DescentBB

Foil wrote:

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT wrote: The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders.

Foil wrote:Alright. I'm man enough to admit I was wrong there. Honestly, I'm taken aback by that opinion, as it implies the Supreme Court supports retribution/vengeance as an acceptable ethic. It concerns me, because where does the line for "acceptable vengeance" then get drawn?

The Eighth Amendment, I believe.

Bold Deceiver wrote:And did you vote in the last presidential election, and if so, for whom? Inquiring minds, and all that.

Foil wrote:I voted for Bush, so back off.

Mmmmm... No. But I look forward to additional amusing invitations.

Foil wrote:You're only demonstrating how inaccurate your political-party stereotypes are.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

But deploying the "S" word? Are you absolutely sure you voted for Bush?

Foil wrote:Please tell me you're not serious. ... your advice is to ignore it?

Bold Deceiver wrote:Ahh... no sir. If you think someone is being abused, by all means you should move to correct it. But that's not your own procedure here.... You see, you moved to disabuse Bettina of her ethical position by vaunting your own rather arrogant perception of "ethics", as a universally held one.

Foil wrote:Please re-read my posts. I am stating my own opinion on the matter, I'm not foolish enough to assume that my ideas are universally-held.

Oh no no no no. I quite clearly recall you saying: "However, as I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance." Now that read to me like a fairly clear, normative statement of universal ethics, that you sincerely hoped Bettina understood. Do you really think ethical rules are a matter of opinion?

I doubt it. I think you'll say there is an objective set of ethical rules out there that should guide each of us; and that ethics are not a matter of subjective perception (of course, I guessed wrong about your political inclinations and look how that turned out...).

And I think maybe you would take that one back, if you could.

But I've been wrong before!

BD

WillyP wrote:A 9-year old would have no concept of killing... that is a very mature concept. And same for vengeance. That little girl had no thought but to get away, avoidance would have been on her mind, not revenge. She may have killed him to get away if given the opportunity, but not likely.

I wanted to come back to this because I think you missed the point I was trying to make below that I posted earlier.

Lets assume Jessica was a grown women and managed to get her hands on a gun while she was being brutally raped. Do you think she would have taken the time to decide whether to wound or kill?. No she would not. She would have shot to kill, but Jessica couldn't shoot to kill him because she was only 9 years old.

Thats what I mean. Justice has to carry out what she would have done if she was older.

WillyP wrote: You may have a good imagination, but you presume to know the heart and mind of another?

I've been able to do that to a degree all my life but thats another story. However, does it really take a good imagination to know what she was going through?

Bettina

Bet, what's the difference between a 9 year old who can't protect herself and a 30 year old who can't protect herself?

Remember, even a grown women may not be able to fight off an attacker. Most men are twice the strength of the average women.

And to my other post about the guy who BBQ'd his g/f, why does he not deserver to die horribly? Just because she was 19 and not 9? I disagree. There is no difference in age. Rape is rape, murder is murder.

Foil wrote: Honestly, I'm taken aback by that opinion, as it implies the Supreme Court supports retribution/vengeance as an acceptable ethic.

I don't understand why anyone would think that it is NOT an acceptable ethic. IMO it should be supported if it was the ONLY reason. The ONLY reason I don't fully support the death sentence is because we still can't seem to be able to convict people with 100% certainty.

I think if I saw one of my friends get raped or murdered by someone and didn't kill that person, I would feel sick (or at the very least be hugely dissapointed with myself). I think possibly the only reason why I wouldn't do it is fear of prison myself...

I'm surprised to see so many people finding moral virtue in revenge. Could somebody set out what exactly they think is good about revenge, especially in the context of capital punishment cases? I.e. set out why it is better to have exacted revenge than not to have? (I realize that everyone's conception of human goodness varies, making debate about this subject fundamentally difficult, but I'm still curious.)

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Foil wrote:Please re-read my posts. I am stating my own opinion on the matter, I'm not foolish enough to assume that my ideas are universally-held.

Do you really think ethical rules are a matter of opinion?

I doubt it. I think you'll say there is an objective set of ethical rules out there that should guide each of us; and that ethics are not a matter of subjective perception...

You're still misunderstanding me.

Do I think that morality is absolute? (i.e. do I think the the principle that 'revenge is unethical' is universal?) - Yes.

Do I think that everyone shares my opinions? (i.e. Do I assume 'revenge is unethical' is a universally-held idea?) - No.

That's why I can say "revenge is unethical" as my personal opinion about universal truth, but not assume that everyone shares the same perception of truth.

CDN_Merlin wrote:Bet, what's the difference between a 9 year old who can't protect herself and a 30 year old who can't protect herself?

Remember, even a grown women may not be able to fight off an attacker. Most men are twice the strength of the average women.

Since your question pits both the 9 and 30 year old against a large attacker, then the only difference is chance. The 9 year old would have no chance compared to the 30 year old who would have had some chance. If you compare the same scenario against Couey, then odds are the 30 year old would have a much better chance of killing him. Jessica had none.

CDN_Merlin wrote:And to my other post about the guy who BBQ'd his g/f, why does he not deserver to die horribly? Just because she was 19 and not 9? I disagree. There is no difference in age. Rape is rape, murder is murder.

