Random theological stuff - moved from Q about God

[Einherjar86]

No, I'm speaking specifically of incidents in which someone is already engaging in illegal behavior, and a death results as a direct consequence of their actions.

Self-defense is understandable.

 

[Blowtus]

Using the law to determine morality is a backwards arsed failed recursive loop of shit.

 

[derek]

The laws came from somewhere.

 

[Blowtus]

You're backing me up, right?

 

[Einherjar86]

Using the law to determine morality is a backwards arsed failed recursive loop of shit.

I completely agree.

I'm simply saying that I think it's unfair to judge a man who premeditated a murder differently from a man who killed another man accidentally whilst trying to steal from him.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I completely agree.

I'm simply saying that I think it's unfair to judge a man who premeditated a murder differently from a man who killed another man accidentally whilst trying to steal from him.

I don't think it's unfair, because someone who inadvertantly kills during a robbery is most likely acting out of desperation, not genuine contempt, or some type of psychotic fetish. Clearly, one who kills out of desperation and expresses regret for their actions has a chance at rehabilitation, while one who kills out of contempt or enjoyment probably does not.

 

[Blowtus]

I completely agree.

I'm simply saying that I think it's unfair to judge a man who premeditated a murder differently from a man who killed another man accidentally whilst trying to steal from him.

You can't agree and then simply say that, unless you will then go on to say that a man who accidentally kills another while shaking his hand should also be judged similarly. Either way, you're wrong

 

[derek]

You're backing me up, right?

Oh yeah. The poor reasoning involved in seeing laws as direct relations to "morality" is shocking.

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

Oh yeah. The poor reasoning involved in seeing laws as direct relations to "morality" is shocking.

Morality only guides laws to a certain extend. Beyond that laws, to a high degree, seek to enforce of protect the personal interests of those in power, rather than the best interests of a whole society.

 

[Blowtus]

Who says morality is always in the best interests of a whole society though?

 

[BlackMetalWhiteGuy]

I'm not really sure what you mean, since that was partly my point. Are you agreeing with me, or trying to challenge something?

 

[Blowtus]

ok... it seemed like you were saying laws were distinct from morality because laws don't always serve the wider populace ideally.

 

[Einherjar86]

You can't agree and then simply say that, unless you will then go on to say that a man who accidentally kills another while shaking his hand should also be judged similarly. Either way, you're wrong

I don't agree that laws should be used to define morality. I'm making this argument based on the set of laws we have already instituted in our society (since those are all we have to base our theories off of). Therefore, based on the laws we have created (whether they can be weighed morally or not), I think it's unfair to judge involuntary manslaughter differently from intentional murder. Whether it's a thief whose gun accidentally goes off and kills one of the robbery victims, or a man who premeditates killing his wife, the disregard for human life remains. I don't think it's fair to discriminate among these crimes when both of the members convicted engaged in risky behavior that puts another human being's life in danger.

 

[Death Aflame]

I don't agree that laws should be used to define morality. I'm making this argument based on the set of laws we have already instituted in our society (since those are all we have to base our theories off of). Therefore, based on the laws we have created (whether they can be weighed morally or not), I think it's unfair to judge involuntary manslaughter differently from intentional murder. Whether it's a thief whose gun accidentally goes off and kills one of the robbery victims, or a man who premeditates killing his wife, the disregard for human life remains. I don't think it's fair to discriminate among these crimes when both of the members convicted engaged in risky behavior that puts another human being's life in danger.

So basically, for you, intent has no meaning/bearing on particular situations--you place all your eggs in the basket of the end effect of an action.

By this reasoning you would seem to only care that I stole some bread, and not care to even hear, let alone take into account the reason for stealing bread (family to support, jobless, etc.). Your theory thus makes everything potentially appear black and white, which no doubt is a dangerous proposition in a world of moral grays.

