What if someone told you they killed a pedophile,rapist etc?

[Hermiod]

Let's say it's a friend or co-worker. You also know he/she is telling the truth. Would you call the cops and report this person, or would you look the other way, since the victim basically deserved it, even though the friend-co-worker broke the law.

I would ask how that individual managed to break in to a prison, kill someone and get out again. Said accusations were proven in a court of law, weren't they ?

 

[-Brett-]

"Officer, this man told me he killed someone."

"No I didn't."

Oops. Now the cops would be on their way back to the donut shop, and I'd have a murderer pissed off at me. Sounds like a great idea. Maybe he'd get caught for murdering me.

Without evidence, I'd just get the hell away from him.

With evidence, hell yeah I'd turn him in. I've stabbed friends in the back for far less than my life or freedom.

 

[Jayson]

Let's say it's a friend or co-worker. You also know he/she is telling the truth. Would you call the cops and report this person, or would you look the other way, since the victim basically deserved it, even though the friend-co-worker broke the law.

I would ask how that individual managed to break in to a prison, kill someone and get out again. Said accusations were proven in a court of law, weren't they ?

Well I was going off the asumption that the friend/co-worker found out the guy was guilty of those crimes,but simply not caught. I also asume that the evidence would be pretty compelling, since I would hope my friend isn't killing somebody on a hunch. Granted I would be pretty suspicious that my friend would be able to get this evidence, because as far as I know my best freind isn't Batman! He isn't even Magnum PI. Still I would look at his proof, before passing judgment. My friend would be totally screwed though if starts pulling out forensic files and whatnot! I basically need pictures of the guy,doing the crime or a taped confession before I would be confinced to not turn my friend in. When it comes to a human life, his word wouldn't be enough.

Jason

 

[Deckerd]

This reminds me of the visit to the doctor to talk about "a friend's" problem.

 

[Jayson]

This reminds me of the visit to the doctor to talk about "a friend's" problem.

Hell, I don't need to use code to speak what I would do. I know for a fact that I would never be able to live with the guilt, if I killed anyone simply because I knew they were guilty of such a crime. I have enough, fake guilt, from my OCD to last a lifetime. About the only exception I could see me doing something like that is if, my family was victimized by someone. If that was the case, I could proably, give a shit about my own feelings. Especially if it was my niece or nephews, who are small children ,were the victims. Asuming I even had the skills. I have never used a gun in my life. I have never gone hunting. I am basically like most nerds. I have no survival skills, and I will be screwed when society falls apart and we have to live in some horrific "MAd MAX future landscape.

Jason

 

[Pingfah]

Well I was going off the asumption that the friend/co-worker found out the guy was guilty of those crimes,but simply not caught. I also asume that the evidence would be pretty compelling, since I would hope my friend isn't killing somebody on a hunch. Granted I would be pretty suspicious that my friend would be able to get this evidence, because as far as I know my best freind isn't Batman! He isn't even Magnum PI. Still I would look at his proof, before passing judgment. My friend would be totally screwed though if starts pulling out forensic files and whatnot! I basically need pictures of the guy,doing the crime or a taped confession before I would be confinced to not turn my friend in. When it comes to a human life, his word wouldn't be enough.

Jason

If the guy had pictures of this criminal engaging in this act, but still tracked him down and killed him I would definitely turn him in, since there is no reason at all he could not have pursued justice through the courts.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Because the people who would be killed, are people who cause suffering and misery on the world. Human life is sacred, so to damage it, or take it away is a sin that is beyond the pale. We only have once chance at life,,so for one of these monsters to come and destroy it, means that as far as I am concerned their lives have no worth anymore. Once you commit these sins, your life is no longer sacred, like the rest of humanity. The crimes they do is simply to much.

Jason

So, your response to me saying I don't understand why you would wish suffering on anyone is...because they caused suffering. Where is the logic in this response, I respectfully ask?