I agree especially since she was my age. However, because she is dead and was his girlfriend at one time, her side of the story can't be checked to see if it was a fight gone out of control, or that she was doing something to to him. Without knowing if there were aggravating circumstances I would not be able put him to death so I would choose life without parole.

In Jessica Lunsfords case, since she was only 9 and stolen out of her bedroom, her story doesn't need any background checks. She was the epitome of innocence and vulnerability and thats why I want him electrocuted and cremated.

There is a big difference between the two.

Bettina

What if the 30 yr old was knocked out cold from behind and had no clue?

I can understand the rage about people killing etc children but I still find some people just deserver to die from the crimes they commit. And the guy with the BBQ, doesn't matter what HER side of the story is, there is absolutely NO REASON to cut a body up and burn it on your BBQ. NONE AT ALL.

Jeff250 wrote:I'm surprised to see so many people finding moral virtue in revenge. Could somebody set out what exactly they think is good about revenge, especially in the context of capital punishment cases? I.e. set out why it is better to have exacted revenge than not to have? (I realize that everyone's conception of human goodness varies, making debate about this subject fundamentally difficult, but I'm still curious.)

I am interested too. Like I said in my first post, I haven't been able to justify revenge in any case myself. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this?

As I see it, the only motivation for revenge is the desire to "get back" at the perpetrator, causing suffering in relation to the amount of harm done. I don't consider causing suffering to be a moral good, particularly when other options are available (as they are) with capital punishment.

I see the motivations behind revenge and the original offender to be very similar; both desire something with no justification for the harm caused. Why is it moral that "the people" impose suffering without cause (aside from their personal desires, giving no rational justification), but an individual doing the same is condemned? Is it simply because the majority says it's okay?

CDN_Merlin wrote:What if the 30 yr old was knocked out cold from behind and had no clue?

I can understand the rage about people killing etc children but I still find some people just deserver to die from the crimes they commit. And the guy with the BBQ, doesn't matter what HER side of the story is, there is absolutely NO REASON to cut a body up and burn it on your BBQ. NONE AT ALL.

Your changing the scenario. He kept Jessica alive for three days. I use the 30 year old women in the same sense. Obviously they would both be dead if clubbed from behind.

The BBQ.. Once the person is dead it doesn't make any difference what you do. Bury it, burn it, etc. He still gets life.

Bee

Jeff250 wrote:I'm surprised to see so many people finding moral virtue in revenge. Could somebody set out what exactly they think is good about revenge, especially in the context of capital punishment cases? I.e. set out why it is better to have exacted revenge than not to have? (I realize that everyone's conception of human goodness varies, making debate about this subject fundamentally difficult, but I'm still curious.)

I would like to have some clarification on this as well. I can surely understand why it feels right to take revenge, and possibly even to kill the person. But how can you deduce from this feeling of yours anything about morality?

Foil wrote:Do I think that morality is absolute? (i.e. do I think the the principle that 'revenge is unethical' is universal?) - Yes.

Hence, under your ethical construct, Bettina's belief (that retribution for slaughtering a mere child is not unethical) is unethical.

I wonder if that makes Bettina unethical? I wonder if I'm unethical for holding similar views.

Hmmmm.... you know she speaks well of you. I doubt very much she would say your beliefs are unethical.

Such a shame, I'd held her in such high regard....

Duped again,

BD

Pandora wrote:I can surely understand why it feels right to take revenge, and possibly even to kill the person. But how can you deduce from this feeling of yours anything about morality?

I'll explain mine. My morals are not religious based. I base them on what I perceive to be right and wrong, good and evil, in the society I belong to. I see Jessica as right and good, and Couey as wrong and evil. God himself said that He alone would take vengeance on those who have sinned against Him so he knows that vengeance is neccessary.

Some choose to wait for God to take vengeance against Couey but since I don't believe in God then I see no problem doing it myself. Since vengeance is good enough for God, then its good enough for me. God knows good and evil and so do I, so since my morals are in line with Gods morals, I see no conflict. My morals are just as good as your Gods.

Think of Jessicas dad. His daughter is buried 6 feet in dirt while Couey watches TV, laughing at the comedy, eating his meals, reading magazines, and daydreams about the good time he had with that 9 year old. He may even write down some of the exiting parts so he won't ever forget them. To me, I won't have closure until Couey is fried.

No person here has a right to consider themselves morally superior to me because they choose to save him from being put to death. Our opinions may differ but if you know the difference from good and evil then our ethics and morality are identical.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I'll explain mine. My morals are not religious based. I base them on what I perceive to be right and wrong, good and evil, in the society I belong to. I see Jessica as right and good, and Couey as wrong and evil.

Okay. I agree with you, as far as that goes. I think Couey is evil too.

God himself said that He alone would take vengeance on those who have sinned against Him so he knows that vengeance is neccessary.

I'm not sure how the approval of a hypothetical god counts for anything with regards to ethics. Couey could say the same thing if he wanted to - "god x approves of the murder, so it's ethical." Um, no. I wouldn't accept that and I doubt you would either. I think you'll agree that this argument is not much good.

Some choose to wait for God to take vengeance against Couey but since I don't believe in God then I see no problem doing it myself. Since vengeance is good enough for God, then its good enough for me. God knows good and evil and so do I, so since my morals are in line with Gods morals, I see no conflict. My morals are just as good as your Gods.

