Murder without guilt

Use this forum to discuss the January 2023 Philosophy Book of the MonthEntanglement - Quantum and Otherwise by John K Danenbarger
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2367
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Sushan »

Mounce574 wrote: January 21st, 2023, 7:39 am I didn't feel guilt for those that I may have killed overseas because they were intending to kill me. As for taking a life, unless I am threatened, I would rather avoid the confrontation.
I assume that you are talking about killings in the war. Please correct me if I am wrong. In that case, yes, you have to defend yourself. But the initial choice to be in the battlefield and confront the enemy was yours. The enemy may had no intentions to kill you when you were at your home. But when you are at his territory, then it is whether the enemy or you. Both parties have the same choice, either to kill or be killed. In such a situation choosing to kill the other one will neither make you bad or good. But if you could have avoided the initial presence in the battle filed, then the situation would never have occurred.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2367
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Sushan »

Good_Egg wrote: January 21st, 2023, 10:20 am I remember reading a (fictional) story about the mysterious case of a number of condemned prisoners who dropped dead as they were being marched out to the electric chair or the firing squad.

The culprit turned out to be a mad scientist character testing a new death ray.

Who had in effect reasoned that this was the minimum-guilt way of doing it...
Well, since they were already on the death raw, some might argue that it is okay to take their lives in any way. But the scientist had no ethical, moral, or legal right to do what he did. Maybe he was harbouring a greater thought and he was free of any guilt after completing his action. Someday he might be a Nobel Prize winner as well. Still, even in fiction, this has been a less guilt way but not a 'guilt-free' way.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2367
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Sushan »

Alastair1980 wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:35 pm I think there is a difference between what someone, or many people, have come to expect as the psychological consequence of an action and what the 'correct' consequence should be. There doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that a person should feel guilt after having killing another besides our preference that they do so; alongside this, it's likely that murder would be far easier for a person incapable of feeling guilt (or similar emotions) and so in many instances it would be wrong for us to expect guilt.

Put simply, when anyone says that they believe a murderer 'should' feel guilty, this can only be taken to mean that they believe guilt to be the appropriate response; however, they have no grounds to suppose that it is in any way 'correct'.
If we look at this in another perspective, I think many of us had had moments of overwhelming anger that went up to a point to create thoughts in our head to kill the one who is the cause for all our trouble at the moment. But none of us (I suppose :wink: ) had committed any murder so far because we had so many factors to avoid us from doing anything so. Rational thinking and the feeling of guilt may have played a big role in that situation. And I think that was the appropriate feeling at that time and the correct one as well.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:11 am I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.
Sushan wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:47 amThose who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:02 amWe might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.
Sushan wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 3:08 amThe same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2367
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Sushan »

Mercury wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 5:26 am
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:11 am I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.
Sushan wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:47 amThose who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:02 amWe might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.
Sushan wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 3:08 amThe same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.
I agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Mercury
Posts: 377
Joined: December 17th, 2013, 6:36 pm

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Mercury »

Mercury wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 5:26 am
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:11 am I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.
Sushan wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:47 amThose who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:02 amWe might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.
Sushan wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 3:08 amThe same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.
Sushan wrote: January 25th, 2023, 6:06 amI agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.
I looked it up, and in the US it seems that on the whole states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. It's not completely uniform, i.e. some states that have death penalty have lower murder rates than some that don't, but the overall figure - all states added together, is consistent over time. I'm still not entirely convinced because there's a lot more questions to be asked; not least - which is the cart and which the horse. i.e. do states have the death penalty because of all the people getting murdered - while others, don't have the death penalty because the murder rate is low? I'd need more detailed statistics. But at first glance, there's evidence in support of your argument.
All that said, I still maintain that some people deserve to die. I watched the Darrell Brooks trial, and he was sentenced to over 1000 years in jail. Which is to say, the vast majority of his sentence will not be carried out. Whereas, if he could have been sentenced to death 76 times - he could have served that sentence in each case.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2367
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Sushan »

Mercury wrote: January 25th, 2023, 12:38 pm
Mercury wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 5:26 am
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:11 am I do not think murder is morally permissible, and therefore must carry the appropriate burden of guilt - and it is a heavy burden. You do not kill an individual, but the struggles of their ancestors, to survive, to breed, to bring future generations into the world to give life to the person you deprived of life. You also murder all future generations to whom this person may have given life.
All that said, some people deserve to die. Some people commit acts that are so pitiless, they forego a human right to life. To afford them a human right to life would be to debauch what it is to be human. It is they who killed their ancestors and forebears, it is they who deserve to die.
Sushan wrote: January 21st, 2023, 12:47 amThose who are deserve to die (as you mentioned) have to be killed by someone in order to let them have what they deserve. But then the man who gives them what they deserve will simply be a killer, and why would he be any better than the ones who initially deserved death penalty?
Mercury wrote: January 21st, 2023, 1:02 amWe might suppose, perhaps that the death penalty has some deterrent effect; such that the executioner makes a statement about what will not be tolerated, and thereby saves lives even as they take a life.
Sushan wrote: January 23rd, 2023, 3:08 amThe same deterrent effect will be there if I choose to kill a serial killer for the betterment of society. Many will be saved from death. But I will still be a murderer, and even the law enforcement authorities will chase after me. I might feel accomplishment and happiness within me. But that does not make me a good guy. But to the society I might be a hero. Still, I will be a killer and a bad guy. Ultimately the only difference between me and the serial killer will be the number of deaths that are written in front of our names.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of deterrent. It's against the law to commit murder. If those who commit murder are executed, this prevents other people from committing murder because they don't want to be executed themselves. They are deterred by the severity of the potential punishment.

