Follow TV Tropes

Following

What would you do in this murder case?

Go To

BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#301: Feb 20th 2011 at 1:18:50 PM

Again, saying "you can't rely on your gut to tell you what morality is" is like saying "you can't rely on your eyes to tell you what blue is".

It's not your eyes that make something blue, true, but any definition of blue must line up with what your eyes say or it's useless.

Similarly it's not your gut that makes something moral, but any definition of moral must line up with what your gut says or it's useless.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#302: Feb 20th 2011 at 1:50:26 PM

Morality is a product of higher reasoning. Chalking it up to mere instinct and calling it good seems... irresponsible. Because people will kill each other for revenge and feel good about it. That's not moral. Morality is something you think about and have reasons for. Your gut reaction to things is not a good guide to moral behavior. Your gut is just telling you you're doing something that makes you anxious, good or bad. Or neither.

MRDA1981 Tyrannicidal Maniac from Hell (London), UK. Since: Feb, 2011
Tyrannicidal Maniac
#303: Feb 20th 2011 at 2:47:01 PM

Funny watching people debate their "morality" as if it were the only one on the block; not unlike fundies who see Yahweh as the only way.

Enjoy the Inferno...
Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#304: Feb 20th 2011 at 3:08:25 PM

If you're referring to me, I said the exact opposite. There is no universally agreed upon morality and there can't be one.

OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#305: Feb 20th 2011 at 3:43:36 PM

@BH: What 90% of the population's guts tell them varies. A lot. To use the obvious example, for a majority history, a great deal more than 90% of the population believed that slavery was moral. It was just the way we did things.

Our gut instincts about what's right and what's wrong most likely developed out of fear of negative consequences to ourselves. You say we have an instinctual aversion to killing, and we should follow it. Why don't we have that aversion about killing during war, or for self-defense, or when punishing killers, or simply when we're told to kill? In fact, many people throughout history considered killing in those cases good.

Because in the ancestral environment, randomly going nuts and wasting someone in your tribe often meant you'd be considered a threat and killed yourself. But in all those other cases, you would have been killed for not killing. You clearly believe that killing as punishment is wrong, and that simlpy shooting someone under orders is abhorrent. That's not what our flawed brains tell us to do. So while our instincts might be the best baseline we've got (because we can't remove our mind from our brain), they can't be trusted without further evaluation.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:45:40 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#306: Feb 20th 2011 at 6:46:26 PM

I actually said we don't have any instinctual aversion to killing.

My beliefs on morality are kind of complex, and maybe not entirely consistent with every one of my posts, but here goes:

We as human beings have an innate sense of morality. This is pretty obvious; if we didn't have an innate sense of morality we'd have no reason to develop one. There is no moral code that makes sense that is not based partially in this innate sense of wrong.

Unfortunately, what we believe innately is wrong seems to actually be a list of things you feel it is wrong for other people to do to you personally; an extention of the ability to feel pain, if you will. Being social creatures, we also understand that other people have things they don't want to be done to them, but originally we only extended this to people who were close enough to make us naturally empathize with them. As time goes by we've gotten better at respecting other people.

You might've noticed here the implicit definition of morality as "not doing things to other people they don't want to be done to them". This is basically the root of my morality but it gets so complex when you extend it over a society I don't think it's much more useful in practice than the list of things you intuitively feel to be wrong.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Uchuujinsan Since: Oct, 2009
#307: Feb 20th 2011 at 7:04:58 PM

I only skimmed the last two pages, but in general I have to agree with Black Humor to some extend.
You don't, can't or shouldn't take away someones rights. Or am I misunderstanding the "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" thing?
That doesn't mean that if the rights of two people get mutually exclusive there has to be a decision how to handle that conflict. In the case of self-defense that means that the right to live of the attacker is valued less, but that doesn't mean he loses that right. As the defender you have the duty to let him survive if it doesn't jeopardize your own life.
If you can take away anyones rights on a whim, what's the point of formulating inherent rights anyway?
For me, the question in this case is what conflict with other humans' inherent rights does the continued life of that woman here create? "Pursuit of happiness"? Unless you can name one and justify it, the right to live should not be infringed.
I get the feeling we progressed from "I don't like that person so I can kill that person" to "I don't like that person so I can take away the right not to be killed and kill that person". Which doesn't really feel... progressive.