As for the real answer:

No. I would suggest strongly that we cannot go around picking and choosing who is worthy to live and who is worthy to die. We are all precious, and to suggest you have the right to decide who is worthy and who isn't is to set yourself apart from our race and claim some higher position. One thing you overlook is that people commit crimes- including violent crimes- for a number of reasons. The pressures and conditioning and experiences affecting each and every one of us cause us all to grow and develop and respond differently. To hold a person in a vacuum and say "their action means we must discard or reject them" is to take a shallow and flawed view of our societies.

You speak of monsters. Monsters are in the eye of the beholder. Look at it this way- consider a young man who goes out and stabs someone to death. Under your worldview, he is a monster and now forfits your care and empathy. Well, consider your nation's drafting of its young men during the Vietnam war, say. So, let's say this young man had his freedom taken from him, his people made it quite clear his life meant nothing to them, that his job and duty was to put himself in harms way in place of more valuable people. Then lets say he comes back...and stabs someone to death, having learnt his own life means nothing, so why should anyone elses? He's probaby not consciously justifying it in these terms, but that's how he's likely come to see things. Your response? Apparently, to continue the attitude of dismissive non-empathy that helped create this problem. If we have monsters, then as a society I can only say "look in the mirror, Doctor Frankenstein". Treat a fellow being as disposable, convey an attitude lacking in empathy or care, and you encourage others to do the same.

Imprisoning criminals, for life in many cases, is necessary: to keep them off the streets and so keep others safe, to discipline them in order that they may learn control, and hopefully to rehabilitate them (though this is not always possible). But to abandon our duty to them as fellow beings, to abandon our care for them and respect for their status as sapient beings: this to me is unthinkable (and it's not often I use a word like that). To ignore general society's role in creating their criminal tendencies is equally unthinkable. My goal is to educate others, through example, never imposition, that my way is better. If you respond to hate with hate, it grows and becomes more powerful. Violence begets violence. Each life and being we turn from breaks down our civilization further.

Someone who truly cares about human life does not dismiss it- EVER- and certainly not on the justification that "oh, they didn't share my moral belief in the sacred nature of sapient life". Our people are what we make them. You cause suffering and misery- or at least contribute to and justify it- with your beliefs that criminals are sub-human and should be treated as such. Should I then say you should be killed for that? Where does it end?

I have never understood why anyone would hate or dismiss someone who has wronged them, or those they care about. Deep anger, rage, regret, sure. But hate? Dismissal? A ceasation of caring? If their crimes and lack of empathy affect you so profoundly, why do you wish to see such behaviour or attitudes repeated?

Sometimes, I think I will never, if I live to be 120, understand the way other people's minds work. To stop caring for another being is simply not something I can understand, let's just put it that way.

Ethic's isn't about compassion. Ethic's is about judging, behavior. I can feel bad for a criminal, in that I understand how horrible things can lead people down a path of evil but we also have empathy and free will. No matter how bad things get for you, it's no excuse to cause equal suffering to those who are inocent.

When I look at victim's, the only thing I can think of is, what if it was someone I loved, or me who was the victim." The idea of having empathy for someone who just raped my niece, seems inhuman to me. Some crimes are so bad, thati t changes to rules in how we treat them, as oposed to most humans. LIke I said I don't think somethings can be forgiven and are so bad no punishment is to much.

Jason

You contradict yourself. You make a big deal out of saying you have so much empathy and compassion, only to throw it out instantly as soon as a person commits a violent crime. Empathy cannot be "turned off" or it's not true empathy. No, crimes do not "change the rules". If empathy can be applied so selectively, then it is not a natural reaction but rather a consequence of your own judging and biases. What if I decided your attitudes here couldn't be forgiven, due to your insistence "no punishment is too much". Should I decide to no longer feel empathy or compassion for you. Is it now "inhuman" of me to feel compassion for you? Feeling empathy and compassion for those who wrong you is the height of humanity.

And you keep talking about crimes and criminals- what of other people who kill, like soldiers? Is it inhuman to care about a soldier? After all, that soldier has probably killed people, which to you is an unforgivable act, as you have said several times. You don't think circumstances and experience change anything, so I assume you must care nothing for these people either. Of course, soldiers, due to their conditioining and experiences, aren't innocent, so I suppose in your view that does excuse anything that happens to them, since only the innocent matter to you.