Vigilantes are not a deterrent because they are inconsistent. Society cannot know if a vigilante will avenge a murder in the way they know the law will, at least try to punish murderers. You may take personal satisfaction from killing a serial killer, but it won't deter anyone else. That said, if you could prove the person was a serial killer - and prove that you had to kill them in order to save the lives of other people, that wouldn't be murder. That would be justifiable homicide.
Sushan wrote: January 25th, 2023, 6:06 amI agree with the second part of your comment. But I am not very sure about the 'deterrent' part. Do we see a significant difference in the number of killings in the countries that practice capital punishment in comparison to the countries that do not practice that? I do not think so. I think the idea of any kind of punishment is this deterrent effect. But when I see the consistent number of crimes, I think either the humans are not learning anything, or the punishments are too light.
I looked it up, and in the US it seems that on the whole states with the death penalty have higher murder rates. It's not completely uniform, i.e. some states that have death penalty have lower murder rates than some that don't, but the overall figure - all states added together, is consistent over time. I'm still not entirely convinced because there's a lot more questions to be asked; not least - which is the cart and which the horse. i.e. do states have the death penalty because of all the people getting murdered - while others, don't have the death penalty because the murder rate is low? I'd need more detailed statistics. But at first glance, there's evidence in support of your argument.
All that said, I still maintain that some people deserve to die. I watched the Darrell Brooks trial, and he was sentenced to over 1000 years in jail. Which is to say, the vast majority of his sentence will not be carried out. Whereas, if he could have been sentenced to death 76 times - he could have served that sentence in each case.
Thank you for looking at the statistics regarding the matter. I think it is hard to control the human desires and thoughts by just showing either a reward or a punishment, like we do with lab rats.

I think that it might work in this way. If all the death penalties are recorded and shown to the others, if all the court orders are recorded and shown to the others, if corrupted government officials are punished and publicly humiliated, these will open at least some of the blind eyes. I have not heard about the Darrell Brooks Trial until you mentioned it. Then I saw the videos as well. So I too agree that the punishment was inadequate. But I think the criminals who saw this will think twice in the future (at least a better way to get away after committing a crime) before committing a new crime.
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Mounce574
Premium Member
Posts: 164
Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Mounce574 »

To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Ben Shapiro
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by LuckyR »

Mounce574 wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:47 pm To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."
Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Mounce574
Premium Member
Posts: 164
Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Mounce574 »

LuckyR wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:55 pm
Mounce574 wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:47 pm To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."
Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.
Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Ben Shapiro
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by LuckyR »

Mounce574 wrote: February 6th, 2023, 8:05 pm
LuckyR wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:55 pm
Mounce574 wrote: February 5th, 2023, 9:47 pm To be honest, I do not think that the death penalty is a deterrant like it should be. For instance: The Parkland Shooter- he killed, intentionally, 17 people. He faced the death penalty but was sentenced to life in prison.
The comment about vigilantes- you cannot avenge the death of anyone. It doesn't bring them back and it makes you fall to the level of the person who originally commited the crime.
I think the death penalty should be involve something equal to the pain the person inflicted upon their victim. Currently, lethal injection is the same thing as going to sleep for surgery. They administer Propofal and a paralytic that stops the heart. The Propofal what is used in surgery. I think that is a nice way to die- not feeling any pain at all.
Electric chair, hanging, firing squad- those are vicous ways to die, and overseas where they do those things, in front of crowds, are effective deterrents.
People literally need to stop and think about they are going to do and understand the repercussions of their actions. Immorality has flooded into the mainstream media and nobody says anything for fear of "hurting people's feelings."
Funny, my experience is now-a-days folks say any ol' foolishness, much more than before Social Media. True outliers get called out for saying certain stuff, but that's different than "nobody says anything". Besides, what's wrong with understanding that while YOU can say just about anything, OTHERS can ALSO say things, like they think you're full of cr4p or that they aren't going to patronize the business that employs you.
Let me bring up the pronoun arguement. A person wants you to use their preferred pronoun of they/them or zer/zir (or whatever it is). That person looks like a woman. If you call that person a woman, they get offended and call you transphobic or using hate-speech. I am more likely to be told that because I don't think that grammar negates a singular being as they/them and I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.
Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?
"As usual... it depends."
Good_Egg
Posts: 854
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Good_Egg »

LuckyR wrote: February 8th, 2023, 6:48 pm
I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.
Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?
How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 8153
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by LuckyR »

Good_Egg wrote: February 9th, 2023, 9:39 am
LuckyR wrote: February 8th, 2023, 6:48 pm
I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.
Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?
How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?
I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Mounce574
Premium Member
Posts: 164
Joined: October 8th, 2021, 2:24 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Mounce574 »

LuckyR wrote: February 9th, 2023, 1:09 pm
Good_Egg wrote: February 9th, 2023, 9:39 am
LuckyR wrote: February 8th, 2023, 6:48 pm
I don't live in the imaginary world that person does. That being stated, what do you say if you don't want to offend a complete stranger and don't know what identity that person is? I am traditionalist in the topic- you are a woman or a man- that's it. Again, I'd be labeled a bigot or transphoibic too.
Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).

