[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Just clarifying because innocent die in both capital punishment and abortion, but the former is okay because the number is much smaller I guess?[/quote]
Distinctions again. With abortion, it is always the intention to kill an innocent human. Capital punishment never has that intention. If you want to talk the legality of capital punishment then fine, but realize the moral argument has nothing in common with abortion.
[quote]tedro wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Just clarifying because innocent die in both capital punishment and abortion, but the former is okay because the number is much smaller I guess?[/quote]
Distinctions again. With abortion, it is always the intention to kill an innocent human. Capital punishment never has that intention. If you want to talk the legality of capital punishment then fine, but realize the moral argument has nothing in common with abortion. [/quote]
Applies to mass murder too, if your intention is to get rid of all the bad people
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
…The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions[/quote]
Yeah that’s pretty messed up. If the only thing keeping your from robbing, killing and raping people is some ink on a piece of paper and what that represents, that’s pretty disturbing.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
…The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions[/quote]
Yeah that’s pretty messed up. If the only thing keeping your from robbing, killing and raping people is some ink on a piece of paper and what that represents, that’s pretty disturbing. [/quote]
And anyone who honestly believes otherwise are either living in a really small town/country where everyone knows each other and trust one another deeply and are culturally homogeneous or living in fantasy la-la land.
We have a sense of morality because we are taught to have one, not because we’re born with it. Kids are pathological liars; it is your parents who teach you that lying is bad, for example.
It’s also why I find the whole “Having a book or document tell me what to do is absurd, because if we believe in that then that must mean we’re all actually horrible people”
Yes. We are horrible people at heart. We simply don’t do horrible things because we’ve been conditioned by our parents and society that horrible things are either morally wrong or because the law will rip you a new one if you do something horrible.
But the idea that humans are good people at heart is bullshit imo.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
…The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions[/quote]
Yeah that’s pretty messed up. If the only thing keeping your from robbing, killing and raping people is some ink on a piece of paper and what that represents, that’s pretty disturbing. [/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I have a conscience, and I know some other people do too. But, a lot of people don’t. This is the kind of thing you notice especially in big urban areas everywhere, east coast, west coast, midwest, Europe, doesn’t matter where.
On top of that, people with no conscicence try to appear morally upstanding which is something that makes me pretty skeptical of claims about morality in discussion of a law. I knew a girl that was a staunch conservative christian that got pregnant at a bad time and basically drank herself stupid until she miscarried. I don’t think she had any doubt about what would happen drinking the way she did, so it was essentially no different than getting an abortion. She didn’t have a moral problem with the idea behind abortion, but she didn’t want to be associated with it for political and religious reasons. Similar hyporcisies have shaped my whole perspective on this issue.
Look the only point I was trying to get at, specifically about how most peoples minds work these discussions is nothing is actually about morality. Liberals try to define abortion as not murder somehow so they can say its moral, but they really don’t care, as long as the law is on their side they won’t worry about it. They just want to allow people an easy way out when they have done something irresponsible
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hold everything.
Did you just imply that the only thing holding ordinary people back from murdering each other, and the only thing stopping murderers from killing all the cops, is that there’s a law against it?
Ah ha.
Ah ha ha.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha![/quote]
The government is the reason the sun rises, is it not?[/quote]
Like the Pharao.
Nice.
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
Look the only point I was trying to get at, specifically about how most peoples minds work these discussions is nothing is actually about morality. Liberals try to define abortion as not murder somehow so they can say its moral, but they really don’t care, as long as the law is on their side they won’t worry about it. They just want to allow people an easy way out when they have done something irresponsible[/quote]
I thought it was about women’s rights to do as she wills with her body?
Which then got complicated by the claims that the baby is alive and has rights the moment its conceived.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
…The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions[/quote]
Yeah that’s pretty messed up. If the only thing keeping your from robbing, killing and raping people is some ink on a piece of paper and what that represents, that’s pretty disturbing. [/quote]
And anyone who honestly believes otherwise are either living in a really small town/country where everyone knows each other and trust one another deeply and are culturally homogeneous or living in fantasy la-la land.
We have a sense of morality because we are taught to have one, not because we’re born with it. Kids are pathological liars; it is your parents who teach you that lying is bad, for example.
It’s also why I find the whole “Having a book or document tell me what to do is absurd, because if we believe in that then that must mean we’re all actually horrible people”
Yes. We are horrible people at heart. We simply don’t do horrible things because we’ve been conditioned by our parents and society that horrible things are either morally wrong or because the law will rip you a new one if you do something horrible.
But the idea that humans are good people at heart is bullshit imo.[/quote]
How did these laws come into place though? They represent things we knew to be a good way of doing things, and decided these ideas were worth putting into writing for clarity. When people behave in an utterly selfish manner without regard for how their actions affect those around them, that’s a failure of an upbringing usually, as you alluded to. In case you hadn’t noticed, laws don’t keep people from stealing, killing, etc in a LOT of cases. Because they are selfish people from the start, a piece of paper won’t stop them. Likewise, a generally moral person doesn’t NEED a law to tell him what is right in the majority of cases. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that most humans are just naturally good or anything. But if you need it written down to keep you from killing anyone you don’t like, there’s some bigger issues there.
