It seems that this question about morality belongs properly in the Ethics forum, unless you wish to discuss the relationship between morality and metaphysics which does not appear to be your intent from the contents of your post.

You might be right, but this is a metaphysical approach. The two Chakras of Hhessed and Gevurah are metaphysical concepts.
It belongs in both depending on the direction you want to comment on it.

This thread was moved and the other thread started in religion with the same title is considered redundant and was removed. Please search to see if there is an existing discussion pertaining to the topic before opening new threads.

I find it interesting that Islam and Christianity seem to have gone in opposite directions in precisely this respect. Do you think there is a deeper reason for that?

I myself definitely like to err on the side of loving kindness. That means for instance I am strongly opposed to the death penalty, one of the reasons being the possibility, albeit often remote, of repentance.

But these concepts pertain to life in general, not just to matters of justice only. I remember a recent thread on this forum about the moralities of war.
Is war ever justified?
And if so, are all means allowed to win it quickly? Or should you exercise loving kindness in the sense that you try your utmost to minimize civilian casualties even if that may cost more lives on your side?

When it comes to Love over Justice, as you put it, all i can do is way the options in each moment that comes. No doubt I'll probably be wrong most of the time.

i think, justice, for the sake of conversation can be more widely agreed upon.

love is interesting. This in my view is what should be talked about more even though it seems like a simple emotion.

Hey Joe,



I agree.

In my oppinion, it is a very subjective choice. However, Justice would surely be favourite every time. Although I love my family and friends very deeply, justice is by all means a virtue;which will probably require sacrifices to implement. Personally, if I must sacrifice love to enforce justice, then so be it. Let me bear the burden.

Great thread.

God bless.
- Thanks,Take care
James

Loving your fellow humans involves keeping them safe from danger-- guard the sheep (good) from the wolf (bad). For this reason, I would agree that death is a just penalty for a killer (or exile from society), who can not be allowed the opportunity to continue killing good people. Revenge though is not just, and it is not for this reason that we should want to rid society of a killer.

The one universal law of morality is that blood is thicker than water...

Non sense old gloss... Revenge is just... I do not think you grasp the bow string upon which peace hangs... Would you let some one kill yours without revenge??? You are not human; but people have also siezed every opportunity for peace, paying blood money (Old English-Wergeld) rather than feuding and seeking revenge, becuse revenge was visited upon all people.. If you must ask why primitive peoples were all so concerned with justice, and morality, and these concepts are indeed primitive, it is because peace depended upon them... The sense of morality, what we do, who we are, our community, the commmunity spirit was how youth was taught restraint, because war is easy to make, but peace is hard to make, and to strike out in anger against an enemy meant ones whole community was responsible, and if no blood money was accepted, war was certain to come when ones guard was down...

Now you look at Orestes, which became a story of interest at a turning point in Greek history, when the state was becoming enough of an institution that it could demand an end to blood feuds... So people looked back to another age for a certain lesson, which I do not think they took altogether... The God demanded vengence, so Orestes killed his mother... Why did he kill his mother???No one else could kill his flesh and blood without bringing vengeance down on their heads... It was true of the American Indian as well, that if no blood money could be settled upon, and murder had been done, then ones own people busted the killer's skulls... It was still a punishment for the whole family group, but it was the price people paid for peace and honor... And honor was money to the primitives... Electra found herself married to a commoner because this daughter of a King and a Queen was robbed of her honor when her mother murdered... The way we do things is so wrong in regard to capital punishment... For the state to execute was a way of avoiding blood feuds and vengeance... Yet, politicians ride their ambition, calling for vengeance... Vengeance has no part of law, but may be essential to justice where there is no law... Something else: in the past, vengeance was visited upon any person in the community, so there was group responsibility...

Communities were expected to police their own... But now that community control has broken down under the pressure of law, and the theory of the individual has taken hold, it is really wrong to execute criminals AND punish whole communities which do not have control over their members and have no means of exerting control..It causes a tremendous problem in this country where the federal government has taken control of Native American law, and then does not pursue it... The state has some juristiction, and the federal government other juristiction, but it is not funded and it is not glamorous and so thise second class citizens must often suffer a great deal of crime and pain without relief...What the natives had, worked, and should be allowed to work again...

My point was more to say that the individual desire for vengeance comes from something unjust within...while the desire itself is unjust, the actual net effect of a society-wide policy of vengeance, like the death penalty, could be more ultimately just than not having that policy. Revenge can be a good thing, in my opinion, not because two wrongs make a right, but because a revenge policy can/will reduce further wrongs from occurring.

When the state take over the job of executing criminals there is not supposed to be a hint of vengeance in it. But it is sold as vengeance and practiced like vengeance on the group rather than only the individual overwhelmingly, and still the group is punished because all are held guilty so that violence has the air of feud about it...When every member was essential to the community, and there was group control and ressponsibility, then people might be bargained for to spare their lives.. A big factor in this was the belief in fate, or kismet; that only bad luck could kill a person, but the end result was mercy, and this shows up in the Holy Koran, and in the practices of the Muslims today who often spare people condemned to death... Justice has got to look for every reason to show mercy, and it does not. And to be just, the society should show mercy before people become criminals...Clearly, primitives where more just and concerned with justice than we are, and if you look people like Agamemnon, or Achilles, or Cu Chulaine; as representative of their times, then these people would fight and die for honor...Yet, honor is the very thing taken when goods are stolen, or lives lost... And honor was their economy, just as money is ours, so people were very concerned as to worth and living a worthy life, but more importantly, if honor was lost because one of yours died, then to have peace there was exchange, which also meant the exchange of wives, and having children in common with your enemy, building a larger network of support, finding more reason for peace and commerce... Law does not work nearly so well as feud at producing a better and healthier human being..And if justice is denied to whole groups as law does, then violence all the sooner blows out into war. And war does not weed out the unhealthy, or the dimwits, like feuding would, so it leaves a lot of little dinks with their fingers on the nuke button who have never had to know a fat lip of a bloody nose, and who never learned how to make a peace on their honor...The nature of life before civilization was survival of the fittest.. With civilization it is more often the fittest who are eliminated to allow the diseased to breed...

Those are severly outdated and really bad ways of founding any morals, ethics and legislation on.

Love is an emotion, which in psycology are known to easily overwrite reason and logic, when love is turned to anger.

Love is also a factor of provoking group think/flock instinct, which translate to comradery, people turn a blind eye to unlawful actions, or pull innocent people into unlawful actions.

It usually leads to exploitation of people who are willing to help out of love and unselfish motivation.

So, it's a known fact that many each year are falsly trialed, that innocent people are accused of horrofying criems, by clever sceming evil people. Or just due to simple misunderstanding. Therefore being harsh and merciless is a poor concept, if an innocent convict are put to death, then there's no chance to parden this convict.

No, because sometimes we are wrong in our assumptions.

Too many accused and jailed criminals has since been pardoned because of DNA evidence has contradicted the sentence.

Also in the equation there are naitivy, ignorence, cynisism, setups ..etc.