Feel free to call me a hopeless idealist in this case, though...

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#308: Feb 20th 2011 at 8:13:47 PM

That's where we disagree, then. To me, rights come with responsibilities. I guess in light of that what I call a right would be what some people call a privelege, but I don't like saying "the privelege to life", because it feels like it's cheapening it, equating it to "the privelege to drive a car." But the two aren't the same, even though they both come with responsibilities, and I'll try to explain how: call them negative and positive priveleges.

  • Privelege to Drive (positive): This is something that is initially withheld from you, and to earn it you have to actively do certain things (take a class and pass a test).
  • Privelege to Live (negative): This is initially granted to you, and in order to keep it you have to passively refrain from doing certain things (killing people).

When this woman killed her daughter, she violated the conditions under which her right to life was given. But it would still be wrong for a random person to up and shoot her, because this isn't jungle law. That would simply increase chaos and fear in society.

What instead happens is that after the trial is through and it's been proven that she broke this unwritten contract, her life essentially belongs to the society and state that she wronged. The society/state has options at this point: they can throw it away with a death sentence (which would be pointless, and earn them a reputation as cruel), just forget about with life in solitary (which seems like a long, drawn-out death to be honest, slowly going insane without human contact), or they can try to glean some value from it by putting her to work. I think that last is the mark of a progressive government.

edited 20th Feb '11 8:15:30 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
Uchuujinsan Since: Oct, 2009
#309: Feb 20th 2011 at 8:22:35 PM

I'd say that from my point of view you make no logical errors, though I wonder if that approach works (i.e. you would be happy with the logical conclusions) as a basis for a general moral system, for example international conflicts, terrorism, rebellion against an oppressive state etc etc.

A question out of curiosity, did you not realize that I refered to the Declaration of Independence or did you just not care about it?
Just a simple answer would satisfy me, don't want to lead this off topic.

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/
Arha Since: Jan, 2010
#310: Feb 20th 2011 at 8:26:37 PM

I actually said we don't have any instinctual aversion to killing.

And I showed you were wrong.

My beliefs on morality are kind of complex, and maybe not entirely consistent with every one of my posts, but here goes:

Says the guy that proclaimed the gut reaction to things the best way to judge morality. Because obviously thinking it through is... whatever, I'll just get to the actual points.

We as human beings have an innate sense of morality. This is pretty obvious; if we didn't have an innate sense of morality we'd have no reason to develop one. There is no moral code that makes sense that is not based partially in this innate sense of wrong.

No, we do not have an innate sense of morality. We have an innate set of characteristics that are used for social conditioning because we are social animals. That's being a little pedantic, but the point is that we do have reason to develop one: A functional society must act in a way that is as nonviolent and productive as possible, which happens to fit up nicely with morality.

Unfortunately, what we believe innately is wrong seems to actually be a list of things you feel it is wrong for other people to do to you personally; an extention of the ability to feel pain, if you will. Being social creatures, we also understand that other people have things they don't want to be done to them, but originally we only extended this to people who were close enough to make us naturally empathize with them. As time goes by we've gotten better at respecting other people.

You might've noticed here the implicit definition of morality as "not doing things to other people they don't want to be done to them". This is basically the root of my morality but it gets so complex when you extend it over a society I don't think it's much more useful in practice than the list of things you intuitively feel to be wrong.

So being immoral is doing things to other people that they don't like? That's very complex indeed. Almost as complex as trusting your gut to utilize your higher thinking skills.

edited 20th Feb '11 8:30:42 PM by Arha

OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#311: Feb 20th 2011 at 9:06:09 PM

I did realize that you referred to the Declaration. I just disagree with it on the "unalienable" part. And the "Creator" part, actually.