Anyway, who mentioned anything about forgiveness? I for one never forgive anything. Just as I seem to be incapable of hating, I'm incapable of forgiving. It's just how my mind works. Who needs forgiveness? We don't need to forgive anything to treat our fellow beings- all of them- with genuine compassion and care.

Final point: If "no punishment is too much", then you must feel that any degree of torture, murder, etc is less troubling than one rape or other violent assault. This hypothetical friend of yours is now a murderer. The rules change for him or her, too, I take it. No punishment or suffering is too much for your friend, who, as a murderer, can provoke no empathy from you (that would be inhuman, to care about them now). What if this niece of yours ever committed a violent crime? I guess its fine for her to be raped then, under your logic. Your empathy for her switches off instantly, I take it? It confuses me how you can insist you care so strongly yet also insist you can discard that care in an instant.

 

[Jayson]

Well I was going off the asumption that the friend/co-worker found out the guy was guilty of those crimes,but simply not caught. I also asume that the evidence would be pretty compelling, since I would hope my friend isn't killing somebody on a hunch. Granted I would be pretty suspicious that my friend would be able to get this evidence, because as far as I know my best freind isn't Batman! He isn't even Magnum PI. Still I would look at his proof, before passing judgment. My friend would be totally screwed though if starts pulling out forensic files and whatnot! I basically need pictures of the guy,doing the crime or a taped confession before I would be confinced to not turn my friend in. When it comes to a human life, his word wouldn't be enough.

Jason

If the guy had pictures of this criminal engaging in this act, but still tracked him down and killed him I would definitely turn him in, since there is no reason at all he could not have pursued justice through the courts.

That's true, but since pedophiles and rapist aren't subjected to the death penalty then maybe he didn't feel they would get the punishment they deserve. Which is personally how I feel. I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty in some regards. I don't like giving the government the power to kill it's citizens, because the government can never be fully trusted IMO. It's also bad in places like Texas were they will kill anything that movies. They will kill retarded people and they don't want to look at DNA evidence. They just want to kill people because it plays well with the bloodthirsty masses.

From a moral perspective though I think the crimes of rape and child molestation are defiantly just as evil as murder and thus they morally deserve the same punishment.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

So, your response to me saying I don't understand why you would wish suffering on anyone is...because they caused suffering. Where is the logic in this response, I respectfully ask?

As for the real answer:

No. I would suggest strongly that we cannot go around picking and choosing who is worthy to live and who is worthy to die. We are all precious, and to suggest you have the right to decide who is worthy and who isn't is to set yourself apart from our race and claim some higher position. One thing you overlook is that people commit crimes- including violent crimes- for a number of reasons. The pressures and conditioning and experiences affecting each and every one of us cause us all to grow and develop and respond differently. To hold a person in a vacuum and say "their action means we must discard or reject them" is to take a shallow and flawed view of our societies.

You speak of monsters. Monsters are in the eye of the beholder. Look at it this way- consider a young man who goes out and stabs someone to death. Under your worldview, he is a monster and now forfits your care and empathy. Well, consider your nation's drafting of its young men during the Vietnam war, say. So, let's say this young man had his freedom taken from him, his people made it quite clear his life meant nothing to them, that his job and duty was to put himself in harms way in place of more valuable people. Then lets say he comes back...and stabs someone to death, having learnt his own life means nothing, so why should anyone elses? He's probaby not consciously justifying it in these terms, but that's how he's likely come to see things. Your response? Apparently, to continue the attitude of dismissive non-empathy that helped create this problem. If we have monsters, then as a society I can only say "look in the mirror, Doctor Frankenstein". Treat a fellow being as disposable, convey an attitude lacking in empathy or care, and you encourage others to do the same.

Imprisoning criminals, for life in many cases, is necessary: to keep them off the streets and so keep others safe, to discipline them in order that they may learn control, and hopefully to rehabilitate them (though this is not always possible). But to abandon our duty to them as fellow beings, to abandon our care for them and respect for their status as sapient beings: this to me is unthinkable (and it's not often I use a word like that). To ignore general society's role in creating their criminal tendencies is equally unthinkable. My goal is to educate others, through example, never imposition, that my way is better. If you respond to hate with hate, it grows and becomes more powerful. Violence begets violence. Each life and being we turn from breaks down our civilization further.

