• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Moral Dilemma

paddymcdougall said:
Yeah, "It depends" is the answer to a lot of moral dilemmas.

In "Ender's Game", Ender went with maximum violence once you are attacked. But he certainly had moral qualms later.

There is also the middle ground - you do something, but not maximum violence.
Click to expand...

Ender thought it was a game (ergo the title).
 
lizzie said:
As I said, it depends entirely on the circumstances. It is illegal for me to kill you in most instances. It is legal if you are a threat to me. Whether or not it's moral depends on other factors than just legality. Did you rape my child, and I killed you as a result? Did you break and enter, and I killed you as a result? The moral implications of the two are different.
Click to expand...

He's not going to get it. You're wasting time at this point.
 
i'm non violent, i don't like violence, and have done my best to avoid it (other than being a bar singer for 15 years. man, the fights i saw.) the only way i foresee me ever doing anything violent is if someone is trying to hurt my family or pets. in that case, i might completely flip out and use any tool at my disposal to make them stop. short of that, nope. defensive only. if you're asking if i think that's moral or immoral, i'd say helping someone who is being randomly attacked by someone is more moral than immoral.
 
Declan said:
So you think we should dart terrorists, drag them into the swamp, and release them?
Click to expand...

Sure, right in the middle of a circle of hungry alligators.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, right in the middle of a circle of hungry alligators.
Click to expand...

What if they recruit the alligators to start eating golfers--what then?
 
Declan said:
What if they recruit the alligators to start eating golfers--what then?
Click to expand...
chubs.jpg
 
Cardinal said:
Ender thought it was a game (ergo the title).
Click to expand...


Not the bullies he injured/killed. He didn't think it was a game then.

(however, that was just a book...fiction)
 
I do think punishment is, and always has been, a part of justice. I challenge anyone to conceive of an instance of justice being done that doesn't involve someone "getting their comeuppance". In a sense, that's what justice is. Deserved retribution.
 
the_recruit said:
I do think punishment is, and always has been, a part of justice. I challenge anyone to conceive of an instance of justice being done that doesn't involve someone "getting their comeuppance". In a sense, that's what justice is. Deserved retribution.
Click to expand...
Sometimes this can lead to negative outcomes, however. Compare the drug policies of the US and Portugal - both consider drugs illegal but in the US offenders are treated by the criminal courts with jail time whereas in Portugal they are treated by the civil courts with medical help. The results are promising, so far.

I would say that violence should only be used minimally, as a last resort and in self defence (although that doesn't rule out 'pre-emptive self defence'). That's both from a moral standpoint - adding needless violence to more violence does not reduce the overall level of violence - and from a utilitarian one (see the drug analogy).
 
Declan said:
So you think we should dart terrorists, drag them into the swamp, and release them?
Click to expand...

We dont have to release them. But yeah, I think that non-lethal weapons are the way of the future.
 
spangledbanner said:
We dont have to release them. But yeah, I think that non-lethal weapons are the way of the future.
Click to expand...

I don't. They would cause such a huge uptick in sex crimes that society would never make the transition unless the government just bans guns.
 
the_recruit said:
I do think punishment is, and always has been, a part of justice. I challenge anyone to conceive of an instance of justice being done that doesn't involve someone "getting their comeuppance". In a sense, that's what justice is. Deserved retribution.
Click to expand...

Here's one: A wealthy man and his wife conceive--twins, unbeknownst to either of them. At birth, the mother dies, and the father isn't present. The midwife steals one of the children and raises him as her own in relative squalor and poverty. Later, the midwife dies of natural causes, and the child's true parentage is revealed. He is restored to his father, who acknowledges him. Both the twins inherit equal portions of the large estate, as was their just birthright.

Justice for the kidnapped son was to receive his birthright. Justice could have been done by punishing the kidnapping midwife, but that is impossible since she is dead, and furthermore, this is a separate question to the question of justice for the son. His justice was to be restored to his rightful place, which doesn't involve retribution.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Here's one: A wealthy man and his wife conceive--twins, unbeknownst to either of them. At birth, the mother dies, and the father isn't present. The midwife steals one of the children and raises him as her own in relative squalor and poverty. Later, the midwife dies of natural causes, and the child's true parentage is revealed. He is restored to his father, who acknowledges him. Both the twins inherit equal portions of the large estate, as was their just birthright.

Justice for the kidnapped son was to receive his birthright. Justice could have been done by punishing the kidnapping midwife, but that is impossible since she is dead, and furthermore, this is a separate question to the question of justice for the son. His justice was to be restored to his rightful place, which doesn't involve retribution.
Click to expand...

