Is It Moral To Allow Someone To Be Killed?

Socrtease said:
YOu have said so much stupid shit throughout this post that I had to go back and address them one at a time.

So your "argument" is ANYTHING done for the good of society is moral. So the final solution created by Hitler's henchmen was moral. Because, in their mind it was good for their society.

Here's another one. Country A takes pregnant women with one child already in existence and forcibly abort her child, because they have an overpopulation problem. Overpopulation is BAD for society and getting it under control is good for society. Ergo forced abortion is good for society.

The possibilties of the use of immoral action for the "good of society" are endless, and by your logic they become moral.
Click to expand...

Seems about right. Just because my politics border on sociopathic does not mean that they are idiotic--- you just don't agree with them.
 
Socrtease said:
Dum Scheisse nummer drei.

Streamlining the machinery of death insures that MORE innocent people are killed. Since 1973 124 people have been released from Death Row because they were exonerated of the crime they had been previously convicted of. In you world, many of them would have been murdered by the state because of the difficulty in finding new evidence and getting it before a court. But that is ok with you because murder for the betterment of society is moral?
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
Socrtease said:
Stupid Shit numero dos.

Murder is not a crime that can be overcome by claiming I killed more people who NEEDED to be killed than the innocent people that I THOUGHT needed to be killed. The state when it executes someone is committing homocide. They call it justified. But if they kill ONE innocent person, just as if you or I kill just ONE innocent person we are murderers. Kill one thousand guilty men and you are an executioner. Kill one innocent person and you are a murderer. Not moral or ethical way around that.
Click to expand...

Not murderers--- just careful. If innocent lives must be lost, so be it.
 
Socrtease said:
Merde muet quatre.

So we are now going to ride them in addition to killing them. ANd in doing both those things if we ride or kill an innocent person, so long as it saves you personally a few extra bucks then murdering an innocent is ok? Tell me true, you drink all day long, which is why you call yourself Gonzojournals right? You also take mescaline and huff ether? Watchout for the bats.

Anyhoo I have addressed how absolutely morally bankrupt that line of thought really is in another post, but now on top of removing both the threats and the non-threats from society, if it it saves you a buck or two all the better.
Click to expand...

The bats and the drinking help clear my head of the ridiculous notion that one life outweighs the lives of the whole.
 
Socrtease said:
il stupido merda numero cinque.

By this time you have proven that you have no deep seated value for human life. You don't care if innocent people are killed at all so long as it is not your mother sister child or you. But the truth of the matter is, to remain consistent, if you are wrongly tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you will not fight it right? Because your murder will be for the good of society? RIght? Or better yet, your kid or your mom, then it will not directly affect you. So no complaints.
Click to expand...

Who said I wouldn't fight it? Nowhere did I say that an innocent person shouldn't have the right to an appeal--- all I said is that the innocent person wrongly executed is a fair price for the hundreds or thousands guilty ones that are equally executed.

As far as human life is concerned, I have a deep-seated value for my country and for my family--- those are what matter to me. As for the rest of you, who gives a shit?
 
Most of the time, it is not a question of morality. It is human nature not to get involved if you feel your life may be in danger. But, since you posted that there will be little or no danger to your life. Yes, it would be immoral---don't ya think? Now I would not expect a liberial to step in and actually phisically save somebodys life---they would just try to write legislation before the person dies.
 
gonzojournals said:
Who said I wouldn't fight it? Nowhere did I say that an innocent person shouldn't have the right to an appeal--- all I said is that the innocent person wrongly executed is a fair price for the hundreds or thousands guilty ones that are equally executed.

As far as human life is concerned, I have a deep-seated value for my country and for my family--- those are what matter to me. As for the rest of you, who gives a shit?
Click to expand...

Honestly, people like you should be put in jail for the public protection. You have no right to live. You're the scum of the Earth.
 
Yes....................!

Agnosticus_Caesar said:
If you could stop an innocent human being from being killed, with little or not danger to yourself, is it immoral to refrain from doing as such?
Click to expand...



and to get to the nitty gritty...I would do so even if my own life was endangered!...But hey thats just me..the accused war hawk!
 
gonzojournals said:
Who said I wouldn't fight it? Nowhere did I say that an innocent person shouldn't have the right to an appeal--- all I said is that the innocent person wrongly executed is a fair price for the hundreds or thousands guilty ones that are equally executed.

As far as human life is concerned, I have a deep-seated value for my country and for my family--- those are what matter to me. As for the rest of you, who gives a shit?
Click to expand...
We are the country. You said you had a deep-seated respect for us. What happened to that?
 
Damocles said:
We are the country. You said you had a deep-seated respect for us. What happened to that?
Click to expand...

Not the best argument on my part--- more of a fuck you to the people arguing against me.


I may be the scum of the Earth, but I think I have a pretty good handle on things. It isn't my fault that some necessary beliefs aren't always the most attractive.
 
gonzojournals said:
And unnecessarily risks my tax dollars. I think that the occasional innocent death is well worth the price of riding society of these bastards.
Click to expand...

It is ,more often than not, more expensive to be on death row, than to be incarcerated for the rest of the life--due to appeals and such. Don't tell me you do not want to have the right to appeal---because I might accuse you of something and convience a uneducated jury that you are guilty.
 
Gonzo likes to pretend that executing the guilty is a necessity. It isn't. The gola of the justice system is not retribution. The goal is to protect the public.
 
[As long as he remains there.]

Our capacity to "perfect" security at prisons is far greater than our capacity to "perfect" decisions of guilt or innocence.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[As long as he remains there.]

Our capacity to "perfect" security at prisons is far greater than our capacity to "perfect" decisions of guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...
Or perfect protection of prisoners...

Hence the reality that if we ever convict anybody who is innocent, which we do, then some innocents will be killed because of those convictions. Such an argument lends itself to simply removing prisons entirely.
 
[
Hence the reality that if we ever convict anybody who is innocent, which we do, then some innocents will be killed because of those convictions. Such an argument lends itself to simply removing prisons entirely.]

Reductio Ad Absurdum only works when you have the same circumstances. CP is not necessary to protect the public, while incarceration IS.

You willfully ignore that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top