Jeff Cooper, in his Principles of Personal Defense (if I recall correctly), opined that in any community, about one in every hundred is an irredeemable sociopath who feels little compunction about doing you harm. About one in a thousand is a psychopath who will definitely do you harm I given the opportunity. A law against murder will do nothing to deter these people, and for the remainder of the population, a law against murder is superfluous, as they are generally not inclined to commit it.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
…The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions[/quote]
Yeah that’s pretty messed up. If the only thing keeping your from robbing, killing and raping people is some ink on a piece of paper and what that represents, that’s pretty disturbing. [/quote]
And anyone who honestly believes otherwise are either living in a really small town/country where everyone knows each other and trust one another deeply and are culturally homogeneous or living in fantasy la-la land.
We have a sense of morality because we are taught to have one, not because we’re born with it. Kids are pathological liars; it is your parents who teach you that lying is bad, for example.
It’s also why I find the whole “Having a book or document tell me what to do is absurd, because if we believe in that then that must mean we’re all actually horrible people”
Yes. We are horrible people at heart. We simply don’t do horrible things because we’ve been conditioned by our parents and society that horrible things are either morally wrong or because the law will rip you a new one if you do something horrible.
But the idea that humans are good people at heart is bullshit imo.[/quote]
How did these laws come into place though? They represent things we knew to be a good way of doing things, and decided these ideas were worth putting into writing for clarity. When people behave in an utterly selfish manner without regard for how their actions affect those around them, that’s a failure of an upbringing usually, as you alluded to. In case you hadn’t noticed, laws don’t keep people from stealing, killing, etc in a LOT of cases. Because they are selfish people from the start, a piece of paper won’t stop them. Likewise, a generally moral person doesn’t NEED a law to tell him what is right in the majority of cases. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that most humans are just naturally good or anything. But if you need it written down to keep you from killing anyone you don’t like, there’s some bigger issues there. [/quote]
Lots of people try to look for little loopholes and things like that. I’ll admit murder is an extreme example and probably implausible in a civilized nation. But things that are basically wrong like marital infidelity, fraud (which is illegal, yeah, but harder to enforce) are widespread. Basically a lot of people do things they know aren’t right when they are pretty confident they won’t get caught.
If you look at what led to the economy crash in Greece for example you’ll see that fraud was extremely common. I don’t think human nature is any different in america: general selfishness is the norm, the moral man is the outlier, or at least the minority. But there is more enforcement here so people behave better sort of.
In terms of abortion I think that if abortion were illegal, there would just be an increase in other behaviors: more newborns abandoned in dumpsters and honey buckets, more self abortions or forced miscarriages, etc. Changing the law wouldn’t solve the moral problem
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jeff Cooper, in his Principles of Personal Defense (if I recall correctly), opined that in any community, about one in every hundred is an irredeemable sociopath who feels little compunction about doing you harm. About one in a thousand is a psychopath who will definitely do you harm I given the opportunity. A law against murder will do nothing to deter these people, and for the remainder of the population, a law against murder is superfluous, as they are generally not inclined to commit it. [/quote]
Hey I could be wrong. But when I lived in Philadelhia it seemed like maybe 1 in 5 people was at least a mild sociopath. I don’t know how old you are and maybe all of your peers are just more mature and mentally healthy. But I definitely think the current younger generation is more entitled, more sociopathic, and consequently less moral than the older generation before it
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jeff Cooper, in his Principles of Personal Defense (if I recall correctly), opined that in any community, about one in every hundred is an irredeemable sociopath who feels little compunction about doing you harm. About one in a thousand is a psychopath who will definitely do you harm I given the opportunity. A law against murder will do nothing to deter these people, and for the remainder of the population, a law against murder is superfluous, as they are generally not inclined to commit it. [/quote]
Hey I could be wrong. But when I lived in Philadelhia it seemed like maybe 1 in 5 people was at least a mild sociopath. I don’t know how old you are and maybe all of your peers are just more mature and mentally healthy. But I definitely think the current younger generation is more entitled, more sociopathic, and consequently less moral than the older generation before it [/quote]
I’m two decades older than you are, and I’ve encountered a fair number of true sociopaths…and more than a few psychopaths… in my travels.
That said, only 11% of Philadelphia’s population is between the ages of 18 and 25. One in five is still only 2.2 percent of the population at large, and so probably is statistically consistent with Cooper’s 1% figure, if we accept that people are more inclined to sociopathy in their youth than they might be at a “more mature” age.