I realize you are talking to Pandora, but saying that revenge is good because X god (that you don't believe in, no less!) says it is good still doesn't justify anything. So, again - what makes vengeance a moral good in this case?

No person here has a right to consider themselves morally superior to me because they choose to save him from being put to death. Our opinions may differ but if you know the difference from good and evil then our ethics and morality are identical.

Bettina

Morally superior? As far as I can tell, people have simply been asking you to explain the justification behind your position. If asking you to do that is considered morally superior, then I'm all for it. Beliefs are not people and I have little concern for their welfare, except insofar as they cause people to act in different ways.

Bold Deciever wrote:I wonder if that makes Bettina unethical? I wonder if I'm unethical for holding similar views.

Hmmmm.... you know she speaks well of you. I doubt very much she would say your beliefs are unethical.

I would go so far as to say that if I thought what a friend were doing was intensely wrong, I would tell them that they were indeed behaving unethically. And it'd be unethical of ME not to do so. Whether he believed me or not, it'd be my responsibility to tell him to retain my own moral integrity. It takes courage to tell your friends they're wrong, especially on issues as obviously emotional as this one.

So the question is... does Foil just go with the flow - she's his friend, so that makes it okay - as your post suggests he should, or does he do what he believes is truly right? I would say that Foil is acting courageously, in the manner of true friendship.

Samuel Dravis wrote:I'm not sure how the approval of a hypothetical god counts for anything with regards to ethics. Couey could say the same thing if he wanted to - "god x approves of the murder, so it's ethical." Um, no. I wouldn't accept that and I doubt you would either. I think you'll agree that this argument is not much good.

Actually I was quite impressed with her use of categorical syllogism. "God-[hypothetical or otherwise] acts ethically. God embraces vengeance. Vengeance is ethical." It's quite a good argument. (How old is Bettina -- like 17? She's giving a pretty good thrashing, from where I sit). Which of the two premises do you disagree with?

Samuel Dravis wrote:[W]hat makes vengeance a moral good in this case?

The philosopher Scotus once wrote - "[T]he decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."

Samuel Dravis wrote:Morally superior? As far as I can tell, people have simply been asking you to explain the justification behind your position.

No worries; you get two more tries.

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Foil wrote:Do I think that morality is absolute? (i.e. do I think the the principle that 'revenge is unethical' is universal?) - Yes.

Hence, under your ethical construct, Bettina's belief (that retribution for slaughtering a mere child is not unethical) is unethical.

I wonder if that makes Bettina unethical? I wonder if I'm unethical for holding similar views.

Hmmmm.... you know she speaks well of you. I doubt very much she would say your beliefs are unethical.

Such a shame, I'd held her in such high regard....

Duped again,

BD

BD, it's clear you and I have different views on the ethics of the matter. I've stated mine, you've stated yours. I believe my sense of ethics is correct, you believe yours is correct.

So why do you persist in implying that I'm acting arrogant or demeaning others for their view?

P.S. Until you get back on topic, I'm done responding to your provocation. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the topic of the ethics of capital punishment, but if you continue inferring I think less of people who don't agree with me, we're done here.

[Religious-discussion]

Bold Deceiver wrote:"God-[hypothetical or otherwise] acts ethically. God embraces vengeance. Vengeance is ethical." It's quite a good argument. ... Which of the two premises do you disagree with?

I disagree with the second one ("God embraces vengeance").

God punishes, but punishment (motivated by a desire for change) is not revenge (motivated by a desire for retribution). God saying "Vengeance is mine" is referring to His position as ultimate judge, not "I love vengeance".

Also, the best picture we have of God's nature is Godself in the form of Christ, who advocated forgiveness and compassion over revenge.
[/Religious-discussion]

Bold Deceiver wrote:Actually I was quite impressed with her use of categorical syllogism. "God-[hypothetical or otherwise] acts ethically. God embraces vengeance. Vengeance is ethical." It's quite a good argument. (How old is Bettina -- like 17? She's giving a pretty good thrashing, from where I sit). Which of the two premises do you disagree with?

For myself, I don't see how something nonexistant can embrace much of anything, so this argument is personally irrelevant. I agree that it might work better against those whom hold the ideas proposed. However, I doubt many who do agree on those points would be against the death penalty in the first place. For my part, I'd think they have a twisted version of the love proposed by the NT. As I understand it, absolute love like that is not interested in destruction.

I also disagree with the argument, in general, because the law is not based on religious teaching. This isn't exactly Sharia-ruled country we're talking about here. This is law rationally enacted by the people, for the protection of the people. The god of the Christian or any any other religion's opinions (voiced by its followers, of course) really don't matter in this case and I will not accept them as justification for killing someone. So I'm just curious: where is the "rational" part of the Death Penalty? I personally think that if it cannot be defended rationally then it has no business being law.

The philosopher Scotus once wrote - "[T]he decision that capital punishment may be the appropriate sanction in extreme cases is an expression of the community's belief that certain crimes are themselves so grievous an affront to humanity that the only adequate response may be the penalty of death."

I see. So you'll agree that, given sufficient public outrage, any action is up for the death penalty, correct? It seems to me that this attempt at justification is simply a reflection of the feelings of the majority, not an appeal to an absolute moral code.