Someone who truly cares about human life does not dismiss it- EVER- and certainly not on the justification that "oh, they didn't share my moral belief in the sacred nature of sapient life". Our people are what we make them. You cause suffering and misery- or at least contribute to and justify it- with your beliefs that criminals are sub-human and should be treated as such. Should I then say you should be killed for that? Where does it end?

I have never understood why anyone would hate or dismiss someone who has wronged them, or those they care about. Deep anger, rage, regret, sure. But hate? Dismissal? A ceasation of caring? If their crimes and lack of empathy affect you so profoundly, why do you wish to see such behaviour or attitudes repeated?

Sometimes, I think I will never, if I live to be 120, understand the way other people's minds work. To stop caring for another being is simply not something I can understand, let's just put it that way.

Ethic's isn't about compassion. Ethic's is about judging, behavior. I can feel bad for a criminal, in that I understand how horrible things can lead people down a path of evil but we also have empathy and free will. No matter how bad things get for you, it's no excuse to cause equal suffering to those who are inocent.

When I look at victim's, the only thing I can think of is, what if it was someone I loved, or me who was the victim." The idea of having empathy for someone who just raped my niece, seems inhuman to me. Some crimes are so bad, thati t changes to rules in how we treat them, as oposed to most humans. LIke I said I don't think somethings can be forgiven and are so bad no punishment is to much.

Jason

You contradict yourself. You make a big deal out of saying you have so much empathy and compassion, only to throw it out instantly as soon as a person commits a violent crime. Empathy cannot be "turned off" or it's not true empathy. No, crimes do not "change the rules". If empathy can be applied so selectively, then it is not a natural reaction but rather a consequence of your own judging and biases. What if I decided your attitudes here couldn't be forgiven, due to your insistence "no punishment is too much". Should I decide to no longer feel empathy or compassion for you. Is it now "inhuman" of me to feel compassion for you? Feeling empathy and compassion for those who wrong you is the height of humanity.

And you keep talking about crimes and criminals- what of other people who kill, like soldiers? Is it inhuman to care about a soldier? After all, that soldier has probably killed people, which to you is an unforgivable act, as you have said several times. You don't think circumstances and experience change anything, so I assume you must care nothing for these people either. Of course, soldiers, due to their conditioining and experiences, aren't innocent, so I suppose in your view that does excuse anything that happens to them, since only the innocent matter to you.

Anyway, who mentioned anything about forgiveness? I for one never forgive anything. Just as I seem to be incapable of hating, I'm incapable of forgiving. It's just how my mind works. Who needs forgiveness? We don't need to forgive anything to treat our fellow beings- all of them- with genuine compassion and care.

Final point: If "no punishment is too much", then you must feel that any degree of torture, murder, etc is less troubling than one rape or other violent assault. This hypothetical friend of yours is now a murderer. The rules change for him or her, too, I take it. No punishment or suffering is too much for your friend, who, as a murderer, can provoke no empathy from you (that would be inhuman, to care about them now). What if this niece of yours ever committed a violent crime? I guess its fine for her to be raped then, under your logic. Your empathy for her switches off instantly, I take it? It confuses me how you can insist you care so strongly yet also insist you can discard that care in an instant.

It might be a contradiction to feel empathy and still think someone should die, but to me that is what life is about. Nobody has one single emotion for every situation. Human beings have a full scale of emotions and they sometimes conflict with each other. That is how you can love someone and still be mad at them sometimes.

Empathy is great, but like all emotions it can also lie to you. Empathy can be a selfish emotion. It's about making one self feel better about themseles. People love to have empathy because it feels good to feel good about people. The problem is there are some greater truths than how we feel.

I just don't see the value of keeping people around, who do things to human beings that should never be done, just so we can feel good about how great and evolved we human beings are. Your trying to make the argument, I think, that all crimes are equal on a moral scale. Murder is equally bad, not because of situations, but because the act inself is evil.

