I'm not sure if this is fashion or current, as far as I know the idea of rehabilitation of criminals came about in this country during the Victorian era?
On 15 Mar, 11:57, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > It is now the social fashion to believe in redemption and > rehabilitation of violent criminals. One could also examine man's long > history of warfare and wonder about the morality except that we have > elevated warfare to an art. > > On Mar 15, 5:56 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Of course. > > > Specificaly I had the death penalty in mind. My stance puts such a > > thing as immorral and unethical. I use reason deviod of emotional > > attachment to reach such a stance, and my reasoning runs thusly: > > > To kill a killer for the crime of killing another is engaging in the > > same behaviour we initialy find repugnant in the killer, thus is > > immoral. > > > What then is the 'reason' why the majority of the world find murder > > immorral? > > > Choice. To kill another takes all choice from them. We can see in > > this very age we find ourselves living in that the concept of > > 'fairness' and equality of treatment is becoming more and more > > important to the human beast. Our news is full of percived > > unfairness, from race relations, to mysogony in the workplace. > > > The application of emotion in decideing the morality of the death > > penalty tend towards statments such as 'when they kill they losse all > > rights'. Yet reason would show us that 'two wrongs don't make a > > right'. > > > On 12 Mar, 23:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > but only if they are acceptable to the > > > > > rest of us. <<Manfraco > > > > Really, I have a hard time understanding this. I take it that if my > > > emotions are not acceptable to you and yours then it is deemed > > > unacceptable? > > > > By what right does anyone or any society have to determine that > > > someone's emotions are not acceptable. > > > > Of course I will reiterate my first reply. > > > > Morality has a broad scope considering much of it is defined by > > > society/culture/religion. Emotional attachment to a moral dilemma > > > would have to be based on the defined moral incident specific to a > > > circumstance. > > > > I think we'd be better to work with a specific moral dilemma if we are > > > going to establish the correctness of moral emotions and whether they > > > should be kept in check or allowed to flow freely. > > > > Anyone have an example of a moral dilemma? > > > > Lee you started this so you should provide an example of what you were > > > thinking about. > > > > On Mar 12, 4:57 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Lee! > > > > I believe that in a moral dilemma emotions must be kept in check by > > > > reason, which is the base of acceptable human standard, therefore > > > > emotions have a role in it; but only if they are acceptable to the > > > > rest of us. > > > > > On Mar 10, 1:46 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So a though occoured to me yesterday. > > > > > > Is it better to approach moraly dilemars in an emotionly unattached > > > > > reasonable way, or do emotions have a role to play in moral > > > > > questions?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
