An Answer to Horror???

@Joshy phil,

Joshy wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what to think in this case. Either way, nobody else seems inclined to my wya of thinking, so perhaps I have got it all wrong.

Not at all, I second therefore. It seems likely to me that this man reached the conclusion that the appropriate course of action was... what he did due to some mental malfunction, due to a confused mind. It is not likely he was responsible in the sense demanded by a criminal conviction (which doesn't mean he won't get one). I too feel sorry for such a man.

Of course, he might not have had any such impairment whatsoever. I would personally come with my own 20 bullets for such a man, right or wrong.

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

Of course, he might not have had any such impairment whatsoever. I would personally come with my own 20 bullets for such a man, right or wrong.

The truth is that you can never tell, and reveange leads to nothing. The idea of my friend consisted not of taking revenge, but making it so that people who did such deeds had nothing to gain, not even notority, and much to lose in the form of torture. The basis of the idea is in the fact of that there is no real way of preventing someone from doing something like that other that convincing then to not do it, and against people who dont care for others fear is the best and pretty much only manner of convincing.

And I, by the way, dont agree with him, mostly because I think it wouldnt work and could never be implemented before we finish learning how the brain works and became capable of locating such individuals before they went berseek.

I wouldnt disagree due to concepts of honor and morals thought, as I believe no such concepts can justify refusing to torture some that would be excluded from society to save many others.

As an reinforcement of that view-point, I would like to point out at cars: Cars are dangerous and we sacrify several lifes that die in accidents in exchange for the increase in the moving capabilities of the species.

I would also like to present another view point, wich is that maybe the guy did that because he thought it would be fun. I know that it sounds cruel and evil beyond imagination, but outside of our strong instincts towards protecting others, especially children, killing is indeed fun for most people. That is the reason we make so much video-games about killing and so many people like hunting. Perhaps the man just happened to not have that ultra-important instinct towards protecting others.

@Catchabula,

Revenge should be allowed; but how do you kill a society that does not take responsibility for their own, give them asylum??? We love prisons, and for that you need a crime... So mental health care should be put into prison...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Revenge should be allowed; but how do you kill a society that does not take responsibility for their own, give them asylum??? We love prisons, and for that you need a crime... So mental health care should be put into prison...

Revenge shouldnt be allowed except maybe as a form of scaring others away from commiting the same crime. And I agree, our penal systems were created based on the idea of that people can change, yet instead of trying to make people change and releasing then then they do, we give out pre-set prision times, sometimes ubber long ones, and give then no change of changing at all. I think the problem is that most of society is bolted to concepts of good and evil and fairness that makes it decide that criminals have to be punished rather than helped, but then it is not emotionally influenced by crimes the society thinks it actually can stand helping criminals rather than punishing then.

So, like espected, people dont know thenselves enough Smile

@manored,

manored wrote:

So, like espected, people dont know thenselves enough

This line really hit it home for me, and is something that I completely agree with.

A word that comes to mind here is 'retribution', which, technically, is a punishment justly deserved. For some crimes, there is no true retribution, yet our solution to a large range of crimes is prison, in the hope that somebody will change their ways.
Society is divided when it comes to the retribution that prison brings. I solely agree that, in some cases, it does help people see right from wrong, perhaps them coming out and doing something to help others as a way of compensating for their actions. For others, however, it seems to have no affect, and they would just commit another crime as soon as they were released.
In other words, prison is not the solution to every crime, and actually only has an affect on a minority. Still, with such political correctness, as well as the 'human rights campaign' that have been introduced in recent years, it seems ot be the only answer we have.