I think the circumstances is everything, when it comes to determining moral judgments. All crimes aren't equal from a moral perspective. It's not about the murder, but why the murder happened. That is why soliders,and people who kill in self-defense are oviously not the same as a serial-killer, who kills for pleasure. I would put a person who kills someone, who has done one of the unforgivable acts as equal, more on par with what a solider does or a cop than I would a petty criminal, asuming he wasn't doing it because he was like Dexter, and doing it because he likes to murder, for the sake of murder.

Jason

 

[Deranged Nasat]

I just don't see the value of keeping people around, who do things to human beings that should never be done.

Ah, but that implies that life and death is a matter of our convenience. There's no value in allowing six billion people to live on this planet, as its resources are being strained to breaking point. That doesn't mean any of us think culling a few billion is acceptable . Lives cannot be judged on their value to us. It doesn't matter to me who I think is valuable and who we could do without, because it is not my place to say "I don't see the value in you, so you shouldn't be kept around". For one thing, what's to stop someone else suggesting they don't see the value in me and recommending I be removed?

Also, in response to your argument about empathy being selfish, due to a desire to "feel good about people", I never said I felt good about murderers, rapists, etc. I don't feel good about them. I find them in most cases distasteful, and they provoke me to anger, even rage. You don't have to feel good about people to care about them and feel compassion, however. You don't have to like people to acknowledge their lives and health as sacred, or treat them in a respectful and caring manner. Indeed, demonstrating love and care alongside your distaste and anger will have far more effective results in conditioning them away from crime and finding a better path than hate alongside distaste and anger will.

 

[cultcross]

My position leaves me little choice in such a situation. My duty is clearly spelled out and unambiguous. But even leaving that aside, I can't believe the number of people who wouldn't turn in someone who you believed had killed someone, whatever crime the dead person was alleged to have committed. Let's take away the morality of the situation, even, and look at it selfishly - do you really want to associate with someone who fancies themselves judge, jury and executioner; a vigilante? What happens if they decide that perhaps you need to be taught a lesson?

 

[Aurian]

I would urge them to turn themselves in.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

There is never a justifiable reason to kill a fellow being, except in urgent self-defense or in immediate and urgent defense of others; that's my view. Even then, killing is a last resort. I personally simply cannot understand why someone would wish any sort of suffering on anyone. I've certainly never experienced such a desire, and it confuses me why other people do.

Well put.

 

[Jayson]

My position leaves me little choice in such a situation. My duty is clearly spelled out and unambiguous. But even leaving that aside, I can't believe the number of people who wouldn't turn in someone who you believed had killed someone, whatever crime the dead person was alleged to have committed. Let's take away the morality of the situation, even, and look at it selfishly - do you really want to associate with someone who fancies themselves judge, jury and executioner; a vigilante? What happens if they decide that perhaps you need to be taught a lesson?

We aren't talking about alleged crimes. The guy has rock solid proof. As for associating with him, then the answer is proably a no. Still your talking about sending someone to prision for what can be argured was "good intentions" over the death of a human monster. If you do that it's almost like the pedophile,killer,rapist has scored another win. Destroyed another life, and you helped him do it. It's possible he could turn on you, but that is why the issues of trust and faith come into play, just as much as the evidence the guy had. It all comes down to, how much trust you have in your friend, that is a good person, inside. If you feel like he is good inside,despite the killing of a harcore criminal, then should you trust your instinct's over the law?

Jason

 

[Darth Duck]

We aren't talking about alleged crimes. The guy has rock solid proof.

Innocent people have been locked away with "rock solid proof."

As for associating with him, then the answer is proably a no. Still your talking about sending someone to prision for what can be argured was "good intentions" over the death of a human monster.

The road to Hell is paved with "good intentions." Murder is wrong. In taking the life of an alleged "monster" someone becomes no better than that monster.

If you do that it's almost like the pedophile,killer,rapist has scored another win. Destroyed another life, and you helped him do it.