Since this appears to be the case, I'll ask again: "Why is it moral that "the people" impose suffering without cause (aside from their personal desires, giving no rational justification), but an individual doing the same [i.e., the murderer] is condemned? Is it simply because the majority says it's okay?"

@Bold Deceiver:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Hence, under your ethical construct, Bettina's belief (that retribution for slaughtering a mere child is not unethical) is unethical.

I wonder if that makes Bettina unethical? I wonder if I'm unethical for holding similar views.

Hmmmm.... you know she speaks well of you. I doubt very much she would say your beliefs are unethical.

I am frankly a bit puzzled by your exasparation about Foils remarks. We are constantly judging the morals of other people, and of course each of us believes that our moral stance might be superior to somebody else's. If you can't take that you should not enter a discussion about morals. Besides, you've done it yourself, in a much more direct way than Foil, and made quite clear where the moral high ground is:

What a rare and exquisite thing, true moral fortitude is today. And all this coming from the board's youngest atheist.

Your attacks on Foil appear to me as nothing else as a (quite hypocritical) rhetorical trick to defend this moral high ground. First you define what good morals are, and then you deny others the right to challenge that definition (because challenging somebody else's morals is supposed to be, for some reason, a bad thing). Nice way to insulate your position...

But maybe I am misunderstanding you here...

If there is a god, and if he did in fact say that 'vengeance is his...' It seems to me that he is saying he'll be the one to dish it out and he'll be the one to decide when and if it is justified.
Just because someone, or some supreme being, indicates that vengeance is a possibility doesn't mean that anyone else is justified in taking it upon themselves to go get some!

Ethics are the judgement that some behavior or act is acceptable. Some people will decide for themselves what is ethical inspite of popular opinion, others will defer to the consensus either to deflect criticism for their own choice or because they just don't have the confidence to make a choice alone.

Bet has made no attempt to hide that her desire to execute in this case is a personal choice...it is her ethics that justify that choice. We can agree or disagree with her choice but I don't believe there is a supreme morality or ethical standard that can be used to measure her choice or anyone elses. Instead there is the current consensus of morality which is an ever moving target ie; 'I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it...'
and there is an abundance of people who follow someones interpretation of a gods word on morality who think they can tell us exactly what is and isn't moral and their standard applies to everyone and it is carved in stone (literally for some of you).

The simple truth is, morality is just a human concept and it is far from being a standardized benchmark.

For me I'd prefer to not execute even the worse killer unless I know for sure he's guilty. Easy enough in theory but when you put it into practice and allow a bureaucracy to manage it it becomes pretty dangerous and far from being able to convince me they are sure of the guilt as I'd have to be to flip the switch on someone.

So I'm like Bet in one sense, if I was sure of the guilt I'd say hang 'em high! But if you want me to pass a law that is carried out in the usual bumbling fashion of a government I'd have to say the risks seem to outweigh the benefits so don't do it. Instead lock the scumbags up forever.
Show me where the benefits outweigh the risk and I'll adapt my morality to accept execution....

Bet51987 wrote:

WillyP wrote:A 9-year old would have no concept of killing... that is a very mature concept. And same for vengeance. That little girl had no thought but to get away, avoidance would have been on her mind, not revenge. She may have killed him to get away if given the opportunity, but not likely.

I wanted to come back to this because I think you missed the point I was trying to make below that I posted earlier.

Lets assume Jessica was a grown women and managed to get her hands on a gun while she was being brutally raped. Do you think she would have taken the time to decide whether to wound or kill?. No she would not. She would have shot to kill, but Jessica couldn't shoot to kill him because she was only 9 years old.

Thats what I mean. Justice has to carry out what she would have done if she was older.

WillyP wrote: You may have a good imagination, but you presume to know the heart and mind of another?

I've been able to do that to a degree all my life but thats another story. However, does it really take a good imagination to know what she was going through?

Bettina

Bet, I believe I understood: you are saying 1)That Jessica would have killed him if she could have... but since she could not, we should step in and do it for her, and 2) the crimes he committed were so vile that he has no worth as a human being and should die, and 3) you can read minds, even dead ones, and so know that she wanted to kill him.

1)She might have killed him in order to get away, but her intent would not have been to kill, iy would have been to flee... the question that remains is wether she would have known that killing him would have ended her captivity, or weather, as in her play experience, he would continue his actions. She had no reason to believe he would play dead, would she have known that a real gun would kill for real? And what is real to a 9 year old? (We will assume that she knew how to use a gun, knife or whatever, since the question is not weather or not she would have succeeded, but what her intent would be, weather she would have wanted him dead or just to flee...)

2) In my culture, it is most likely that his spirit is no longer within him, he has given up any right to call himself a person, and death is all that remains for him. Now or later matters not, he is doomed to the earth. That is to say, when his body dies, there is no more for him. A pile of cow dung should be given more respect, as it may be of use to the farmer.

3)Did you really say you could read minds? No, of course not, but if not, then you are imagining that she wished him dead. And I cannot say that she did not. But I can say that a 9 year old (ok, most 9 year olds...) have a very different concept of what killing or death is.

Personaly I think he should be placed in the general prison population, he would get what he is due...