If you see what appears to be a woman you (and everyone else who doesn't know her) are going to use she/her. Fine. If the person prefers "they" do you think they haven't heard "she" before? Especially from a complete stranger? You're not going to be labeled anything at that point, declaring otherwise is trying to play the reverse victim card. However, if the person tells you that they prefer "they" to "she", THAT'S when the question becomes simple. You said that you didn't want to offend a complete stranger, so don't offend "them" and use "they/them". Your "traditionalist" belief system notwithstanding: if you grew up calling Hispanics "Hispanic", but a person tells you they prefer "Latin" are you suffering from a paradox or do you just use "Latin"?
How far do you take that approach ?

If an SNP supporter says they're not British (because they're Scottish and Scotland shouldn't be part of Britain), do you go along with that ?

If an apparently 40-year-old person asks for a child fare on your bus, do you go along with that ?

Does courtesy demand that one has no convictions of one's own (regarding who others say they are) ?

Or is respect a two-way street ? Is communication about finding a form of words that both parties are comfortable with ?
I think you misunderstand my (and Mounce's stated) "approach". We were discussing conversations with a stranger.

If a Scot feels they aren't British, fine. I can't think of a conversation with a stranger where that would come up, but if it did I would NOT say: oh btw you know you're British, right? If you or anyone else just can't bring themselves to let that go then they are fooling themselves that their goal is how not to offend strangers. It would be to practice confrontationalism, ie picking fights.

OTOH, a 40 year old asking for a child's fare from a ticket taker, is an example of employer rule enforcement. The ticket taker's, (the employee's), opinion/standard is immaterial.

So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?
I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.
Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?
"Facts don't care about your feelings." Ben Shapiro
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." NF from Motto
Good_Egg
Posts: 854
Joined: January 27th, 2022, 5:12 am

Re: Murder without guilt

Post by Good_Egg »

LuckyR wrote: February 9th, 2023, 1:09 pm Easy question with a single logical answer. Having said that, many compound the situation with their "beliefs" instead of concentrating on what they supposedly are seeking to do (not wanting to offend a complete stranger).
If you're answering the question "how to get on with a stranger", then yes, the answer "accept their use of language" is both simple and true. "Don't insult them, their tribe or their religion" would be another.

But that's not really the point at issue. The question is more about what is a reasonable balance between getting on with other people and saying what one believes to be true. Somewhere between riding roughshod over their point of view and being a complete doormat lies a happy medium that is polite but not lacking assertiveness.

Even a conversation with a stranger is a form of relationship, involving give and take on both sides.
So, what's your answer to MY question, do you call the Hispanic guy "Latin" when asked, or do you persist in calling him "Hispanic"?
Since you asked, "Hispanic" as a racial descriptor is an Americanism that I have no attachment to. If I'm interested enough to ask about his racial background, then I'm likely to get a better answer if I use his terminology for it. If the terminology seems to me to contain an untruth (?"First Nations"?) then I have to weigh up pragmatically how much I want to hear his information against my distaste for untruth.

Whatever choice is made as part of that encounter, when he's gone away i'll happily talk with you about "cowboys and indians" in the language I grew up with. He has no rights over our conversations together.
Mounce574 wrote: February 10th, 2023, 4:30 am I don't refer to his heritage/race.
Unfortunately, avoidance doesn't always work.
Yes, avoiding topics where offence is likely to be taken seems prudent with strangers.

The difficulty with pronouns is that they appear to be making a judgment about a possibly-controversial topic, whilst it is difficult to avoid their use in natural English.

If a female person is visiting my office, I want to be able to say to a colleague to show her where she can get a cup of coffee, without going into personal details of how much that person identifies with masculinity/femininity.

Dragging one's personal baggage, psychological problems and sex life into an office setting is unprofessional.
Back to topic: murder without guilt- what guidelines outside of self-defense do you set that justifies murder in any way? Or is it considered punishment instead of murder?
Apologies for continuing the tangent. I post on a phone in odd moments and haven't mastered the art of quoting a tangential discussion on a new thread.

To my way of thinking, apart from self-defence the other justification for killing is consent. If someone of sound mind asks you to kill him or agrees to you killing him in order to achieve some goal that he cherishes, then it seems that you do not wrong him by so doing.

The law may not call that murder. But then we're into a problem of use of language again - we only call it murder when we think it's unjustified...
"Opinions are fiercest.. ..when the evidence to support or refute them is weakest" - Druin Burch
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise" by John K Danenbarger”

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021