The pedo/rapist/killer hasn't won. When you start killing people no one wins. If a guilty person goes to jail for killing another guilty person, a guilty person is still going to jail.

It's possible he could turn on you, but that is why the issues of trust and faith come into play, just as much as the evidence the guy had. It all comes down to, how much trust you have in your friend, that is a good person, inside. If you feel like he is good inside,despite the killing of a harcore criminal, then should you trust your instinct's over the law?

Jason

Thankfully when it comes to murder my instincts and the law are the same. Murder is wrong. Murderers should be punished, and not by death.

 

[Jayson]

I just don't see the value of keeping people around, who do things to human beings that should never be done.

Ah, but that implies that life and death is a matter of our convenience. There's no value in allowing six billion people to live on this planet, as its resources are being strained to breaking point. That doesn't mean any of us think culling a few billion is acceptable . Lives cannot be judged on their value to us. It doesn't matter to me who I think is valuable and who we could do without, because it is not my place to say "I don't see the value in you, so you shouldn't be kept around". For one thing, what's to stop someone else suggesting they don't see the value in me and recommending I be removed?

Also, in response to your argument about empathy being selfish, due to a desire to "feel good about people", I never said I felt good about murderers, rapists, etc. I don't feel good about them. I find them in most cases distasteful, and they provoke me to anger, even rage. You don't have to feel good about people to care about them and feel compassion, however. You don't have to like people to acknowledge their lives and health as sacred, or treat them in a respectful and caring manner. Indeed, demonstrating love and care alongside your distaste and anger will have far more effective results in conditioning them away from crime and finding a better path than hate alongside distaste and anger will.

I agree, that life shouldn't be judged on it's value to society as a whole. Justice though isn't a issue about our society. It's all about the individuals involved in the crimes. Only thing that matters' is the criminals intent and the damage done to the victim or victim's. That is one problem with our justice system. The justice system is set up to deal with crime as whole in our society, and the individuals involved become irrelevant. That's how so many people get screwed over from victim's to criminals who are caught in the machine. Granted vigilante justice isn't a great soultion because you can't trust people for the most part to follow any ethical guidlines when there looking for revenge. If you could trust people though it would be much better than what we got now. In my scenario, we are basically dealing with someone who is someone that can be trusted to play God, so to speak, because in my scenario he is looking at the evidence and he doesn't have murder in his heart.

I also know you don't feel good about killers,rapist's etc. Most people don't.. Most of these crimes though are happening to stranger's which makes people desentizied by this stuff. I think you can't really comprehend just how bad this stuff is, unless your actually involved in it. If your not involved then we, as a society, tend to take a more antalytical look at crime, and the victim's and criminals sort of get lost in our desire to make society fit into some overal view of good and evil we have all invented in our heads. The individuals don't matter, because we want society to look a certain way.

I use to be just like everyone else until I had OCD. As crappy as OCD is, it did give me I feel insight on this stuff. I would have horrific thoughts of doing all sorts of bad stuff. That's what I meant about fake guilt, in the above thread. I have done nothing evil in my life but it feels like I have in my head, because OCD can trick you. Even though I always knew that the things I was forced to think about was bad, it wasn't until I could truly feel how bad those things are, that I realized just how awful, some crimes are in society. It's also one of the reason I think alot about ethic;s and morals today. Everything I do i always wonder what the underlining emotion or reason for it,is. If I am a nice to someone I wonder if I am being nice, because I am nice person or if I am doing it simply to be poltite. Frankly I think to much about this stuff. Sometimes it's best to just live and go with your emotions, but I don't know how to just turn my brain off and not think things through, over and over.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

I just don't see the value of keeping people around, who do things to human beings that should never be done.

Ah, but that implies that life and death is a matter of our convenience. There's no value in allowing six billion people to live on this planet, as its resources are being strained to breaking point. That doesn't mean any of us think culling a few billion is acceptable . Lives cannot be judged on their value to us. It doesn't matter to me who I think is valuable and who we could do without, because it is not my place to say "I don't see the value in you, so you shouldn't be kept around". For one thing, what's to stop someone else suggesting they don't see the value in me and recommending I be removed?