It still makes sense to ask why somebody thinks that something, like revenge, is good. The discussion cannot completely escape from reason unless you actually think that revenge is good for no reason, but even then you can at least say that. Most people who have given thought to the subject can respond with something like, \"I think that revenge is good because the good is whatever one wants to do,\" or \"I think that revenge in the form of capital punishment is bad, because killing is always wrong,\" or etc. We might also investigate why the person thinks killing is always wrong. Maybe this person believes that humans don't have the right to take others' lives, or maybe this person believes that killing isn't in the interest of making people happy. There are lots of things that one can appeal to. We might come to a point in the discussion where there are irreconcilable differences, but it should at least come to that point. Bet is the only one who has tried to respond, saying that revenge is good because whatever she believes is good is good. If you believe that revenge is good because you think that anything you believe is good is good, then say that. If you believe that revenge is good for no reason, then say that.

As you know, the following statement you made caught my eye:

To Bettina, Foil wrote:However, as I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance.

You conceded (as you were required to) that you were incorrect when you stated as fact that capital punishment is not a "form of vengeance". The problem remaining, as I see it, is your "universal truth" argument -- that vengeance is one of the (several) but otherwise immoral rationales supporting capital punishment. Maybe I overlooked it, but I don't believe Bettina or any other proponent of capital punishment claimed it would be immoral not to execute child-molesting murderers. Only that there is moral justification to do so.

I fully recognize some may have a different view on capital punishment, and it's fair to defend that position. But I also think on this subject people can defend their respective points of view without positing the other is wrong as a matter of ethics.

Naturally, whether you're "done" or not is up to you.

Cheers,

BD

Samuel Dravis wrote:Since this appears to be the case, I'll ask again: "Why is it moral that "the people" impose suffering without cause (aside from their personal desires, giving no rational justification), but an individual doing the same [i.e., the murderer] is condemned? Is it simply because the majority says it's okay?"

Hmmm... Points for persistence; demerits for engaging in moral relativism.

Do you contend that executing a man for torturing and murdering a nine year-old girl, is rationally unjustified?

BD

Hello Pandora, feeling boxed in today by irritating rhetoric?

Pandora wrote:We are constantly judging the morals of other people, and of course each of us believes that our moral stance might be superior to somebody else's. If you can't take that you should not enter a discussion about morals.

We are?

We do?

I should?

Pandora wrote:Besides, you've done it yourself, in a much more direct way than Foil, and made quite clear where the moral high ground is:

What a rare and exquisite thing, true moral fortitude is today. And all this coming from the board's youngest atheist.

I'm sorry, where's the part where I express (or even imply) that people who contend vengeance is not a basis for capital punishment, hold to an immoral position?

You must be confusing me with someone else. Either that or you're just confused.

Pandora wrote:Your attacks on Foil appear to me as nothing else as a (quite hypocritical) rhetorical trick ...ut maybe I am misunderstanding you here...

Hmmm.... are there any other choices, or am I relegated to (a) my hypocrisy or (b) your misunderstanding of me?

Warmest Regards,

BD

BD, you're still putting words in my mouth.

Bold Deceiver wrote:You conceded (as you were required to) that you were incorrect when you stated as fact that capital punishment is not a "form of vengeance".

No, I conceded that the Supreme Court views capital punishment as a form of vengeance (I didn't think that was the legal stance).

I never said that it's "not a form of vengeance". My statement was that such vengeance is not ethical.

Bold Deceiver wrote:I don't believe Bettina or any other proponent of capital punishment claimed it would be immoral not to execute child-molesting murderers. Only that there is moral justification to do so.

Yes. I disagree with their assessment, and I stated the ethical reason for my disagreement. Isn't that why we're here?

Bold Deceiver wrote:I fully recognize some may have a different view on capital punishment, and it's fair to defend that position. But I also think on this subject people can defend their respective points of view without positing the other is wrong as a matter of ethics.

Ah, now we get down to the heart of the matter! You're saying anyone who believes in moral absolutes should not phrase their stance as such?

So, if I belive rape is always wrong (moral absolute), I can't say it that way?

I understand you may believe morality is situational (and sometimes it is), but I see it as absolute in certain cases. So what?

I'm not being arrogant or hostile about it; I'm not attacking or demeaning anyone for believing otherwise. So why the constant attack? Why do you have such a problem with someone making a statement about their beliefs in a thread and section devoted to just such a discussion?

P.S. If you want to debate the virtues of moral absolutism vs. situationalism, it's a good topic, but take it to another thread, please. This one has been derailed enough already.

Another way to put what I just said:

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Pandora wrote:We are constantly judging the morals of other people, and of course each of us believes that our moral stance might be superior to somebody else's. If you can't take that you should not enter a discussion about morals.

We are?

We do?

I should?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Hmmm... Points for persistence; demerits for engaging in moral relativism.

I'm not a relativist. I was asking a question about the quote you provided, which apparently assumed moral relativism.

Do you contend that executing a man for torturing and murdering a nine year-old girl, is rationally unjustified?

If other options are available that achieve the protection of society - yes. With capital punishment I don't see the justification for killing the perpetrator after the fact. I'm just as horrified as the next guy about what some people have done. However, that doesn't mean I'm going to start killing them just because I feel like they deserve it. I need a reason, but I don't have one, so I'm not a supporter of the Death Penalty.

No one is attacking you Foil -- you're troubled because I called you on a couple of rather patronizing, condescending remarks you made, such as:

Foil wrote:C]apital punishment can't be an ethical option.

and ...