In any case, I stand by my belief that laws against murder, like laws against abortion, have no effect on people who are not inclined to commit a murder or have an abortion, nor will they deter someone who is committed to accomplish either. As you yourself said:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jeff Cooper, in his Principles of Personal Defense (if I recall correctly), opined that in any community, about one in every hundred is an irredeemable sociopath who feels little compunction about doing you harm. About one in a thousand is a psychopath who will definitely do you harm I given the opportunity. A law against murder will do nothing to deter these people, and for the remainder of the population, a law against murder is superfluous, as they are generally not inclined to commit it. [/quote]
Hey I could be wrong. But when I lived in Philadelhia it seemed like maybe 1 in 5 people was at least a mild sociopath. I don’t know how old you are and maybe all of your peers are just more mature and mentally healthy. But I definitely think the current younger generation is more entitled, more sociopathic, and consequently less moral than the older generation before it [/quote]
I’m two decades older than you are, and I’ve encountered a fair number of true sociopaths…and more than a few psychopaths… in my travels.
That said, only 11% of Philadelphia’s population is between the ages of 18 and 25. One in five is still only 2.2 percent of the population at large, and so probably is statistically consistent with Cooper’s 1% figure, if we accept that people are more inclined to sociopathy in their youth than they might be at a “more mature” age.
In any case, I stand by my belief that laws against murder, like laws against abortion, have no effect on people who are not inclined to commit a murder or have an abortion, nor will they deter someone who is committed to accomplish either. As you yourself said:
Fair enough.
Just to clarify I don’t believe that in civilization as it stands now, most people walk around with thoughts of murdering their enemies. I was speculating about how early civilizations formed; when survival was harder people did kill their enemies to secure things for themselves food, shelter, etc. Its different now, yes, but not because human nature is better, only because its not that hard to survive, that’s my perspective.
Do we agree then that much of the discussion about legality of abortion is fruitless? The law won’t change in any meaningful way; redefining what is legal in terms of viabilty or even EEG activity will never satisfy anti abortionists. I don’t understand why they don’t focus on promoting contraception and abstinence
not to be flippant but someone should really advocate oral/anal only before marriage
[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
not to be flippant but someone should really advocate oral/anal only before marriage
[/quote]
A good way to ruin your ass and put yourself in a colostomy bag before you’re out of your twenties. People don’t get married as young as they used to.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
How did these laws come into place though? They represent things we knew to be a good way of doing things, and decided these ideas were worth putting into writing for clarity. When people behave in an utterly selfish manner without regard for how their actions affect those around them, that’s a failure of an upbringing usually, as you alluded to. In case you hadn’t noticed, laws don’t keep people from stealing, killing, etc in a LOT of cases. Because they are selfish people from the start, a piece of paper won’t stop them. Likewise, a generally moral person doesn’t NEED a law to tell him what is right in the majority of cases. I certainly didn’t mean to suggest that most humans are just naturally good or anything. But if you need it written down to keep you from killing anyone you don’t like, there’s some bigger issues there. [/quote]
There’s a really simple logical flaw that I’ve seen tested in the LSAT.
It goes like this- Because X happens more often in Y than Z, Y must be ineffective.
In practical terms- Because cyclists get hit more often by cars in roads with cyclist lanes than in roads without cyclist lanes, cyclist lanes must be ineffective.
The flaw is obvious.
Yes. Bad things happen in spite of laws. But have you ever considered what would happen if there weren’t laws to prevent them to begin with?
Have you considered the possibility that laws come into place because the minority thinks that they’re good, but the majority doesn’t? Have you considered the possibility that the few people who are actually capable of thinking things through and consider the ramifications of their actions understood that murder and stealing and whatnot is bad for society and have taken actions to prevent them from occurring in their society?
What I’m saying is, have you ever considered the possibility that a small minority are the ones with a good moral, while the vast majority are just selfish bastards?
Or the possibility that laws were implemented by powerful men who had the foresight to recognize that their power and their kingdoms would crumble away if people besides themselves acted selfishly, and so prevented that from occurring with laws. Which then became the morals of that society. Which then passes throughout countless generations and becomes the morals of an entire civilization.
Keep in mind that societies that never had much contact with one another have VERY different sense of what is right and wrong, and what is moral and immoral. Yes, there are certain things that seem absolute, but couldn’t that be more because those things are literally human nature that kings recognized must be stopped in order for “progress”(whatever the kings considered progress) to be made?
[quote]
But if you need it written down to keep you from killing anyone you don’t like, there’s some bigger issues there.[/quote]
Yes. There is. It is called us being human. Human beings are naturally selfish and want nothing but the best for THEMSELVES. I believe this is scientifically supported by a number of studies, but I could be wrong.
It is those with great foresight and an ability to think about the future who recognize that helping others could very well be the best course of action for helping themselves. But those people are incredibly rare, imo. And, even then, the ultimate reason for that action is to help themselves.
I honestly do not believe in altruism in the traditional sense. That’s why I’m so incredibly surprised when I do meet the rare people who do seem genuinely kind, and even then I’m of the opinion that they do so in order to quell a very sick soul.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I could argue the opposite. Convincingly.[/quote]
I would love to hear it. I’m always looking to learn!