This, to an extent, relates to something that I was discussing with my brother this morning. We were discussing security cameras and how, in many shops, there is an obvious notice making shoppers aware that the cameras are there. He said that it was to prevent people from commiting the crime (in this case stealing) in the first place, because they are conscious of the fact that they are highly likely to be caught. If there is a higher risk involved in the crime, then it is less likely to be commited.
I, however, asked why they didn't keep the cameras hidden. Although this would mean the potential criminals were not wary of them, leading to them being more likely to steal, it would have the same affect in the end: they would be caught. As well as this, it would send out a strong message ot others that 'crime doesn't pay'.
However, on this larger scale, where we are balancing lives, I might just change my views. Perhaps if there was a seirous conviction on offer to anyone who was thinking about commiting a crime, less would be commited. This would, inevitably, save time, money, and, potentially, lives. Still, what I do not agree with is this form of apparent 'retribution' that the criminals have been threatened with. Taking 20 shots onto somebody just to show them, and others, that what they did was wrong doen't seem morally righteous in my opinion, and most definitely not what they would deserve. The problem is, you have lives hanging in the balance here; should a murdered be killed himself? What exactly is an execution? When is one deserving of the death penalty? If you get the wrong scenario, then surely it would be counted as murder, wouldn't it?

Likely, in my world nothing would actually get done, because I'd be too busy suffering from my moral dilemma. Anyway, these were just a few thoughts, so feel free to pick holes and criticise! Smile

@Joshy phil,

Joshy wrote:

This line really hit it home for me, and is something that I completely agree with.

A word that comes to mind here is 'retribution', which, technically, is a punishment justly deserved. For some crimes, there is no true retribution, yet our solution to a large range of crimes is prison, in the hope that somebody will change their ways.
Society is divided when it comes to the retribution that prison brings. I solely agree that, in some cases, it does help people see right from wrong, perhaps them coming out and doing something to help others as a way of compensating for their actions. For others, however, it seems to have no affect, and they would just commit another crime as soon as they were released.
In other words, prison is not the solution to every crime, and actually only has an affect on a minority. Still, with such political correctness, as well as the 'human rights campaign' that have been introduced in recent years, it seems ot be the only answer we have.

This, to an extent, relates to something that I was discussing with my brother this morning. We were discussing security cameras and how, in many shops, there is an obvious notice making shoppers aware that the cameras are there. He said that it was to prevent people from commiting the crime (in this case stealing) in the first place, because they are conscious of the fact that they are highly likely to be caught. If there is a higher risk involved in the crime, then it is less likely to be commited.
I, however, asked why they didn't keep the cameras hidden. Although this would mean the potential criminals were not wary of them, leading to them being more likely to steal, it would have the same affect in the end: they would be caught. As well as this, it would send out a strong message ot others that 'crime doesn't pay'.
However, on this larger scale, where we are balancing lives, I might just change my views. Perhaps if there was a seirous conviction on offer to anyone who was thinking about commiting a crime, less would be commited. This would, inevitably, save time, money, and, potentially, lives. Still, what I do not agree with is this form of apparent 'retribution' that the criminals have been threatened with. Taking 20 shots onto somebody just to show them, and others, that what they did was wrong doen't seem morally righteous in my opinion, and most definitely not what they would deserve. The problem is, you have lives hanging in the balance here; should a murdered be killed himself? What exactly is an execution? When is one deserving of the death penalty? If you get the wrong scenario, then surely it would be counted as murder, wouldn't it?

Likely, in my world nothing would actually get done, because I'd be too busy suffering from my moral dilemma. Anyway, these were just a few thoughts, so feel free to pick holes and criticise!

The truth is that our instinct towards retribuiting both good and bad is a hard-coded in our brains form of making people behave the way we want because they will suffer / not be rewarded if they dont. Obviously a society cannot work with people trying to manipulate each other Smile

I think all should be made to understand why they should behave in a X way instead.

I see a big problem with the current concepts of political rightness and human rights, wich is that people demand levels of individualism wich are unfeasible winhout inflicting upon the given rights of other persons, making the whole thing a paradox. I will give a emotional influencing example: ever children has the right to life, wich requires effort from someone but then, but people have the right of not having to sustain others. Isnt this a paradox? Basically its a set of rules with a large amount of loopholes that anyone who tried to fix would be yelled at for being immoral.

In my view of the world the human race as a whole is the most important thing. So im my view of the world people wicked to the point where they could never be set free in standart society again, nor be still productive in their confinement, have no importance.