Foil wrote:However, as I sincerely hope you understand, capital punishment is not, and should not be, a form of vengeance.

Which of course, means that proponents of capital punishment act unethically. I think that's a startlingly moralistic, arrogant and incendiary position to take.

You, on the other hand, do not. You're shocked, SHOCKED, that anyone might take issue with such an innocuous statement. So maybe that discussion is done.

Foil wrote:So, if I belive rape is always wrong (moral absolute), I can't say it that way?

Do you believe rape is the moral equivalent of capital punishment? You and Dravis have much in common.

Foil wrote:P.S. If you want to debate the virtues of moral absolutism vs. situationalism, it's a good topic, but take it to another thread, please. This one has been derailed enough already.

I do so enjoy your "post scripts". Keep those amusing instructions coming.

The topic, I'm pretty sure, is whether we should put to death a monster with over 25 prior felonies, who dragged a third-grader out of her home, raped her, stuffed her into plastic bags with only a toy dolphin to keep her company in the terrifying moments before she was buried alive and suffocated to death.

And I'm pretty sure your response to those who think this it might be a good idea to take this guy out of the gene pool is -- "Hey -- that's unethical".

But you're the victim here, of an off-topic "attack"?

Mmmm... I disagree.

BD

My statements weren't written as patronizing or condescending. Again, they're simply statements of my view. Apparently, you're the only one who read condescension or arrogance into them.

Heck, I even apologized if anyone took them as otherwise, yet you persist in telling me what I meant!

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Foil wrote:So, if I belive rape is always wrong (moral absolute), I can't say it that way?

Do you believe rape is the moral equivalent of capital punishment? ...

No. I believe rape and revenge are morally equivalent in the sense that they're both always wrong.

Back to my question which you so neatly dodged, can I get an answer? You apparently see moral absolutism as patronizing (you found my statement as "arrogant and incendiary"), but I'd like to know why you think such a view shouldn't be voiced here in E&C.

Foil wrote:My statements weren't written as patronizing or condescending. Again, they're simply statements of my view [that those who support capital punishment are immoral and unethical].

You're right - of course. Why would anyone have a problem with that?

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Foil wrote:So, if I belive rape is always wrong (moral absolute), I can't say it that way?

BD wrote:

BD wrote:Do you believe rape is the moral equivalent of capital punishment? ...

Foil wrote:No. I believe rape and revenge are morally equivalent in the sense that they're both always wrong.

Back to my question (which you so neatly dodged), can I get an answer? You said you find moral absolutism to be arrogant and incendiary, but I'd like to know why you think such a view shouldn't be voiced here in E&C.

Hmmm... scanning around up there, I don't seem to find anyplace where I said moral absolutism is arrogant and incendiary. I said that to posit that those who support capital punishment act unethically -- is moralistic, arrogant and incendiary. There's a difference, and although you seem to be struggling with it, it's not subtle.

Moral absolutism, if I understand your use of the phrase and its common meaning, is simply irrational. It's a wonderful tool if you're, say, an Islamic fascist trying to keep women in burkas; or better still, encouraging young men to blow themselves up in a crowd of innocent children hoping for chocolate. But that's for another thread -- lord knows I wouldn't wish to drift off-topic (yet again ...!).

Now, I don't want you thinking I dodged your question by responding with a question, so let me review, and ...ok -- I think I have an answer:

You may certainly accuse others of acting immorally and unethically; then apologize "if that offends anyone"; then call yourself a victim of "attack" when challenged on such statements, on the E&C.

It's a wonderful country, in that respect.

BD

Bet51987 wrote:I'll explain mine. My morals are not religious based. I base them on what I perceive to be right and wrong, good and evil, in the society I belong to. I see Jessica as right and good, and Couey as wrong and evil. God himself said that He alone would take vengeance on those who have sinned against Him so he knows that vengeance is neccessary.

Some choose to wait for God to take vengeance against Couey but since I don't believe in God then I see no problem doing it myself. Since vengeance is good enough for God, then its good enough for me. God knows good and evil and so do I, so since my morals are in line with Gods morals, I see no conflict. My morals are just as good as your Gods.

Tell me; do you believe in a god or not? From what I hear, you chose not to believe in it except for when he mentions vengeance being used for good.
And what god is this anyway? I thought you were Catholic-based?

Bet51987 wrote:Think of Jessicas dad. His daughter is buried 6 feet in dirt while Couey watches TV, laughing at the comedy, eating his meals, reading magazines, and daydreams about the good time he had with that 9 year old. He may even write down some of the exiting parts so he won't ever forget them. To me, I won't have closure until Couey is fried.

Replace "jessica's dad" with extremist jihadists"; "His daugher" with "the greater good"; and "Couey" with "Western culture";
and you've pretty much got the gist of that Jihadism which you so profoundly hate!
Such hypocricy based on your own arrogance into what you percieve to be good and evil is why I don't take your arguments seriously anymore!

Bet51987 wrote:Our opinions may differ but if you know the difference from good and evil then our ethics and morality are identical.

When the truth boils down, none of us actually know what "good" and "evil" really is! We all just base it on what our instinct tells us it is!

Bold Deceiver wrote:You may certainly accuse others of acting immorally and unethically...

There's a big difference between personal accusation/attack and making a statement about my beliefs, even if (gasp!) it disagrees with someone else's view.