Also, in response to your argument about empathy being selfish, due to a desire to "feel good about people", I never said I felt good about murderers, rapists, etc. I don't feel good about them. I find them in most cases distasteful, and they provoke me to anger, even rage. You don't have to feel good about people to care about them and feel compassion, however. You don't have to like people to acknowledge their lives and health as sacred, or treat them in a respectful and caring manner. Indeed, demonstrating love and care alongside your distaste and anger will have far more effective results in conditioning them away from crime and finding a better path than hate alongside distaste and anger will.

I agree, that life shouldn't be judged on it's value to society as a whole. Justice though isn't a issue about our society. It's all about the individuals involved in the crimes. Only thing that matters' is the criminals intent and the damage done to the victim or victim's. That is one problem with our justice system. The justice system is set up to deal with crime as whole in our society, and the individuals involved become irrelevant. That's how so many people get screwed over from victim's to criminals who are caught in the machine. Granted vigilante justice isn't a great soultion because you can't trust people for the most part to follow any ethical guidlines when there looking for revenge. If you could trust people though it would be much better than what we got now. In my scenario, we are basically dealing with someone who is someone that can be trusted to play God, so to speak, because in my scenario he is looking at the evidence and he doesn't have murder in his heart.

I also know you don't feel good about killers,rapist's etc. Most people don't.. Most of these crimes though are happening to stranger's which makes people desentizied by this stuff. I think you can't really comprehend just how bad this stuff is, unless your actually involved in it. If your not involved then we, as a society, tend to take a more antalytical look at crime, and the victim's and criminals sort of get lost in our desire to make society fit into some overal view of good and evil we have all invented in our heads. The individuals don't matter, because we want society to look a certain way.

I use to be just like everyone else until I had OCD. As crappy as OCD is, it did give me I feel insight on this stuff. I would have horrific thoughts of doing all sorts of bad stuff. That's what I meant about fake guilt, in the above thread. I have done nothing evil in my life but it feels like I have in my head, because OCD can trick you. Even though I always knew that the things I was forced to think about was bad, it wasn't until I could truly feel how bad those things are, that I realized just how awful, some crimes are in society. It's also one of the reason I think alot about ethic;s and morals today. Everything I do i always wonder what the underlining emotion or reason for it,is. If I am a nice to someone I wonder if I am being nice, because I am nice person or if I am doing it simply to be poltite. Frankly I think to much about this stuff. Sometimes it's best to just live and go with your emotions, but I don't know how to just turn my brain off and not think things through, over and over.

Jason

Your basically making the argument that murder is inheritantly wrong. If that is the case then soldier's and people who kill in self-defense are just as guilty as any random serial killer. Problem though, is society has already decedied some murder is acceptable. During war,or self-defense. I'm not sure how, killing a someone we knew was %100 guilty of his crime would not be seen as another accceptable exception to the rule. At least from a moral perspepective. I understand the pratical concerns as to why you would never want this behavior to be made legal.

I guess I just don't see the moral distinction from someone killing a pedophile in his home, from someone who kills a pedophile who is about to break inside your house and rape your kids. Why is it wrong to kill criminals,only when their in the act of commiting crime? The pedophile that is killed by the vigilnate isn't all that morally different from the one, breaking into your house. At least in my scenario, there not. LIke I said, we got rock solid proof that the vigilnate killed someone that has molested and raped kids. He didn't follow a hunch, or make a asumption. He looked at the proof and acted.

Jason

 

[Jayson]

Ah, but that implies that life and death is a matter of our convenience. There's no value in allowing six billion people to live on this planet, as its resources are being strained to breaking point. That doesn't mean any of us think culling a few billion is acceptable . Lives cannot be judged on their value to us. It doesn't matter to me who I think is valuable and who we could do without, because it is not my place to say "I don't see the value in you, so you shouldn't be kept around". For one thing, what's to stop someone else suggesting they don't see the value in me and recommending I be removed?

Also, in response to your argument about empathy being selfish, due to a desire to "feel good about people", I never said I felt good about murderers, rapists, etc. I don't feel good about them. I find them in most cases distasteful, and they provoke me to anger, even rage. You don't have to feel good about people to care about them and feel compassion, however. You don't have to like people to acknowledge their lives and health as sacred, or treat them in a respectful and caring manner. Indeed, demonstrating love and care alongside your distaste and anger will have far more effective results in conditioning them away from crime and finding a better path than hate alongside distaste and anger will.

I agree, that life shouldn't be judged on it's value to society as a whole. Justice though isn't a issue about our society. It's all about the individuals involved in the crimes. Only thing that matters' is the criminals intent and the damage done to the victim or victim's. That is one problem with our justice system. The justice system is set up to deal with crime as whole in our society, and the individuals involved become irrelevant. That's how so many people get screwed over from victim's to criminals who are caught in the machine. Granted vigilante justice isn't a great soultion because you can't trust people for the most part to follow any ethical guidlines when there looking for revenge. If you could trust people though it would be much better than what we got now. In my scenario, we are basically dealing with someone who is someone that can be trusted to play God, so to speak, because in my scenario he is looking at the evidence and he doesn't have murder in his heart.

I also know you don't feel good about killers,rapist's etc. Most people don't.. Most of these crimes though are happening to stranger's which makes people desentizied by this stuff. I think you can't really comprehend just how bad this stuff is, unless your actually involved in it. If your not involved then we, as a society, tend to take a more antalytical look at crime, and the victim's and criminals sort of get lost in our desire to make society fit into some overal view of good and evil we have all invented in our heads. The individuals don't matter, because we want society to look a certain way.

I use to be just like everyone else until I had OCD. As crappy as OCD is, it did give me I feel insight on this stuff. I would have horrific thoughts of doing all sorts of bad stuff. That's what I meant about fake guilt, in the above thread. I have done nothing evil in my life but it feels like I have in my head, because OCD can trick you. Even though I always knew that the things I was forced to think about was bad, it wasn't until I could truly feel how bad those things are, that I realized just how awful, some crimes are in society. It's also one of the reason I think alot about ethic;s and morals today. Everything I do i always wonder what the underlining emotion or reason for it,is. If I am a nice to someone I wonder if I am being nice, because I am nice person or if I am doing it simply to be poltite. Frankly I think to much about this stuff. Sometimes it's best to just live and go with your emotions, but I don't know how to just turn my brain off and not think things through, over and over.

Jason

Your basically making the argument that murder is inheritantly wrong. If that is the case then soldier's and people who kill in self-defense are just as guilty as any random serial killer. Problem though, is society has already decedied some murder is acceptable. During war,or self-defense. I'm not sure how, killing a someone we knew was %100 guilty of his crime would not be seen as another accceptable exception to the rule. At least from a moral perspepective. I understand the pratical concerns as to why you would never want this behavior to be made legal.

I guess I just don't see the moral distinction from someone killing a pedophile in his home, from someone who kills a pedophile who is about to break inside your house and rape your kids. Why is it wrong to kill criminals,only when their in the act of commiting crime? The pedophile that is killed by the vigilnate isn't all that morally different from the one, breaking into your house. At least in my scenario, there not. LIke I said, we got rock solid proof that the vigilnate killed someone that has molested and raped kids. He didn't follow a hunch, or make a asumption. He looked at the proof and acted.

Jason

Woops! This was supose to be me quoting and responding to Dark Duck's thread.

Jason

 

[Pingfah]

Jason, nobody plans and executes a cold blooded murder against a victim who has harmed others but not them out of "good intentions".

That is called "being a psychopath".

 

[Jayson]

Jason, nobody plans and executes a cold blooded murder against a victim who has harmed others but not them out of "good intentions".

That is called "being a psychopath".

I've always asumed being a psychopath, was a state of mind. If you get pleasure from killing people, then your a psychopath. It you kill for some other reason then that is something else. I wonder for example how we would desribe hunter's. They like to hunt animals, because they think it's fun. Do we call them, psychopath's? If they are pyschopath's why don't they ever act out these feelings on human's?

Jason