 

[Einherjar86]

By this reasoning you would seem to only care that I stole some bread, and not care to even hear, let alone take into account the reason for stealing bread (family to support, jobless, etc.). Your theory thus makes everything potentially appear black and white, which no doubt is a dangerous proposition in a world of moral grays.

What is the purpose of laws if we choose to continuously contort and repeal them because of intent and other contributing factors? I completely agree that someone may have a legitimate excuse for stealing bread (to feed a starving family, for instance). All I'm trying to say is that in our society, amidst these laws that have already been created and set in place, there's no room for matters such as intent when deciding on the punishment for a crime. These kinds of things completely subvert the purpose and need for any kind of law code at all.

Laws, by their very nature, make things black and white. In a small, isolated society of some hundred villagers, criminal matters can be handled a much more humane fashion. However, once a society reaches population levels as high as those in the United States, such efforts become impossible, thus making laws a societal necessity. Unfortunately, there are exceptions to these rules; and, also unfortunately, we can't afford to constantly sympathize with these exceptions.

John Q held a hospital hostage so that his son would receive heart surgery. His intent was good, but he still infringed upon the rights of others, and he deserves the full punishment that any criminal who committed that crime would receive.

Morality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Death Aflame]

So why don't we just have machines administer swift justice then, as it seems morality/ethics to you has no place in law? I don't know about you but I do not want to live in a place where circumstance has no bearing on the justice served. This could lead to gross negligence on the part of the justice system--I killed a man true, but your system does not take into account that I was acting in defence and out of a legitimate need for self-preservation.

There needs to be some flexibility, some room for adapting laws to specific cases and circumstances as not everything can be predicted by some preconceived policy, in other words there must be room for human reasoning and judgement to be applied to specific cases.

The John Q example is interesting since it is so controversial, yes he held a hospital and some its members hostage (thus violating their liberties), but he never did so with the intent to kill, in fact his intent was the exact opposite to save his son from death, not to cause more. Now this does not excuse his actions of course, but certainly the ethical motivation for them (i.e. his specific socioeconomic circumstance) and his obvious intent should factor into the sentencing he received. If your system were adopted, none of that would matter, only the fact that he held the hospital hostage and was threatening violence. This perspective just seems erroneous because it turns a blind eye to the actual events and the specific actions and thoughts that motivated the final events.

 

[Blowtus]

I don't think it's fair to discriminate among these crimes when both of the members convicted engaged in risky behavior that puts another human being's life in danger.

The status of something as a 'crime' should be irrelevant in this regard - many of our actions impose some risk to other people, they are judged on a continuum, it is not a black and white 'you put someone at risk and they died therefore it's murder'.

If I am doing a little over the speed limit in my car and I kill someone I should be treated the same as some loon running around with an axe cutting folks heads off? Good one

 

[Einherjar86]

If I am doing a little over the speed limit in my car and I kill someone I should be treated the same as some loon running around with an axe cutting folks heads off? Good one

That depends; if someone darted out in front of your car, that deserves some consideration because they also put you at risk (obviously, you weren't intending to strike that person with your vehicle).

It's all about finding fault, in my opinion. Our judicial system requires that someone be found at fault, and in order for this system to work it needs to eventually rest somewhere. Once we have determined that factor, the punishment shouldn't be attenuated.

 

[Blowtus]

Why shouldn't the punishment be attenuated? There are excellent reasons for *not* simply judging based on the outcome - there are significant elements of deterrent and protection of the public, neither of which is achieved by focusing only on the outcome, but the intent and future likelihood of causing similar bad outcome.

 

[XxSNAPxX]

okay i know i'm coming into this a bit late, but, my answer to the orignal question is this. The actual fallacy lies in the myth of god or gods itself. Being as most if not all religious texts and/or teachings are obviously and insultingly contradicting, not even to other but in it self. Therefore people who cling to only certain parts of any religious guidline in an attempt to make it seem more sensical, are really only confusing it more, since not following guidlines surely, in religion means that they will be punished by there respective deity. So, in short, my opinion is that any attempt to make reason out of something which has no reason will fail.