Edit: I also think that there's a difference between "this is within your rights" and "this is right". It would be within the state's right to sentence this woman to death, but better choices exist, so it would not be right. The goal is not merely "not evil", but "optimal", and what's optimal would be to sentence her to labor, perhaps building shelters for abused children.

edited 20th Feb '11 9:08:17 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
Uchuujinsan Since: Oct, 2009
#312: Feb 20th 2011 at 9:07:18 PM

Thx for the answer.

Pour y voir clair, il suffit souvent de changer la direction de son regard www.xkcd.com/386/
redrosary We are as one. from Res Publica Philippinae Since: Sep, 2010 Relationship Status: Cigarettes and Valentines
We are as one.
#313: Feb 21st 2011 at 4:23:24 AM

Okay, if I pressed any Berserk Buttons because I couldn't find a better way of describing someone who commits an act that monstrous, do forgive me. From where I'm standing, the woman infringed upon the child's inalienable right to life. She has, in effect, forfeited her own rights by committing what an earlier Catechism classifies as "a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance." If it can be proven that keeping her alive is far more dangerous than killing her, then let it be done.

The Southpaw has no brakes!
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#314: Feb 21st 2011 at 8:16:42 AM

And I showed you were wrong.

This is a response to a post that was obviously not responding to you, so I got no clue what you're doing talking about it.

Says the guy that proclaimed the gut reaction to things the best way to judge morality. Because obviously thinking it through is... whatever, I'll just get to the actual points.

And combined with the previous line, here I begin to suspect you're arguing in bad faith.

No, we do not have an innate sense of morality. We have an innate set of characteristics that are used for social conditioning because we are social animals. That's being a little pedantic, but the point is that we do have reason to develop one: A functional society must act in a way that is as nonviolent and productive as possible, which happens to fit up nicely with morality.

A valid argument, but the one I was expecting. Three counters:

  1. You realize that I was talking about an inherent sense of morality in the sense of "a sense of pain, and a theory of mind to apply it to other people" correct? It's not possible to argue we don't have either of those, or that they combine sometimes.
  2. We never, as humans, got up one day and said "We'd like to develop cities! We must now develop a sense of morality." We made the cities first. If we didn't have any morality beforehand they would've collapsed before we could've developed morality.
  3. That we are social animals is itself proof that we have a sense of morality. If we didn't have a sense of morality we wouldn't be social animals: wolves are social animals because they can share the hunt without competing for it so much they break up the pack. This requires a sense of morality; a rational and amoral individual wolf would just take all the meat it could. Similarly humans hunted in packs, and this required the ability to do things like sharing food and looking out for predators that are not possible without caring about other people.

So being immoral is doing things to other people that they don't like? That's very complex indeed. Almost as complex as trusting your gut to utilize your higher thinking skills.

I'm not quite sure what this means, but I suspect it's the same jab at my argument you've been making since you started arguing.

Which means now you've made three bad faith jabs and one valid argument out of this single post. 1/4 is not exactly a great record; I'm ignoring you next post unless you can argue and not insult.

EDIT @OTOH:

  1. Given that you say that the right to life is inherently given to you, and given that you are not the one who gives it, how would you know when it's taken away, or that it can be taken away at all?
  2. I notice you said something about "the society that she wronged". But she didn't wrong society, or the state; she wronged her daughter. So logically it should belong to her daughter, but that doesn't make any sense because her daughter is dead.
  3. Since it's still wrong to go up and shoot her, wouldn't that imply she still had the right to life? Since we've all been using right to life as the reason why killing is wrong (well, except Arha, but let's ignore him), why is it still wrong to kill her after she's lost it?

Along with the same objection as Uchuu had, that I don't think you'd be happy with the conclusions of this moral code if you could test it thoroughly.

edited 21st Feb '11 8:25:51 AM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#315: Feb 21st 2011 at 9:31:08 AM

1. Other people, acting through the state, grant every living being the right to continue living, and decide what life entails for them, and make their own decisions - effectively to own their life. If they prove that by having ownership of their life they will use it to destroy other lives, ownership is ceded back to the society through the state. Effectively, if you're a murderer, the state decides what to do with you since you clearly can't. Once it does that, though, it should figure out how to use your life to the greatest benefit of society, not just throw it away. So I think this woman should be sentenced to building foster homes and abuse shelters the rest of her life.