The moral thing to do is to torture and kill the closest relatives of the dead midwife.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Not the bullies he injured/killed. He didn't think it was a game then.

(however, that was just a book...fiction)
Click to expand...

Ender's decision with the bullies was for the prevention of future aggression and immediate self defense. I know this was covered in the sequels and I can no longer remember, but I don't believe Ender thought such extreme measures were actually required for the buggers (the near extermination of their entire species).
 
Broadcaster_Red said:
Through some light research, I've found people more or less have a certain opinion when it comes to violence. The biggest two ideas are that "Violence does not validate violence, an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind, etc." The other idea being "If anyone EVER pulls your hair you have the right to PUNCH THEM IN THE ****ING FACE" Its an interesting dilemma and I remain neutral upon this moral dilemma. I would appreciate thoughts and opinions of this.
Click to expand...

It boils down to "either win or be embroiled in a slog and nobody wins"
 
tacomancer said:
It boils down to "either win or be embroiled in a slog and nobody wins"
Click to expand...

The fact that in certain ongoing conflicts today the clearly more powerful party doesn't opt for that approach suggests there's more to lose in that path than win.
 
Cardinal said:
The fact that in certain ongoing conflicts today the clearly more powerful party doesn't opt for that approach suggests there's more to lose in that path than win.
Click to expand...

The more humanitarian approach to war in modern times has a side effect of not eliminating all those who oppose the winning country. But not raping and pillaging is probably worth it.
 
tacomancer said:
The more humanitarian approach to war in modern times has a side effect of not eliminating all those who oppose the winning country. But not raping and pillaging is probably worth it.
Click to expand...

Well in the good old days when you took over a country you did it Keyzer Soze style: you killed their soldiers, their leaders, their parents, their parents' friends, their mailmen and their mailmens' pet hamsters. While the current system is certainly messier, I prefer it over the mindset that a human's life intrinsically holds no value.
 
Cardinal said:
Well in the good old days when you took over a country you did it Keyzer Soze style: you killed their soldiers, their leaders, their parents, their parents' friends, their mailmen and their mailmens' pet hamsters. While the current system is certainly messier, I prefer it over the mindset that a human's life intrinsically holds no value.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am not a fan of genocide either. Basically, I will go with "war sucks"
 
iangb said:
Sometimes this can lead to negative outcomes, however. Compare the drug policies of the US and Portugal - both consider drugs illegal but in the US offenders are treated by the criminal courts with jail time whereas in Portugal they are treated by the civil courts with medical help. The results are promising, so far.

I would say that violence should only be used minimally, as a last resort and in self defence (although that doesn't rule out 'pre-emptive self defence'). That's both from a moral standpoint - adding needless violence to more violence does not reduce the overall level of violence - and from a utilitarian one (see the drug analogy).
Click to expand...

That's why I've always said that drug users don't belong in prison, but in treatment programs. Then you get the crazies who say how dare society ever tell drug users that their drug usage is wrong! Let's just legalize everything because who cares what these people do! It's really absurd.
 
spangledbanner said:
We dont have to release them. But yeah, I think that non-lethal weapons are the way of the future.
Click to expand...

Only so long as you have a non-lethal weapon that puts criminals on the ground immediately like a lethal weapon does. When you have criminals using lethal weapons and are shooting at people, you have to have the means to stop them immediately and universally, whether that is lethal or non-lethal.
 
Broadcaster_Red said:
Through some light research, I've found people more or less have a certain opinion when it comes to violence. The biggest two ideas are that "Violence does not validate violence, an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind, etc." The other idea being "If anyone EVER pulls your hair you have the right to PUNCH THEM IN THE ****ING FACE" Its an interesting dilemma and I remain neutral upon this moral dilemma. I would appreciate thoughts and opinions of this.
Click to expand...

Violence is a choice. It isn't a matter of right or wrong. It is simply a matter of how much you feel you and your loved ones are worth fighting for. I believe that I and my loved ones are worth preserving, and thus will use whatever means to see that end.
 
 
How do you stop retribution?

You killed my brother, so I kill you.

Your brother kills me because I killed his brother.

My brother kills your brother.

etc...


how do you end this other than by slaughtering entire families and, eventually, entire nations?


The only way is for someone to eventually say "I forgive you".
 
CrabCake said:
How do you stop retribution?

You killed my brother, so I kill you.

Your brother kills me because I killed his brother.

My brother kills your brother.

etc...


how do you end this other than by slaughtering entire families and, eventually, entire nations?


The only way is for someone to eventually say "I forgive you".
Click to expand...

Or for nobody to murder someone in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom