At any given moment there are some aspects of behaviour which are considered ethical and some which aren't.
May I focus on slavery to start with? I choose it because I think we're all likely to describe owning and using slaves today as unethical behaviour, and opposing slavery as ethical behaviour. It would help me if we all assume that description.
The ancient Romans in their own time, for example, considered owning and using slaves as ethical.
Other societies at the same time considered owning and using slaves unethical behaviour. That may or may not be true but I'd appreciate it if we assume that it is.
My puzzle is this. Looking back, do we regard the Romans as wrong? Is owning and using slaves at all times and in all places unethical behaviour, or are ethics specific to a particular time? If they're specific to a particular time and there were cultures concurrent with Ancient Rome which were anti-slavery, were they unethical at that time for behaving as they did?
Ethics across time
Ethics across time
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
Didn't the Roman's think their own children were slaves as well.??
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Ethics across time
CARLA;1078848 wrote: Didn't the Roman's think their own children were slaves as well.??
Definitely not - slave status was very specific, just as child status was.
A child of a Roman citizen became a citizen of Rome by coming of age. The father of the child vouched for the child's suitability to become a citizen and, if he couldn't say it was so, his only alternative was to have the child killed instead. That wasn't criminal, on the contrary it was considered a noble thing to do. It was, I assume, rare.
An adult slave, on the other hand, could be freed (manumitted) by his owner at any time just as he could be legally sold or killed. I'm fairly sure a child slave couldn't be freed but I'd not swear to that.
Definitely not - slave status was very specific, just as child status was.
A child of a Roman citizen became a citizen of Rome by coming of age. The father of the child vouched for the child's suitability to become a citizen and, if he couldn't say it was so, his only alternative was to have the child killed instead. That wasn't criminal, on the contrary it was considered a noble thing to do. It was, I assume, rare.
An adult slave, on the other hand, could be freed (manumitted) by his owner at any time just as he could be legally sold or killed. I'm fairly sure a child slave couldn't be freed but I'd not swear to that.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
Doesn't matter what time or Era it is Slavery is unethical. We aren't suppose to own each other. Overtime we have outlawed it in most countries. Is it still practiced I'm sure it is. 
[QUOTE]Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labour.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (such as wages) in return for their labour.[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Ethics across time
I suspect that behavior is ethical to to the time, place and culture in which one lives. Cannibalism, slavery, incest, stealing, all repugnant in today's society, but totally acceptable in past societies.
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Ethics across time
Well in Roman times, if slavery was unethical, how about crucifixion?
Often slaves were treated like one of the family ... it wasn't a bad life except you were a slave!
Most free people today are slaves to one thing or another anyway!
Ryan.
Often slaves were treated like one of the family ... it wasn't a bad life except you were a slave!
Most free people today are slaves to one thing or another anyway!
Ryan.
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Ethics across time
The question is whether those 'slaves' willingly went into their roles as subservient to another. From what I can glean, this is not so and even the first reference in the Bible to Nimrod was as a hunter of men as opposed to a recruiter.
It is clear even from fairly recent social thinking that certain groups of people are often looked upon as inferior. Black African negroes for instance who have otherwise proved themselves quite as capable if not more so than their captors.
I have no doubt that some people had better lives as a slave. For others, the hierarchy that existed amongst the slaves was probably more a source of injustice than the terms of the slavery.
Why should oarsmen have to be whipped or, in the very least, threatened with the whip, if they were ready and eager to man the oars?
We are not that far away from the Master and Servant Act that used to be the basis for employment in the UK. As such, employment today is based in the most part on this old arrangement.
It is clear even from fairly recent social thinking that certain groups of people are often looked upon as inferior. Black African negroes for instance who have otherwise proved themselves quite as capable if not more so than their captors.
I have no doubt that some people had better lives as a slave. For others, the hierarchy that existed amongst the slaves was probably more a source of injustice than the terms of the slavery.
Why should oarsmen have to be whipped or, in the very least, threatened with the whip, if they were ready and eager to man the oars?
We are not that far away from the Master and Servant Act that used to be the basis for employment in the UK. As such, employment today is based in the most part on this old arrangement.
Ethics across time
CARLA;1078872 wrote: Doesn't matter what time or Era it is Slavery is unethical. We aren't suppose to own each other. Overtime we have outlawed it in most countries. Is it still practiced I'm sure it is.
So how do you tell which ethic is the one true all-time overriding true ethic? Is it that the most recent ethic invariably overrides the ethics of the past? If that's not the test then what is?
So how do you tell which ethic is the one true all-time overriding true ethic? Is it that the most recent ethic invariably overrides the ethics of the past? If that's not the test then what is?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
My head is spinning Spot try saying that 10 times real fast. :wah:
[QUOTE]So how do you tell which ethic is the one true all-time overriding true ethic? Is it that the most recent ethic invariably overrides the ethics of the past? If that's not the test then what is?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]So how do you tell which ethic is the one true all-time overriding true ethic? Is it that the most recent ethic invariably overrides the ethics of the past? If that's not the test then what is?[/QUOTE]
ALOHA!!
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
MOTTO TO LIVE BY:
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, champagne in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming.
WOO HOO!!, what a ride!!!"
Ethics across time
Touchstone;1078890 wrote: Well in Roman times, if slavery was unethical, how about crucifixion?When a culture bans the death penalty on ethical grounds perhaps we'll be justified in regarding crucifixion as unethical too.
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
spot;1078983 wrote: When a culture bans the death penalty on ethical grounds perhaps we'll be justified in regarding crucifixion as unethical too.
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
I think the speed or length of time it takes one to die has something to do with it. Crucifixion is a slow death, you might even say, a torturing death.
A bullet to the head is certainly quick, but messy, and therefore deemed to be inhumane by some. Ah, but lethal injection, no fuss, no muss, just go to sleep apparently and compared to other means of execution it's relatively quick.
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
I think the speed or length of time it takes one to die has something to do with it. Crucifixion is a slow death, you might even say, a torturing death.
A bullet to the head is certainly quick, but messy, and therefore deemed to be inhumane by some. Ah, but lethal injection, no fuss, no muss, just go to sleep apparently and compared to other means of execution it's relatively quick.
Ethics across time
CARLA;1078980 wrote: My head is spinning Spot try saying that 10 times real fast. :wah:
You said "Doesn't matter what time or Era it is Slavery is unethical" and yet the Romans didn't agree, they thought it was ethical. I asked how you were so sure you were right and they were wrong. I asked whether it was because you're more recent and you think recent ethics always win over older ethics. If it's not that, what is it that tells you your behaviour about slaves is more ethical than Roman behaviour?
You said "Doesn't matter what time or Era it is Slavery is unethical" and yet the Romans didn't agree, they thought it was ethical. I asked how you were so sure you were right and they were wrong. I asked whether it was because you're more recent and you think recent ethics always win over older ethics. If it's not that, what is it that tells you your behaviour about slaves is more ethical than Roman behaviour?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
does it matter what era?
no one has rights to own another!:-5
no one has rights to own another!:-5
Life is just to short for drama.
Ethics across time
Odie;1079054 wrote: does it matter what era?
no one has rights to own another!:-5
Are you saying the Romans were ignorant savages with no conscience? Because there were a lot of them for two thousand years and people have looked at their culture admiringly and said wow, they're a very ethical culture. What tells you that your ethical sense is better than theirs? It may be that yours is better, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm asking how you know.
Remember "apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us" in The Life Of Brian? They spread all that around the known world, they had a system of laws that form the basis of yours and mine two thousand years later. They thought very carefully about whether owning and using slaves was ethical or not. They decided it was.
no one has rights to own another!:-5
Are you saying the Romans were ignorant savages with no conscience? Because there were a lot of them for two thousand years and people have looked at their culture admiringly and said wow, they're a very ethical culture. What tells you that your ethical sense is better than theirs? It may be that yours is better, I'm not saying it isn't. I'm asking how you know.
Remember "apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us" in The Life Of Brian? They spread all that around the known world, they had a system of laws that form the basis of yours and mine two thousand years later. They thought very carefully about whether owning and using slaves was ethical or not. They decided it was.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
I hate to try to steer a thread but I'm trying hard to find out what makes one culture's ethics better than another's. A discussion on slavery is fascinating but I'd quite like someone to at least notice what I asked, the thread title's a bit of a giveaway. Are ethics specific to a particular time? If they're specific to a particular time and there were cultures concurrent with Ancient Rome which were anti-slavery, were they unethical at that time for behaving as they did?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
spot;1079070 wrote: I hate to try to steer a thread but I'm trying hard to find out what makes one culture's ethics better than another's. A discussion on slavery is fascinating but I'd quite like someone to at least notice what I asked, the thread title's a bit of a giveaway. Are ethics specific to a particular time? If they're specific to a particular time and there were cultures concurrent with Ancient Rome which were anti-slavery, were they unethical at that time for behaving as they did?
I did I thought. Perhaps I was too trite.
I did I thought. Perhaps I was too trite.
Ethics across time
OpenMind;1079074 wrote: I did I thought. Perhaps I was too trite.
Not at all. Which side did you come down on?
Not at all. Which side did you come down on?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Ethics across time
In other words, is right and wrong absolute, or relative?
And what do we mean by right and wrong anyway? Right and wrong as decided by whom? By human interpretation of the Divine Will, if we admit such exists? By the philosophical discourses of humans who enjoy this kind of rhetoric? By the inner feelings / conscience / whatever of some people who believe they have one as opposed to being conditioned to do good stuff for approval/ woofly nice feelings / being loved etc etc??
In my opinion, people seem to do what they can for their own benefit, at any time... within the parameters of what they can get away with. Social laws are compromises made to make it possible for a bunch of humans like this (like us) to live in a community. We give up a few of our natural instincts for exploiting/murdering/raping/robbing each other in order that we in turn won't be exploited/murdered/raped/robbed.
Maybe some people are born kinder than others. I know some people I consider 'good', but just looking at our world... there are an awful lot who are frighteningly awful.
And what do we mean by right and wrong anyway? Right and wrong as decided by whom? By human interpretation of the Divine Will, if we admit such exists? By the philosophical discourses of humans who enjoy this kind of rhetoric? By the inner feelings / conscience / whatever of some people who believe they have one as opposed to being conditioned to do good stuff for approval/ woofly nice feelings / being loved etc etc??
In my opinion, people seem to do what they can for their own benefit, at any time... within the parameters of what they can get away with. Social laws are compromises made to make it possible for a bunch of humans like this (like us) to live in a community. We give up a few of our natural instincts for exploiting/murdering/raping/robbing each other in order that we in turn won't be exploited/murdered/raped/robbed.
Maybe some people are born kinder than others. I know some people I consider 'good', but just looking at our world... there are an awful lot who are frighteningly awful.
"Life is too short to ski with ugly men"
Ethics across time
spot;1079083 wrote: Not at all. Which side did you come down on?
On a sliding scale, it is probably more accepted today than it was in the past, but under a different guise. Slavery doesn't appear to ever have been acceptable as a concept but always treated as an economical necessity.
There is a necessity to draw a line between those who have willingly prostrated theirselves in service for another person deemed to be of more value and worth as opposed to those who had to be coerced into servitude.
Slavery, by definition, is the control of one person by another. It can only be ethical if the slave agreed willingly and freely to the relationship.
Thus my answer would be, from what historical references I have come across in my life, that both ethical and inethical slavery existed throughout the Roman era as with other eras.
On a sliding scale, it is probably more accepted today than it was in the past, but under a different guise. Slavery doesn't appear to ever have been acceptable as a concept but always treated as an economical necessity.
There is a necessity to draw a line between those who have willingly prostrated theirselves in service for another person deemed to be of more value and worth as opposed to those who had to be coerced into servitude.
Slavery, by definition, is the control of one person by another. It can only be ethical if the slave agreed willingly and freely to the relationship.
Thus my answer would be, from what historical references I have come across in my life, that both ethical and inethical slavery existed throughout the Roman era as with other eras.
Ethics across time
spot;1079070 wrote: I hate to try to steer a thread but I'm trying hard to find out what makes one culture's ethics better than another's. A discussion on slavery is fascinating but I'd quite like someone to at least notice what I asked, the thread title's a bit of a giveaway. Are ethics specific to a particular time? If they're specific to a particular time and there were cultures concurrent with Ancient Rome which were anti-slavery, were they unethical at that time for behaving as they did?
I am not sure that anyone can say that one culture's ethics are better than another. It would depend I think, on what is acceptable within a particular culture. What would give one culture the right to decide another culture's ethics? Religion? Rule of Law?
I am not sure that anyone can say that one culture's ethics are better than another. It would depend I think, on what is acceptable within a particular culture. What would give one culture the right to decide another culture's ethics? Religion? Rule of Law?
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Ethics across time
spot;1078983 wrote: When a culture bans the death penalty on ethical grounds perhaps we'll be justified in regarding crucifixion as unethical too.
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
I was waiting for this post Mr. Scrooge! It sure didn't take you very long to get around to your obsession ... USA bashing ... did it? I think it came in your 4th or 5th post!
America does not need an excuse to opt for a civilised society free from Murder ...
and the most violent of all crimes ...Rape.
Despite ALL the arguments to the contrary ... the death penalty is and will always be a deterrent.
Murderers take away the rights of their victims permanently ... why then should THEY enjoy any rights?
Ryan.
How much fear and eventual pain a society inspires in those it condemns to death is difficult to measure but I note that no attempt is made in the US to guarantee unconsciousness during the heart attack phase of lethal injections, and it would be as easy as sin to confirm it if the terror element weren't presumably considered so desirable an objective. Crucifixion had much the same aim in mind. So did drawing and quartering four hundred years ago in England or burning at the stake.
If a society or culture regards the death penalty as ethical I don't see why it would collectively object to crucifixion as an effective means of administering it. The Romans killed in order to terrorise the living into obedience, what's America's excuse?
I was waiting for this post Mr. Scrooge! It sure didn't take you very long to get around to your obsession ... USA bashing ... did it? I think it came in your 4th or 5th post!
America does not need an excuse to opt for a civilised society free from Murder ...
and the most violent of all crimes ...Rape.
Despite ALL the arguments to the contrary ... the death penalty is and will always be a deterrent.
Murderers take away the rights of their victims permanently ... why then should THEY enjoy any rights?
Ryan.
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Ethics across time
THE MORALITY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
On a final note, how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. As Edward Koch once said:
"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
Award-winning Chicago journalist Mike Royko strongly defended this position by stating:
"When I think of the thousands of inhabitants of Death Rows in the hundreds of prisons in this country...My reaction is: What's taking us so long? Let's get that electrical current flowing. Drop those pellets [of poison gas] now! Whenever I argue this with friends who have opposite views, they say that I don't have enough regard for the most marvelous of miracles - human life. Just the opposite: It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says..that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully."
Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950:
"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."
In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he says the following:
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.
Over the decades, public safety has become an insignificant, meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. It has become a trend for most western, industrialized nations to treat public safety as though it were a trivial privilege that they can ignore, neglect, and deny their decent, law-abiding citizens, even though it is recognized as a human right under Article 12 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
And still, too many nations feel entitled to neglect their moral duty to defend the honor and dignity of decent, law abiding citizens from violent criminals. They no longer consider it a priority, let alone a human right.
Indeed, no other time in the history of the world has public safety ever been more trivialized than it is today. But there are indications that this will change.
A former prime minister of Hungary and the leader of its center-right opposition, Viktor Orban, has called on Europe to lift its ban. His announcement came after eight people were killed in a bank robbery in Hungary - and after his party lost national elections. Early in 2006, Kaczynski of Poland called for a debate on the restoration of the death penalty in his country and throughout Europe.
Countries that give up this penalty award an unimaginable advantage to the criminal over his victim, the advantage of life over death," Kaczynski said in July. His coalition partner, the far- right League of Polish Families, wants to change the country's penal code so that pedophiles convicted of murder would face execution.
As the flagship of democracy, it is the United States responsibility to demonstrate that public safety is not some trivial privilege, but an unalienable human right for every decent citizen. Therefore, the USA should set the example that every civilized nation has a moral responsibility to defend the safety of their decent civilians at least as diligently as they defend national security with an army.
As aptly pointed out by Donald Atwell Zoll, Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University:
"Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is...repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it...If we are to preserve a humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquillity and civility may rule comprehensively. It seems very likely that capital punishment is a...necessary, if limited, factor in that maintenance of social tranquillity and ought to be retained on this ground. To do otherwise is to indulge in the luxury of permitting a sense of false delicacy to reign over the necessity of social survival."
Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless ways to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that supporting armies and waging war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. So I find it hypocritical that the same countries who have abolished capital punishment because it is "barbaric" to defend public safety that way are at the same time prepared to enforce political power and defend their territorial claims through infinitely more violence and bloodshed than the death penalty would ever require. It seems to me that those nations are just trying to rationalize their apathy and scorn for any institution that doesn't serve their self-serving and political interests.
Even famed Russian author of "War and Peace" and pacifist Leo Tolstoy referred to capital punishment's morality to criticize warfare when he said:
"For the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been adjudged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men."
The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their moral duty to defend the safety and security of their decent citizens and leaves them at the mercy of violent criminals, they are not being "civilized," they are being negligent.
I am certain that there will come a time when all the nations in the world will be forced to agree after decades of experience on this issue, that capital punishment, like the military and the police force and taxes, is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of every civilized society and it will no longer be a question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used.
While I believe that prompt and consistent executions would have a deterrent effect, there remains one great virtue, even for infrequent executions. The recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed again. You can't say that about those sentenced to prison, even if you are an abolitionist.
On a final note, how can murder be taken seriously if the penalty isn't equally as serious? A crime, after all, is only as severe as the punishment that follows it. As Edward Koch once said:
"It is by exacting the highest penalty for the taking of human life that we affirm the highest value of human life."
Award-winning Chicago journalist Mike Royko strongly defended this position by stating:
"When I think of the thousands of inhabitants of Death Rows in the hundreds of prisons in this country...My reaction is: What's taking us so long? Let's get that electrical current flowing. Drop those pellets [of poison gas] now! Whenever I argue this with friends who have opposite views, they say that I don't have enough regard for the most marvelous of miracles - human life. Just the opposite: It's because I have so much regard for human life that I favor capital punishment. Murder is the most terrible crime there is. Anything less than the death penalty is an insult to the victim and society. It says..that we don't value the victim's life enough to punish the killer fully."
Lord Justice Denning, Master of the Rolls of the Court of Appeals in England said to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1950:
"Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrong doing; and, in order to maintain respect for the law, it is essential that the punishment inflicted for grave crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. It is a mistake to consider the objects of punishments as being a deterrent or reformative or preventive and nothing else... The truth is that some crimes are so outrageous that society insists on adequate punishment, because the wrong doer deserves it, irrespective of whether it is a deterrent or not."
In J.J. Rousseau's The Social Contract written in 1762, he says the following:
Again, every rogue who criminously attacks social rights becomes, by his wrong, a rebel and a traitor to his fatherland. By contravening its laws, he ceases to be one of its citizens: he even wages war against it. In such circumstances, the State and he cannot both be saved: one or the other must perish. In killing the criminal, we destroy not so much a citizen as an enemy. The trial and judgements are proofs that he has broken the Social Contract, and so is no longer a member of the State.
Over the decades, public safety has become an insignificant, meaningless thing, not worth defending anymore, and the death penalty has been persecuted for just that reason. It has become a trend for most western, industrialized nations to treat public safety as though it were a trivial privilege that they can ignore, neglect, and deny their decent, law-abiding citizens, even though it is recognized as a human right under Article 12 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
And still, too many nations feel entitled to neglect their moral duty to defend the honor and dignity of decent, law abiding citizens from violent criminals. They no longer consider it a priority, let alone a human right.
Indeed, no other time in the history of the world has public safety ever been more trivialized than it is today. But there are indications that this will change.
A former prime minister of Hungary and the leader of its center-right opposition, Viktor Orban, has called on Europe to lift its ban. His announcement came after eight people were killed in a bank robbery in Hungary - and after his party lost national elections. Early in 2006, Kaczynski of Poland called for a debate on the restoration of the death penalty in his country and throughout Europe.
Countries that give up this penalty award an unimaginable advantage to the criminal over his victim, the advantage of life over death," Kaczynski said in July. His coalition partner, the far- right League of Polish Families, wants to change the country's penal code so that pedophiles convicted of murder would face execution.
As the flagship of democracy, it is the United States responsibility to demonstrate that public safety is not some trivial privilege, but an unalienable human right for every decent citizen. Therefore, the USA should set the example that every civilized nation has a moral responsibility to defend the safety of their decent civilians at least as diligently as they defend national security with an army.
As aptly pointed out by Donald Atwell Zoll, Professor of Political Science at Arizona State University:
"Capital punishment ought not to be abolished solely because it is...repulsive, if infinitely less repulsive than the acts which invoke it...If we are to preserve a humane society we will have to retain sufficient strength of character and will to do the unpleasant in order that tranquillity and civility may rule comprehensively. It seems very likely that capital punishment is a...necessary, if limited, factor in that maintenance of social tranquillity and ought to be retained on this ground. To do otherwise is to indulge in the luxury of permitting a sense of false delicacy to reign over the necessity of social survival."
Every country in the world is ready and willing to kill thousands, even millions of human beings in brutal, merciless ways to defend their nation from the aggression of other countries. I don't see why public safety doesn't deserve as much respect and protection as a nation's national security does. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that supporting armies and waging war is far more barbarous than the death penalty is. So I find it hypocritical that the same countries who have abolished capital punishment because it is "barbaric" to defend public safety that way are at the same time prepared to enforce political power and defend their territorial claims through infinitely more violence and bloodshed than the death penalty would ever require. It seems to me that those nations are just trying to rationalize their apathy and scorn for any institution that doesn't serve their self-serving and political interests.
Even famed Russian author of "War and Peace" and pacifist Leo Tolstoy referred to capital punishment's morality to criticize warfare when he said:
"For the executioner only holds himself in readiness to kill those who have been adjudged to be harmful and criminal, while a soldier promises to kill all who he is told to kill, even though they may be the dearest to him or the best of men."
The whole reason why nations and governments exist is to defend their decent citizens from vicious criminals. When it fails to do that, they become of little use to its citizens. When a society ignores their moral duty to defend the safety and security of their decent citizens and leaves them at the mercy of violent criminals, they are not being "civilized," they are being negligent.
I am certain that there will come a time when all the nations in the world will be forced to agree after decades of experience on this issue, that capital punishment, like the military and the police force and taxes, is an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of every civilized society and it will no longer be a question of whether or not a nation should have the death penalty, but rather how it should be used.
While I believe that prompt and consistent executions would have a deterrent effect, there remains one great virtue, even for infrequent executions. The recidivism rate for capital punishment is zero. No executed murderer has ever killed again. You can't say that about those sentenced to prison, even if you are an abolitionist.
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Ethics across time
fuzzy butt;1079378 wrote: for everytime in history a nation has used capital punishment they have also minimised the psychological effect of 'killing' on it's citizens. Those people become immuned and not as revolted by death as they once were. They see a need to kill and thus are willing to commit their children to war and conflict. Because if you accept death for a just cause it only esculates to more just causes.
Capital punishment does not bring back anyone nor does it stop the killers. You may get one or two but you kid yourself that their wont be others and everyone has learnt a lesson. but people still kill and in more and more grizzly ways.
I've watched America with it's death row inmates and the media that keeps their memories alive living and after death.............What's the point?
why not just send them away? it's because Americans and others have a grim fasination with killing and they want more and more sensationalism of it. They want the darker side of the human soul to be shown because they get off on it. They need it like a drug.
Example- why does the media have accsess to the most heiness criminals? Why do we know (are allowed to know) about their everyday existence?
You guys love it and live off the scum you condemn. It's your own little horror show, your perverse entertainment.
None of us should know the details of an execution nor the details of the last of a victims life ...............at least for decency purposes. But you lap it up every little bit of the morbid details. You love to stand there and say "how revolting" "what a bastard" "Kill him/ her", "string them up". And all the while getting your rocks off. You dont' think horror and the emotions that go withit isn't entertainment . if it's not in the morning paper you demand that it is . You want the news to splash it all ovber your tv sets .
problem is ...so you keep getting your entertainment you're going to keep needing more and more victims . You do it to yourselves you breed them .
Oh yes you civilized ones.
Not all Americans agree with the death penalty, Fuzzy. I don't think the death penalty is applicable to all the states.
Capital punishment does not bring back anyone nor does it stop the killers. You may get one or two but you kid yourself that their wont be others and everyone has learnt a lesson. but people still kill and in more and more grizzly ways.
I've watched America with it's death row inmates and the media that keeps their memories alive living and after death.............What's the point?
why not just send them away? it's because Americans and others have a grim fasination with killing and they want more and more sensationalism of it. They want the darker side of the human soul to be shown because they get off on it. They need it like a drug.
Example- why does the media have accsess to the most heiness criminals? Why do we know (are allowed to know) about their everyday existence?
You guys love it and live off the scum you condemn. It's your own little horror show, your perverse entertainment.
None of us should know the details of an execution nor the details of the last of a victims life ...............at least for decency purposes. But you lap it up every little bit of the morbid details. You love to stand there and say "how revolting" "what a bastard" "Kill him/ her", "string them up". And all the while getting your rocks off. You dont' think horror and the emotions that go withit isn't entertainment . if it's not in the morning paper you demand that it is . You want the news to splash it all ovber your tv sets .
problem is ...so you keep getting your entertainment you're going to keep needing more and more victims . You do it to yourselves you breed them .
Oh yes you civilized ones.
Not all Americans agree with the death penalty, Fuzzy. I don't think the death penalty is applicable to all the states.
-
Touchstone
- Posts: 182
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 12:53 pm
Ethics across time
fuzzy butt;1079378 wrote: for everytime in history a nation has used capital punishment they have also minimised the psychological effect of 'killing' on it's citizens. Those people become immuned and not as revolted by death as they once were. They see a need to kill and thus are willing to commit their children to war and conflict. Because if you accept death for a just cause it only esculates to more just causes.
Capital punishment does not bring back anyone nor does it stop the killers. You may get one or two but you kid yourself that their wont be others and everyone has learnt a lesson. but people still kill and in more and more grizzly ways.
I've watched America with it's death row inmates and the media that keeps their memories alive living and after death.............What's the point?
why not just send them away? it's because Americans and others have a grim fasination with killing and they want more and more sensationalism of it. They want the darker side of the human soul to be shown because they get off on it. They need it like a drug.
Example- why does the media have accsess to the most heiness criminals? Why do we know (are allowed to know) about their everyday existence?
You guys love it and live off the scum you condemn. It's your own little horror show, your perverse entertainment.
None of us should know the details of an execution nor the details of the last of a victims life ...............at least for decency purposes. But you lap it up every little bit of the morbid details. You love to stand there and say "how revolting" "what a bastard" "Kill him/ her", "string them up". And all the while getting your rocks off. You dont' think horror and the emotions that go withit isn't entertainment . if it's not in the morning paper you demand that it is . You want the news to splash it all ovber your tv sets .
problem is ...so you keep getting your entertainment you're going to keep needing more and more victims . You do it to yourselves you breed them .
Oh yes you civilized ones.
Jeez Megan ... you have even outspotted Spot with this post!
Wow I haven't read such hostility, sarcasm, and cynicism in a single post for a very long time!
Ryan.
Capital punishment does not bring back anyone nor does it stop the killers. You may get one or two but you kid yourself that their wont be others and everyone has learnt a lesson. but people still kill and in more and more grizzly ways.
I've watched America with it's death row inmates and the media that keeps their memories alive living and after death.............What's the point?
why not just send them away? it's because Americans and others have a grim fasination with killing and they want more and more sensationalism of it. They want the darker side of the human soul to be shown because they get off on it. They need it like a drug.
Example- why does the media have accsess to the most heiness criminals? Why do we know (are allowed to know) about their everyday existence?
You guys love it and live off the scum you condemn. It's your own little horror show, your perverse entertainment.
None of us should know the details of an execution nor the details of the last of a victims life ...............at least for decency purposes. But you lap it up every little bit of the morbid details. You love to stand there and say "how revolting" "what a bastard" "Kill him/ her", "string them up". And all the while getting your rocks off. You dont' think horror and the emotions that go withit isn't entertainment . if it's not in the morning paper you demand that it is . You want the news to splash it all ovber your tv sets .
problem is ...so you keep getting your entertainment you're going to keep needing more and more victims . You do it to yourselves you breed them .
Oh yes you civilized ones.
Jeez Megan ... you have even outspotted Spot with this post!
Wow I haven't read such hostility, sarcasm, and cynicism in a single post for a very long time!
Ryan.
I don't want to press "1" for English. This is America!
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
"History teaches that when you become indifferent and lose the will to fight someone who has the will to fight will take over." COLONEL BULL SIMONS
Ethics across time
Wow I haven't read such hostility, sarcasm, and cynicism in a single post for a very long time!
Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy. In a philosophy forum, you should really try to avoid them.
Fact is, there are plenty of statistics to support that capital punishment does not actually deter commitment of capital crimes to any significant degree.
States in the US which practice the death penalty are also among states with the highest rate of offense in capital crimes. Now, you could argue that there would be EVEN MORE capital crime occuring if these states did not have the death penalty, but if you take that route, you're basically suggesting that places that already lead the country, the continent, and a not small number of other first-world-nations in commitment of capital crimes would be EVEN MORE CRIME RIDDEN. If you really think that even more crime would be happening if it weren't for the death penalty, then you have a serious serious problem to fix, because the degree of such crimes already occuring is dangerously high compared to the rest of the world.
The justice system was designed with 4 purposes in mind. Compensation for the victim, Punishment for the offender, Rehabilitation into society, and Deterrant to potential criminals.
It seems to me that the justice system pretty much accomplishes none of those things at all properly.
Someone getting more prison time for embezzling money from their multinational corporate employers than for raping a young child seems to deny compensation for the victim.
Prisoners with full access to cable television, swimming pools, libraries, three full and nutritious meals per day, and a warm place to sleep seem to deny punishment for the offender.
The incredibly rampant cases of career criminals, and rates of re-offense lend total lie to the concept of rehabilitation, and the pretty much complete lack of a drop in any significant rates of crime make me think that nobody is being particularly deterred either.
Ad Hominem attacks are a logical fallacy. In a philosophy forum, you should really try to avoid them.
Fact is, there are plenty of statistics to support that capital punishment does not actually deter commitment of capital crimes to any significant degree.
States in the US which practice the death penalty are also among states with the highest rate of offense in capital crimes. Now, you could argue that there would be EVEN MORE capital crime occuring if these states did not have the death penalty, but if you take that route, you're basically suggesting that places that already lead the country, the continent, and a not small number of other first-world-nations in commitment of capital crimes would be EVEN MORE CRIME RIDDEN. If you really think that even more crime would be happening if it weren't for the death penalty, then you have a serious serious problem to fix, because the degree of such crimes already occuring is dangerously high compared to the rest of the world.
The justice system was designed with 4 purposes in mind. Compensation for the victim, Punishment for the offender, Rehabilitation into society, and Deterrant to potential criminals.
It seems to me that the justice system pretty much accomplishes none of those things at all properly.
Someone getting more prison time for embezzling money from their multinational corporate employers than for raping a young child seems to deny compensation for the victim.
Prisoners with full access to cable television, swimming pools, libraries, three full and nutritious meals per day, and a warm place to sleep seem to deny punishment for the offender.
The incredibly rampant cases of career criminals, and rates of re-offense lend total lie to the concept of rehabilitation, and the pretty much complete lack of a drop in any significant rates of crime make me think that nobody is being particularly deterred either.