2. She wronged society by A) taking away tremendous potential value - this girl could have been a doctor, a humanitarian, an inventor, B) increasing suffering - the father, the other children, the girl's friends, teachers, etc. all suffered from her death to greater or lesser degrees, and C) sowing mistrust and fear by proving that you can get away with such heinous crimes.

3. It's wrong to go up and shoot her because first of all, no one has proven in the court of law that she did those things, no matter how obvious it may seem. And second of all, vigilante justice doesn't make for an efficient and consistent society. The most peaceful way to deal with criminal elements that we know of so far, that causes the least suffering and dispute, is for the state to have the monopoly on punishment.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#316: Feb 21st 2011 at 10:36:28 AM

So society based ethics then.

The main argument I have against that is a society is made of individuals, and focusing on the society and not the people in it has always seemed to me like tending to a forest but ignoring the trees.

But there's nothing outright illogical with the premise; I just don't think the conclusions are sound.

EDIT: In fact, I think I'll argue against some of the implications of that directly.

So then, the society gives every one of its members the right to life, and it has the power to take that right away.

Would that not allow a society to kill people for chewing gum?

edited 21st Feb '11 10:39:00 AM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#317: Feb 21st 2011 at 11:34:13 AM

No, because there's a contract between each individual and the society he or she lives in, that states that he or she has rights that cannot be infringed upon as long as he/she doesn't infringe upon other people's rights. You're not hurting people by chewing gum, and even if you were (annoying people by chewing loudly or something), it's not to the extent that you're directly violating their rights.

And society is made up of individuals - it's just that each individual has a responsibility to other individuals, namely, not to harm them. Their own protection from harm rests on their willingness to uphold this responsibility. If society were simply some concept, or some non-human entity, why would I care that this woman hurt society? It's simply shorthand for saying that any action within a complicated society affects many more members of that society than just the one person who recieved that action. So this murder, and any murder, hurts lots of people. True, we can't bring the girl back to life, but we can demand some recompense for the pain the murderer caused all those other people, and we can put her to work preventing the sorts of crimes she committed, by building shelters, etc.

It's like when stores have a "you break it, you buy it" rule. By going in that store and handling the goods and breaking one, thereby causing the owner a loss, you lose your right to not buy that item - i.e., the owner has a right to force you to compensate for the damage you caused.

Let me try to phrase it this way: for any action to be a crime (or "wrong" or "right"), at least two people must be involved, i.e., there has to be a society, a group of people interacting with each other.

Most people would agree that taking things without permission is wrong. But say you're wandering around in the jungle and see a pretty rock. Would it be wrong to take that rock, because no one gave you permission to? No, because the rock doesn't belong to anyone. It's just you and an inanimate object, one human interacting with a non-human environment. But if you were walking through that same jungle and saw a briefcase full of money, it would be wrong to take it, because the only logical conclusion is that it belongs to someone else - another person is involved now, regardless of whether they're physically present.

Likewise, if you were raised by wolves, I wouldn't care at all if you committed suicide. But if you were a father, and a husband, and an employer whose workers depend on him for a livelihood, and you decided to off yourself, well, it might not be a crime, but I would not approve of your actions because you hurt many members of society.

Edit: This last is also why I believe it's not just a neutral action to defend yourself from a murderer, but actually right, because you as an upstanding member of society are very likely to have a lot more to offer other people than the murderer.

edited 21st Feb '11 11:38:12 AM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#318: Feb 21st 2011 at 1:06:02 PM

There's something that seems wrong to me about that view that I can't quite put my finger on.

The closest I can get for now is that, if everyone matters only while they're a part of society and not in themselves, wouldn't it break down if you focused on everyone at once?

Say, for example, you wanted to commit suicide, and your only relative was your brother, who coincidentally is also Jack the Ripper. Does that mean it's not wrong to kill yourself anymore?

