We also had other discussions on the death penalty, a much divisive topic where we might as well toss Religion in with the Moral and Ethical issues.
A man comes home and finds two of his children beheaded and beaten, blood everywhere, he goes into the closet and gets his shotgun and slowly walks up the stairs, where at the top he finds his wife brutally murdered as well. He hears moaning and sobbing coming from the bedroom and as he walks over he finds a strange man raping his teenage daughter. The man sees him and jumps off the bed, puts his hands up and says he's sorry, that he doesn't know what came over him and says please don't kill me. What to do Lee; (A) Tell the stranger that you are going to get help for him to see if he can be rehabilitated. (B) Explain that because of your moral and ethical values and your religious beliefs you can't kill him but you will make sure that instead he gets food and shelter and medical care for the rest of his life in an institution. (C) BLAM BLAM Death Penalty immediately issued while ridding the world of a demented piece of garbage who most likely wouldn't be rehabilitated anyway and if escaped would go out and kill and rape some more victims. Recidivism rates speak for themselves. I'd go with (C) and with a clear conscience. This nonsense about a moral social conscience in regards to murderers is IMO, faulted reasoning. We've better things to do with our society than support murdering mental defectives. What are we trying to prove? Do we pat ourselves on the back and claim we are a more advanced society because we don't even kill those who kill us? Are we more religiously righteous and heavenly bound? Should we pamper Pit Bulls as well after they inflict a lethal attack on an innocent child? Oh and do you think for one minute that I would let my daughter have a baby if she became pregnant from an incident like that? I'd perform the abortion myself if I had to. US Prisons house over 2 million inmates, according to outdated sources and out of that population thousands are people I wouldn't spend 2 seconds thinking about other than their riddance. What is rehabilitation for a "lifer", rehabilitation for "what?". As of August 2009 the total prison population of the UK stood at 93,574. That is a lot considering the size of the UK. We need to stop raising and nurturing criminals. China might have had it right, chop their heads off in the public square, let the people see that crime really doesn't pay. I'd be the first to buy a ticket to the show, let the heads roll. BTW, I'm not emotion about this, I'm laughing while typing. lol On Mar 15, 7:13 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Heheh very strange what we all take as common knowldge isn't it. > > I had always understood the diffrance between morality and ethics to > be this. Morality is one personal definition on what is good or bad. > Ethics is concerened with doing that which is right. So one > descriptive and the other more concerned with the doing, or actions. > > I had always had this in mind when talking about morality here. > However a little while back, and by that I mean less than a year. We > had another debate about morality, some questions where asked abotu > what I mean when I say 'Moral' and when I say 'Ethical', it seemed > that my ideas where just a little out and due to the helpfull people > here I re thought teh definitions that i had always belived where > correct. That is: > > Morality is still ones personal opinion on what is good and what is > bad, but Ethics deals with a more social morality. That is you and I > could have differing ideas due to our morality, but our ethics come > fro the society or other groupings we find ourselves in. > > Now you say that this is also wrong? Hhahah gees, a little help > anybody? > > On 15 Mar, 11:54, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I disagree. Morality is not a personal decision but a communal one and > > is not innate but taught by the family and society. Morals are loose > > enough to change according to current trends and therefore not fixed- > > they are a cousin to "situation ethics". > > > On Mar 15, 6:31 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think that is wrong mate. Morality is no more than ones personal > > > definition of what is right and what is wrong. > > > > On 14 Mar, 06:27, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > And no: morals are not based on reason, ethics are based on reason. > > > > Morals are the "spiritual " measure of right and wrong and ethics are > > > > the intellectual/societal force that makes living in groups possible. > > > > > Ethics are what we get when we apply logic and concern for others to > > > > ourselves. Morals come from illiterate bronze and iron age paedophiles > > > > and misogynists in silly little collections of quaint tribal > > > > stories. > > > > > On Mar 13, 4:32 pm, Staples <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Fiddler: > > > > > > "Morals are far too fluid...to be a guide in any dilemma; > > > > > reason...provides the ability to make decisions." > > > > > > Assuming you actually meant this, you implied that: > > > > > > 1. Morals are not a constant. > > > > > 2. Morals are not based on reason. > > > > > > How could anyone live with a system of morality like that - one > > > > > divorced from rationality and is "fluid", e.g., changes from day to > > > > > day - on what basis? Irrationality? I suppose so.- 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.