Again, my statements have never been meant as arrogant or patronizing. I don't understand why you insist on implying that they were.

Bold Deceiver wrote:...then apologize "if that offends anyone"...

My apology was in response to your claim that I was being condescending. That was not what I intended to convey, so of course I apologized to anyone who took it that way. I then clarified what I meant, but you are still insisting otherwise.

Bold Deceiver wrote:...then call yourself a victim of "attack" when challenged on such statements...

Rather than debate the content of the statement, you "challenged" by implying that I meant to be arrogant and condescending.

Bold Deceiver wrote:Moral absolutism... is simply irrational.

Ah, NOW, I think we've struck the heart of the matter:

You've made a statement about your belief system. How should I respond?

A. "I don't agree, here's what I believe..."
or
B. "You just made an incendiary and condesceding accusation that I am irrational. How dare you say something so arrogant?"

In other words, I could take your statement personally as an arrogant/condescending/patronizing remark about anyone who doesn't agree with it.

I don't, but for some reason you took my statement that way, and are still insisting that's how it was meant.

We're in E&C, we're all making statements about what we believe. That's what we're here for; it's not personal unless we make it personal, so let's drop it.

Foil wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote:Moral absolutism... is simply irrational.

Ah, NOW, I think we've struck the heart of the matter:

You've made a statement about your belief system. How should I respond?

A. "I don't agree, here's what I believe..."
or
B. "You just made an incendiary and condesceding accusation that I am irrational. How dare you say something so arrogant?"

There is a difference between openly accusing someone of espousing unethical views, on the one hand; and challenging the rationale underlying a philosophical construct, on the other. The first is an attack on the person's character - I think you would agree ethics are inextricably intertwined with the person. An attack on a philosophical construct -- say, Kant's "categorical imperative" is only personal if you're Kant. And by the way, my guess is you're aware that moral absolutism is deconstructed in about three questions.

Foil wrote:In other words, I could take your statement personally as an arrogant/condescending/patronizing remark about anyone who doesn't agree with it.

I don't, but for some reason you took my statement that way, and are still insisting that's how it was meant.

I think it is perfectly appropriate for people to disagree whether capital punishment is appropriate. But I took your statements "that way", because that's how they read. On your representation, however, I will accept you did not intend those remarks the way they were written.

BD

You did not answer my question, Bet. Here it is again:

Pandora wrote:I can surely understand why it feels right to take revenge, and possibly even to kill the person. But how can you deduce from this feeling of yours anything about morality?

The only reason for capital punishment that you have given so far is your own selfish need for closure:

(...) Couey watches TV, laughing at the comedy, eating his meals, reading magazines, and daydreams about the good time he had with that 9 year old. He may even write down some of the exiting parts so he won't ever forget them. To me, I won't have closure until Couey is fried.

I can relate to the feeling, of course, but I would not dare to take that as a justification for capital punishment, nor would I dare to call any action that stems from that feeling "moral".

I'll explain mine. My morals are not religious based. I base them on what I perceive to be right and wrong, good and evil, in the society I belong to. I see Jessica as right and good, and Couey as wrong and evil. God himself said that He alone would take vengeance on those who have sinned against Him so he knows that vengeance is neccessary.

Some choose to wait for God to take vengeance against Couey but since I don't believe in God then I see no problem doing it myself. Since vengeance is good enough for God, then its good enough for me. God knows good and evil and so do I, so since my morals are in line with Gods morals, I see no conflict. My morals are just as good as your Gods.

For someone calling herself an atheist, god sure features prominently in your moral framework. But, since I am not religious, that explains nothing for me. So, I'll ask again, is there a moral reason for the death penalty, even in this particular case?

One so-called moral arguemnt raised for the death penalty is its (hypothesized) deterrent effect. Bold Deceiver explains it like that:

If as a society we imposed the death penalty for murders occurring on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, I believe that murders would decrease on those days.

Intuitivly that makes a lot of sense, but is it true? Scientific studies examining the deterrent effect of the death penalty do not confirm such an effect. Here (.pdf) is an analysis of the major studies of the last three decades. There are a few studies that do find such an effect, of course, but the majority of does not. Some even find the opposite effect:

While deterrence is hypothesized as a negative relationshipbetween executions and homicides (executions go up, homicides go down), brutalization is the reverse, a positive relationship (executions go up, homicides go up). As the name suggests, in this model citizens are ‘brutalized’ when the state sanctions death as punishment, becoming inured to acts of violence. The state is seen as both legitimatizing violence as a solution to problems, and as devaluing human life. This has been an enduring argument against the use of capital punishment since the 18th century. Cochran and Chamlin’s research on California suggests that the 1992 execution of Harris after a 25-year moratorium ‘may have produced two simultaneous but opposing effects:a deterrent effect on nonstranger felony-murders and a brutalization effect on argument-based stranger homicides’ (2000, p. 700).

Bold Deceiver wrote:Maybe I overlooked it, but I don't believe Bettina or any other proponent of capital punishment claimed it would be immoral not to execute child-molesting murderers. Only that there is moral justification to do so.

We're not talking about just whether or not revenge via capital punishment can be morally justified. Or at least not in the way you seem to be setting it out, such that, by doing something that is morally justified, it is not any morally better than not. If we are talking about this, then we are trying to answer the wrong question. We should be inquiring into whether or not we ought to commit revenge via capital punishment, or into whether or not it is better to commit revenge via capital punishment, which I believe is a different question.