EDIT: A little closer to what I wanted to get at: If all you matter is your contribution to other people, why does anybody matter? Isn't this all a moral house of cards, where what you do only matters as it pertains to people X Y and Z, and what X does only matters as it pertains to Y Z and yourself, and so on so that if you look at the system as a whole nobody matters and you could just off all four of them without a problem?

Or maybe I could shore up the analogy some: Suppose a Martian comes to Earth and announces that it wants to smash the whole planet into smithereens. It's specifically not part of human society  *

, it specifically doesn't owe its right to life to anybody else, and certainly not anyone on Earth. Why is it wrong for the Martian to kill everyone?

edited 21st Feb '11 1:15:43 PM by BlackHumor

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#319: Feb 21st 2011 at 2:26:09 PM

If all you matter is your contribution to other people, why does anybody matter? Isn't this all a moral house of cards, where what you do only matters as it pertains to people X Y and Z, and what X does only matters as it pertains to Y Z and yourself, and so on so that if you look at the system as a whole nobody matters and you could just off all four of them without a problem?

This isn't making sense to me. The only reason morality (or family, or love, or hatred, or justice, or mercy, or cruelty) exists at all is because there's more than one human being in the world, and what they do affects others. I see no reason that believing that you're valuable because of what you mean to other people necessarily leads to everyone being able to annihilate everyone else. How do you make that logical leap?

As for the Martian scenario, that gets into being a person versus being a human. I've been using the two interchangeably so far because in this conversation the topic of alien intelligence wasn't brought up.

But if that Martian qualifies for personhood (instead of, say, being a huge destructive animal like Godzilla), then he/she has just entered a society of 7 billion other persons, and it must keep in mind that its actions will affect them. So I would say, yes, in theory it would be wrong, but considering that it was the only Martian on the planet (however that works tongue), it would be reasonable to assume that it has no idea what it's doing, having never had the need to develop morality before. Having had no contact with any person other than itself, it would be unlikely to have a good concept of personhood and the privileges that entails – like trying to figure out what you look like without ever coming into contact with any reflective surface.

It would be like a giant clumsy baby, hurting things without meaning to - it counts as a person because of its potential, but can't be held accountable for its actions because it doesn't know better.

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#320: Feb 21st 2011 at 4:28:48 PM

Because if you're only valuable by what you mean to other people, nobody has any inherent value. Suppose Y wants to borrow $1000 from me and I don't have the money. To get it I want to borrow $1000 from X, but X says he'll need to borrow $1000 from Y. Do you see the problem there? Nobody has any actual money.

Similarly in your moral system where everyone has moral value only because of their value to other people, if nobody has any moral value inherently than there's no actual moral value in the entire system.

Or in short, if I start out as having no moral value, why is it wrong to kill me? If it's because I can help other people, why do we care about those other people? If it's because they can help other people, why do we care about those other people?

And maybe let's sub in something more appropriate for the Martian: Suppose Thor exists, and decides to come down to Earth one day and party really hard. By the nature of Thor's parties this kills millions of people. How is Thor morally responsible for his behavior when he's not part of any earth society?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
Dagobitus Since: Aug, 2010
#321: Feb 21st 2011 at 6:23:54 PM

Thor killing humans is a better example than the Martian, but Poseidon, god of Earthquakes and Tsunamis kills more humans than Lightning, so Poseidon or Jehovah would be better examples.

Gut instinct morality, which we share with wolves and bees = don't hurt your own tribe. It is righteous to kill or enslave enemy tribesfolk; killing people from allied tribes is almost as bad as killing real people.

Modern morality aims to make all humans treat each other as belonging to the same tribe and eventually all sentients as one tribe.

1) Poseidon does earthquakes and kills many people. He belongs to a different tribe. We make war and do our best to kill him. No doubt, our Propaganda Bureau will make a big deal of saying that Poseidon is not a person at all.

2) Poseidon does lots of person like stuff. He registers as a voter, he tries to avoid paying tax etc. and then he does his earthquake and kills people. We attempt to arrest him and put him on trial. Even if he submits to arrest, even if he does not use the Jedi mind Trick on the Jury, we still can't hang him and the whole system comes crashing down.