@Catchabula,

Manored.. First: Which... Second.. You conclusion is correct, and there are a lot of reasons for our idea of the individual; and I cannot tell you the exact reason for it; but it is metaphysical, and it comes out of Medieval Philosophy, just as our Western law does... Group responsibility was and is everywhere else the norm... And vengeance and the threat of vengeance worked instead of law to keep people in line...And it was so much more effective since your own people were your police, and if you did need killing, it was they who did it... In an instance such as this, the family would be happy to crush the crazy's skull and be done with it...It was not that people were so all fired happy to take revenge..It was better if the other family gave justice, which brought peace... It is hard to deny the individual, or to deny individual rights to the individual... But in the proper context, everyone gets their rights from their communities, and that is the purpose of commuities if they can be said to have one... People form communities like labor unions, or associations... People talk about the Christian community of the Gay community; and it is all because people have found that isolated individuals cannot defend their rights, so while in the past all communities were natural, or consanguineous communites, and now they are formed... But civilizations are built upon the denial of the right to vengeance, and to all manor of defenses of honor...In a sense, they are built on injustice, and for that reason they fail... But there is no denying that those people deserve justice for their loss; and it should be the society which makes them whole...If society does not think they can live without a lot of maddenly free individuals to the point where they leave some free that they should throw a net over, then let them compensate the loss of those people and think twice the next time....

@Fido,

I wouldnt say the problem of civilizations is that they deny the right to revenge, but rather that the systems created to replace it are faulty.

@Catchabula,

No; they deny the right; but when they sell capital punishment they sell vengeance, but vengeance does not belong to society, but to the injured party; and in a sense to the injuring community, because for their price, for their sacrifice they regain their honor... Look at the tragedy of Orestes... His Mother had every right to take revenge on Agamemnon for killing her daughter, who would be her tribe... Her choice to Kill Agamemnon in the temple defiled everyones temple with blood... To regain honor He had to kill his mother, and she knew it, as well as as he... No one but he could do it... So, even then there was a conflict...If you kill some one with in the community you injure the whole community... If you killed some one outside of the community from the community you had the obligation to defend your blood... As the Arabs would say: Our blood has been shed...
Thos people where different...They lived in honor societies, but they also believed in fate... Fate tended to lessen any guilt, but never completely...If some one stole from you, or killed one of you he took your honor... Only a death on the other side, or a an exchange of values could right the situation... Everyone needs their honor...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

If some one stole from you, or killed one of you he took your honor... Only a death on the other side, or a an exchange of values could right the situation... Everyone needs their honor...

I don't feel that the right of honour can override moral righteousness.
Of course, sometimes what one needs to do to feel honourable, and what one feels is the right thing to do can be the same, but I think that it is important not to get the two confused.

In my eyes, honour is more about proving yourself and living up to your own standards and expectations as a human being. Moral righteousness, however, is doing what you consider best for both yourself and the community you live in.

Somtimes a comprimise is in order, as I understand that those continuously following their morals can sacrifice a lot for the 'greater good'. I myself have been in several minor situation like this over the years, and, although I might, to a degree, suffer because of my choice, I still don't regret it.

I'm not saying that I always do what is right, or that I have a pure heart because I am, after all, only human, and we all do things wrong and make mistakes. Nor am I saying that everyone has a strong enough will to follow their morals. However, the point that I am trying to make is that revenge, or vengeance, is simply mindless violence, as far as I am concerned.

'Honour' is a big part of gang culture these days, which is why people go around with guns and knives to 'prove' themselves. Perhaps this is simply honour lost in translation, or perhaps it is a perfect example as to why we should just be true to ourselves, rather than trying to make ourselves look good to others.