Consider the following situation: somebody is driving down I-25 when a pedestrian from out of nowhere jumps in front of her car (or perhaps trips in front, or something like that). The driver would be morally justified in killing the pedestrian. However, we would not want to say that it would have been just as good if the driver had not hit the pedestrian. No, we would want to say that it would have been better if the driver did not hit the pedestrian, even though she is morally justified in doing so. So it seems like we can be morally justified in doing things that really aren't good at all.

Now, it seems unlikely in the case of capital punishment, even if you think you're somehow morally justified in committing it for revenge, that you're going to end up in a situation just as good as the one prior, especially when loss of human life, or for those who would find it more compelling, the loss of millions of tax dollars, is at stake.

Pandora wrote:You did not answer my question, Bet. Here it is again:
I can surely understand why it feels right to take revenge, and possibly even to kill the person. But how can you deduce from this feeling of yours anything about morality?

Your question is unintelligible, as phrased, and unanswerable. I'm interested, though, so would you mind rephrasing it?

Pandora wrote:For someone calling herself an atheist, god sure features prominently in your moral framework.

You understand, of course, that Bettina is making an argument designed to skewer theists with their own arguments? Did this elude you? If so, it's completely understandable. It's fairly sophisticated stuff she's publishing.

Pandora wrote:But, since I am not religious, that explains nothing for me. So, I'll ask again, is there a moral reason for the death penalty, even in this particular case?

Wow. How in world will Bet deal with THIS question. Man....

Here's my own thought on it .... yes.

Tough, Tough Question,

BD

TIGERassault wrote:Replace "jessica's dad" with extremist jihadists"; "His daugher" with "the greater good"; and "Couey" with "Western culture";
and you've pretty much got the gist of that Jihadism which you so profoundly hate!

I don't believe in God and never will. I used the bible interpretation of vengeance to point out to those that do believe, that scripture explicitly states that the God you read about in the bible will use it. It was just a point of comparison. It in no way infers that I believe in any God. I don't.

TIGERassault wrote:Such hypocricy based on your own arrogance into what you percieve to be good and evil is why I don't take your arguments seriously anymore

You don't have to.

Pandora wrote:You did not answer my question, Bet. Here it is again:

Pandora wrote:I can surely understand why it feels right to take revenge, and possibly even to kill the person. But how can you deduce from this feeling of yours anything about morality?

The only reason for capital punishment that you have given so far is your own selfish need for closure:

(...) Couey watches TV, laughing at the comedy, eating his meals, reading magazines, and daydreams about the good time he had with that 9 year old. He may even write down some of the exiting parts so he won't ever forget them. To me, I won't have closure until Couey is fried.

I can relate to the feeling, of course, but I would not dare to take that as a justification for capital punishment, nor would I dare to call any action that stems from that feeling "moral".

I'll explain mine. My morals are not religious based. I base them on what I perceive to be right and wrong, good and evil, in the society I belong to. I see Jessica as right and good, and Couey as wrong and evil. God himself said that He alone would take vengeance on those who have sinned against Him so he knows that vengeance is neccessary.

Some choose to wait for God to take vengeance against Couey but since I don't believe in God then I see no problem doing it myself. Since vengeance is good enough for God, then its good enough for me. God knows good and evil and so do I, so since my morals are in line with Gods morals, I see no conflict. My morals are just as good as your Gods.

For someone calling herself an atheist, god sure features prominently in your moral framework. But, since I am not religious, that explains nothing for me. So, I'll ask again, is there a moral reason for the death penalty, even in this particular case?

There is no God to fit into my moral framework. I quote scripture from time to time because like any other book its a source of information that I can point to. What are morals?.. From Wiki...."Moral values are things held to be right or wrong".. I received mine from my father, my priest, people in my church, the friends I hang around with, my teachers and my overall environment, and although I live my life like a christian I've rejected the trinity long ago. I want to be clear about that.

I'm not going to get into the moral argument anymore. Its become a play on words and I have already said many times that evil will destroy good unless good destroys evil first. Right and good, wrong and evil. They cannot coexist, breathe the same air, or live on the same planet together.

I want revenge for Jessicas death and I don't care if its a deterrent for other would be child killers or not. I don't care what Couey supporters think or what people here think of me. I haven't talked to my priest about the death penalty but I wouldn't care what he said anyway because my dad and my friends are on my side and thats all I care about. I just want him to pay for what he did to her and I'm not going to respect the justice system until he is dead.

This is not aimed at you Pandora... but here is something else to think about. Suppose Couey needs a life saving transplant, does he get one if he is still alive?.. If so, what fathers son or daughter will have to go without one?

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I'm not going to get into the moral argument anymore. Its become a play on words and I have already said many times that evil will destroy good unless good destroys evil first. Right and good, wrong and evil. They cannot coexist, breathe the same air, or live on the same planet together.

I didn't see you "get into" the moral argument you supposedly(?) have for revenge somehow being good, so I guess it's no great loss that you leave.

What I do see right here, right now, is the apparent right and the real wrong coexisting. You and Couey seem to have a lot in common. You both want your personal desires filled, without regard to justification (and in your case, you explicitly ignore it!) - and the sad thing is that you're both likely to be fully sated.