As to vigilantes versus the mother in the OP. Yes, she has forfeited her right to Life, but we don't know that yet. As a Free-born Citizen, she has the inalienable right to a fair trial, otherwise, Vigilantes might kill innocents. But once it is proven that she done it and once it is proven that lawyers used tricks to let her off, Yey Vigilantes!

edited 21st Feb '11 6:37:49 PM by Dagobitus

OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#322: Feb 22nd 2011 at 2:02:28 PM

@BH: Your assertion that if everyone's value is only in relation to what they mean to other people, then no one has any value at all, is meaningless. There never was, nor will there ever be, only one person in the entire world.

In fact, an analogy about money is perfect for this. You say that if everyone's value was in relation to their value to other human beings, then it's like everyone having to borrow money from everyone else and no one having any actual money. What I say is that the whole concept of money is moot unless there are at least two people in this world. If you were the only person on the entire planet, what are you going to do with a pile of money? Eat it? In fact, if you were the only person on this planet, why would you have money in the first place?

You need stuff, not money - if you live in a society, you buy stuff with money, and if you are the only person on the planet you get up and take stuff. Money has no inherent value, it's only valuable in relation to stuff, which is only valuable in relation to people, who are only valuable in relation to each other. I don't believe in the concept of inherent value. For something to be valuable, you need someone who values it.

Yes, everyone values themselves, but as I said, for anything to be right or wrong, you need at least two persons involved. If you were the only person to have ever existed, and then you died, your death would neither be a tragedy nor a crime, because there is no one to grieve for you nor anyone who killed you.

edited 22nd Feb '11 2:03:26 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
BlackHumor Unreliable Narrator from Zombie City Since: Jan, 2001
#323: Feb 22nd 2011 at 2:23:11 PM

It is true that for anything to be right or wrong, you need at least two people, in the same way that for anything to be valuable, you need at least two people.

So let me try another tack, because like I said above I can't quite put my finger on what my real problem is:

Suppose two cavemen meet in the forest, each dragging a deer carcass behind him. (These two cavemen we will suppose are the only two cavemen in the entire forest.)

One of these cavemen gets the bright idea of killing the other and taking his deer, and promptly does so. Now, since "caveman society" was composed of these two cavemen, and the victim's death profited his murderer and didn't harm anyone else, was it not then moral to kill the dead caveman?

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
OnTheOtherHandle Since: Feb, 2010
#324: Feb 23rd 2011 at 9:22:18 AM

But they started off with two cavemen, didn't they? And the one that was killed valued his own life, and it was taken away. That was wrong.

However, if they were the only two cavemen in that whole area, then there was no crime, and there will be no punishment, because there was no law.

I think we're arguing about slightly different things. This is all connected to the woman, and why she does/does not own her own life, and why it is/isn't wrong to kill her. This was about crimes, and rights, and laws - legal issues, and law can only exist within a society. It seems to have morphed into moral questions, involving a lot of hypotheticals and impossible situations.

Getting back on topic, you say that the girl is already dead, and punishing the woman will do nothing, and she does have a right to her life. I say that she hurt more than just the girl, and those she hurt have a right to recompense - just like if you break a toy in the store, you're obligated to return the equivalent value, if you take a life, you're obligated to return the equivalent value. This can be accomplished either by just killing her (which would pay the society back in satisfaction, but not much else), or by putting her to work, which I prefer.

In both such cases (death or work), she does not own her own life anymore (doesn't have a right to life), and she can't choose what to do with it, because when she could choose, she chose to destroy what she was obligated to nurture.

edited 23rd Feb '11 9:22:55 AM by OnTheOtherHandle

"War doesn't prove who's right, only who's left." "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future."
MRDA1981 Tyrannicidal Maniac from Hell (London), UK. Since: Feb, 2011
Tyrannicidal Maniac
#325: Feb 23rd 2011 at 9:54:02 AM

"Social contract" theory is mass wishful thinking, like God and any notion of "inherent value".

Enjoy the Inferno...

Total posts: 353
Top