Who "deserves" to die?

Remove all ads!

I meant mental isolation, not physical.


What goes around, comes around.

If you dish out disaster, you can be rather sure it'll return to you. You're thinking on a miniature scale leaving an insane number of factors that could twist your idea of killing and the aftermath.
It has nothing to do with killing being wrong, it has something to do with the emotional response from those that cares for the one who dies.

And if you find those reasons you mentioned enough to kill if there wasn't a law, I'd say such an egoistic behavior would get you thrown out of society before long.

 

Ok, let me start this all over again, from Woody Allen's "Crime and Misdeamors".

Judah was a successful person with an innocent family. But he had an affair with another women. This women wanted Judah to divorce with his wife. Obviously Judah cannot do that. He had a reputation to live. He cannot simply throw away his family and his well being just to be with this women. He was going to put an end to his affair.

He tried 'civilized' method but the women wan't buying any of that. He asked his brother who had other 'ties' to help him. He 'pushed the botton' and this women was dead. Judah had several flashbacks. Most of them are his father talking about the all seeing eye. Judah at this point had guilt inside. At this point, he was also treat a rabbi who was gradually blind.

Several months later, in this rabbi's daughter's wedding, we see this blind rabbi dancing with his daughter. Judah met Cliff (Woody Allen). Knowing that Cliff was a was involved in documentary making, Judah told Cliff his 'scary story' (his own story). Cliff was not satisfy with the ending of this story, he suggested that 'this person' should be punished. So we have it, Judah said "That's the scary part." Judah then was a free person. As time passed, he felt no guilt at all. He escaped human eyes and he escaped all seeing eye, he escaped everything. His reputation was saved, his innocent family was saved, his 'well being' was saved.

So, that's it, are you more willing to believe that this is the world that you are living in? If i can escape my crime from police, i escape it clean. We all know how ineffective police are for getting all crimes under the sun to pay it's due.

If morality comes from society, should Socrates die if all the people of his society during his time thinks he should die? So, morality is just a relative concept but not absolute? Should it change according to time, location, population compostition and so on? If people living within a society think Americans should die by their suicide bombers, should Americans die?

Innate. Ancient Chineses (somewhere around Confucius' time) were debating about innately should human be good or bad? 'Innately bad' had an upper hand. There were no written laws at that time. Laws were written because the thought of human are innately bad. At the end, the 'laws' dominated Chin conquered all kingdoms and built a united China (China and Chin, see the link?). Far in Greece, Aristotle suggested, if we are innately good, then why should we learn morality at all? Why should we be told what is moral and not at all? On top of all these, i don't quite believe that human have anything innate at all. That's why we need culture (education and such). We need knowledge (such as what is good and what is bad) passed from one generation to another.

What goes around, comes around.
Isn't that a cosmic mechanism that keeps everything in order itself? Not God, but godly enough. Besides, who said i want to perform these 'crimes' in open and let people know? In Judah's case, the women's death sloved his problem. Nobody knew what actually happened to this women. Police investigations were futile. Judah got away, clean. Did he commited a crime? Should he be punished at all?

 

If you do not feel those things which I claim are innate, then I do not doubt that you also have little value for others, as you have indeed claimed. If you have no respect for anything else, then it too is little wonder to me that you refuse to accept the wisdom, or the knowledge, of anyone else on these matters.

I am aware of these things, and I respect the wisdom of those more experienced than I. No amount of nihilistic rhetoric will convince me otherwise.

Has the man done wrong? Of course. Even if he was fully 'justified' in his actions it would still be wrong. Each thing is right or wrong in itself. Each thing is purposeful in what is caused by it. Should he go unpunished? That is not for me to decide, only time will tell. I base my own actions in the only thing I can presently know- the righness or wrongness of the instant, and in this, no death is right.

Nothing is wrong in time either, as what happened has happened, and has happened for a reason, and could not have been different- else that would have happened instead.

So I leave it to you, teekc, and anyone else, not to ask what should or should not happen, but what you should do, yourself. Do not deny this aspect of yourself, do not attempt to try and run from it or hide. You cannot. You only deny yourself-which only strengthens its existence all the more.

I pity you, but I know you will not feel this way forever. That is my belief for you, take it as you will, but my mind will not be changed.

 

I wish death upon.. No one

I wish though that there were some way of teaching some persons a lesson or perhaps something like that
Dunno, Me bloody mind is empty

 

Suggesting that we are governed by innate is very dangerous.

Let me sum up this real quick.
My major moral guideline is "treating man as the end not a mean to an end" as i presented in my previous post.
By saying that there should be a cosmic mechanism to enforce morality, i do not advocate that we should obey morality in fear of its punishments. As you can see my moral guideline in the first place is not about this.
However, i do not feel comfortable knowing that there is a possibility for bad to remained unpunished forever. Therefore, a cosmic mechanism must exist to ensure that, hence, God.

As i was saying, innate is a very dangerous thought. If we are governed innately, then how can any person hold morally resposible for his/her action? We punish those did wrong because they could have done it otherwise. If any could not do it otherwise (like pushing the shortest straw off a over crowded life saving boat), then the (supposely) "crime" (in normal situation) is justified. i am more incline to think that we are given a choice. i can make decision.

If i commited a crime, it is because a bad decision i decided, so i should be responsible for the crime i comitted, thus i should be punished. If i was governed innately, i wasn't present a choice. If i commit a crime, i cannot be held responsible because i could not do it otherwise.
Putting "neutral innate" aside, if we are innately good, then why should we be taught the way of good anyway? Where is bad coming from?

Those who commited bad, are they innately bad? The situation of innate A saying innate B is wrong is just the same as racism, sexism, Nazism... Moreover, how can we say those innately bad people are responsible for their action if we are governed by good innate?

Lastly, i can of course act according to my innate, my guideline or whatever i choose to be the defination of right. However, i do not want to believe that at the same time while i paid extra caution to do good, a cunning bad went even more prosper and remained unpunished forever

 

I say that anyone who has an illness that cannot be cured and has said they would rather die then live, any pedefiles, rapists, murderers, and people loike that in general