goal of society is equality then it is reasonable to kill your children if you kill someone else's children. You have equalized the situation.

You said, in response to UR's question if it was moral, that it was. You said it was moral even if it was illegal:

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.

So explain to me how, if laws are the embodiment of a society's morality, it could possibly be moral to commit such an act, which is clearly illegal. You yourself established here that it is our society about which you are talking.

[Ben Kenobi]

korn469:

You've hit the nail on the problems with Cultural Relativism.


Imran: So if a society likes to eat babies, eating babies must be moral for that society?