This is why I am so against the ideas suggested in this thread about paying back criminals, whether they have hurt us physically or emotionally. I understand that these people need to be put in their place, so they do not commit again. I also know that the system that we currently have in place does not work and does not serve 'justice'. Prison is too leniant in most cases, just as execution or torture is too extreme. The answer lies in between. Perhaps the choice should be given to a victim, whether that is a family member of one who has been killed or a victim of abuse or other crimes. But the problem with that is that humans are corrupt, and bias, and ultimately cannot make the right decision. That is the dilemma, as I see it. Humans cannot fill the shoes of the judge who sentences the criminals to what they deserve; a punishment that truly serves justice.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

No; they deny the right; but when they sell capital punishment they sell vengeance, but vengeance does not belong to society, but to the injured party; and in a sense to the injuring community, because for their price, for their sacrifice they regain their honor... Look at the tragedy of Orestes... His Mother had every right to take revenge on Agamemnon for killing her daughter, who would be her tribe... Her choice to Kill Agamemnon in the temple defiled everyones temple with blood... To regain honor He had to kill his mother, and she knew it, as well as as he... No one but he could do it... So, even then there was a conflict...If you kill some one with in the community you injure the whole community... If you killed some one outside of the community from the community you had the obligation to defend your blood... As the Arabs would say: Our blood has been shed...
Thos people where different...They lived in honor societies, but they also believed in fate... Fate tended to lessen any guilt, but never completely...If some one stole from you, or killed one of you he took your honor... Only a death on the other side, or a an exchange of values could right the situation... Everyone needs their honor...

"In eye for eye, we all end up blind". I believe the only use of revenge is to prevent the event from happening again, if it fails on this there is no point on it, and its worse if it incites counter-revenge on the other side. Concepts such "honor" create problems where they dont exist.

Justice is not to be served, it doesnt even exists beyond a subjective measure of right/wrong. Punishments must, instead, serve society, either restoring/giving some use to criminals or getting rid of then.

@manored,

manored wrote:

"In eye for eye, we all end up blind". I believe the only use of revenge is to prevent the event from happening again, if it fails on this there is no point on it, and its worse if it incites counter-revenge on the other side. Concepts such "honor" create problems where they dont exist.

Justice is not to be served, it doesnt even exists beyond a subjective measure of right/wrong. Punishments must, instead, serve society, either restoring/giving some use to criminals or getting rid of then.

An eye for an eye is an admonission for equity and mercy in justice... Honor is a problem where it exists and where it does not exist... Look at Achilles and his wrath, all over a girl, and hurt honor... The whole thing was over honor.. And look a Cuchelain... You had to be awful sensitive to his honor if you didn't want to end up dead; and the whole affair that killed him began with an affair of honor...It is hard to image from our perspective in time how much it meant to those people...It was very much like money to us...It was a different sort of economy...The thing is, that it worked, and yes it killed a lot of people, but it kept nations strong, and did not rub out whole genetic groups, so it kept cultures alive as well, and we have some of that in our fairy tales and nursery rhimes... There was some blood shed, but mostly there was accomodation, so that a price was set on everything from body parts to the king's peace... What we have now cannot be shown to work, so that many who should by in some kind of cage are not because some one worse is already in it.. After a while the cost really becomes extreme, and it does not have the desired effect... The price we pay for no community control, and no blood feud is the individual, and there is no better sort of expression of individualism than crime.... Our heroes, and our anti heroes are criminals... Billy the kid, John Dillenger, Jesse James, in this land...Unfortunately, there is a large componant of mental illness in crime, and the question becomes, how much of that illness is the result of law, because, when the thing does not result in justice, and that injustice grows and spreads, it becomes like a virus that no one can predict, or prepare for...

@Catchabula,

People are to be taught to not desire or seek revenge, such crusades are what fail the system.

@Catchabula,

All I can tell you is that society survived many thousands of years without cops, or prisons, that people had democracy and defended themselves, and controled their own and themselves... They did it and survived because they made an issue of justice, and honor which people really cannot live without... Law satisfies no one, and does not accomplish the desired goal... In this case, because no one has money but the rich, and no one has authority over their own, or is expected to some one was on the street who should not have been in society...How much do you want to bet human or civil rights was used as a cover for a monetary issue... No Bed out of the wind...

@Fido,

Society survived for thousand of years winhout these things because humans wont just die if they arent getting along with each other, they will kill each other unitl they are before that happens Smile

And I doubt people cannot live winhout the concept of honor, concepts of duties are enough.

For example I think the japanese would be a lot more productive if they learnt with their mistakes instead of stabing thenselves because of then Smile

Philosophy Forum

An Answer to Horror???

Quick Links

My Account

able2know