Of course the issue here is your opinion isn't based on anything. "Opinion is the absence of knowledge," (Socrates). You believe that good and evil are subjective. This is dubious, highly so. It doesn't matter what your "opinion" (cute) might be, some things are entirely evil, some things are entirely good. Good and evil are beyond human opinion and they exist as they are. Suppose 40 year old guy gets his kicks from raping kids between the ages of 5 and 10. Now, someone of your, understanding might say that the evilness in his actions are purely subjective. People who live in the real world however tend to operate under the factual understanding that some things are just plain evil. Someone like you might say that the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima or the 9/11 incident have their morality open to debate. Those of us who actually know that morality is black and white tend to know better.
I am not arguing that these actions are right. Nor am I arguing that there is no such thing as cruelty. I'm simply arguing that "good" and "evil" is in most cases entirely subjective. That you assume that because I doubt absolutes I must therefore regard child rape, mass murder and other tragedies as moraly ambigious. You will also notice that I question the use of the words, the semantics if you will, not the existence of cruelty or evil in the world.
As for Morality. I can not agree that it is always black and white. The understanding that it's either right or it's wrong is most often simplistic. Depending on the situation and the circumstances morality can differ. Now you don't need to jump to the extremes, I entirely agree that certain actions are inhuman, I ask you to look beyond the extremes. Taking of a human life for instance is considered morally acceptable, although unfortune, if it is done in self defense (by law, not saying this is my opinion).
Spectacular. You'll have to explain that to me.
It was badly worded. I appologize. What I mean is that someone who is born with a defect that causes them to be unable to distinguish between right and wrong, are not necessarily "evil" because of it.
Spoken like a man who never picked up anything written by Aristotle, Dostoevsky, John Stuart Mill, or Machiavelli. Simply stunning. All actions are either good or evil. Aristotle alleged that we can adjudge the rightness and wrongness of an action based on their inherent motivating factor and their results. I'll make this simple. Let's take 9/11 for example. Aristotle and any ethical person would look at the situation based on it's intent and it's results and then decide whether the action was good or evil. Must I explain the rest?
Considering all of the above are required to study in a university I assure you I've read them. I would also refer you to greek history and exactly how Aristotle treated underage boys hismelf. If motivation and result defines the morality then how can we argue that someone who's motivation is entirely flawed (they do not understand what they are doing basically) are inherently evil?
Again I'm not saying there is no such thing as evil, I'm saying the use of the word when it comes to being "born" with it may be subjective.
We call them psychopaths. We call them that because what people define as normal is not subjective. If you have a sect of individuals who are entirely different from what is normal, you can't say normality is in the eye of the beholder just to avoid stigmatizing a group that actually has something wrong with them. In the same manner, given that good and evil are black and white, you cannot with actual sense determine that they are subjective. There are things that are morally wrong and irredeemably evil because they are.
Not all psycopaths are evil. Unless you regard materialism and self preservation as evil. They act on the logical assumption that if I do this, then this will happen to me and this will be good for me. They act independent of emotions because they are emotionally crippled. A psycopath is like us, only with the lack of emotional understanding. Selfish, certainly, but who is to say we wouldn't be like this if we didn't have emotional bonds holding us back?
Are they evil simply because they are born incapeable of what we consider standard emotions? Simply because they are "defective"? We do ourselves no favours by inhumanizing these people by classifying them as "born evil".
Now good and evil is not always black and white. If we give money to charity, we do this (mostly) because we wish to help. We have the best of intentions in doing so, and therefore the action is good, no? However, by giving to this charity we are not only helping a small part of the population we are also inderictly giving money to poweful war lords who do unspeakable things to people. This is because in order to operate within these areas without being attacked, these charities are paying "taxes" to these war lords. Money they use in turn to pay for soliders, weapons and smuggling.
Only issue with that is your argument is entirely wrong. :shrug: Maybe this will help you see reason.
Definition of
JUSTICE
1
a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments
b : judge c : the administration of law;
especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2
a : the
quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action
(2) : conformity to this principle or ideal
: righteousness c : the quality of conforming to law
3
: conformity to truth, fact, or reason
: correctness
Tell me, where in the actual definition of the world justice is your opinion supported?
Someone who does not understand what they did, that what they did was wrong, will never conform to an absolute truth that murder is wrong. We may all agree that it is, but they never will. I am not saying that people who kill and do not understand the emotional implications to others should be exhonorated. Not at all. I'm simply saying that they do not understand what they are doing.
Justice does not matter to the deceased, because they are dead, or have moved on. Justice does not matter for the criminal in this case because they simply doesn't understand what they have done, nor do they feel remorse, regret or even despair. They aren't affected by the sentence. They are emotionally hollow. It only matters for the families involved. Note I'm not saying that that means they are irrelevant, on the contrary, families do deserve justice just as much as anyone else.
The insanity plea, temporary insanity plea and the self defence plea are two ways people can "get away" with murder. The insanity and temporary insanity plea is designed to exhonorate those who do not understand the consequences of their actions.
Humanitarian. Good, but that has nothing to do with justice. You're clearly a person who doesn't read the other posts in these discussions. Justice is not merciful. Justice is not humanitarian. Justice is simply an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is unkind. Justice is not about bringing understanding, justice isn't about making people feel comfortable with themselves or each other. It is reparation for a crime. Your argument is humanitarian yes but ultimately dubious. We're not going to change our justice system just to suit people who can't get with the program. Suppose that a mentally ill person kills someone. They couldn't control their actions, they have multiple personalities and all that. Got it. So you don't want us to sentence them to death or lock them away. Well Canabary, what would you have us do with them?
I can not understand your anger with me. However, the justice system is clearly designed to be humane. Repeat offenders recieve harsher punishments than first time offenders for most crimes, and the penal system is in most cases designed to deter criminal behaviour. Once you've served your sentence you are released into the world again,you have "paid your debt to society". If you break the law you go to jail, a place no one (except some criminals) wants to be. If it was as harsh and unkind as you describe then why are people released at all? Why not lock up people until the end of their days?
Society at large generally do not believe that once you've made a mistake you are lost forever, justice does not believe that. There are so many exceptions, amendments and changes to laws that are specifically designed so that the law becomes more humane. We do not kill a man and all his familiy because this one man killed a familiy, we kill the one man.
I have never pretended to have all the solutions, in fact I haven't pretended to have any solutions at all. If someone mentally ill like this breaks the law something must be done to protect the public certainly. You do not let dangerous people walk the street. But you must certainly do not place them in a confined space with people who reaffirm their world understanidng. The insanity plea is a way to find these people and put them in institutions where they are kept safe from themselves and others.
And so I reiterate thus, what would you have us do? Your opinions lead me to believe that you have such a great understanding as to how this works so please, enlighten us. How should we deal with mentally ill criminals who have no control over their actions?
If I knew the answers I would certainly share them, but I don't. I've never pretended that I do either. As of right now our practice of sending them to institutions seems to be the most effective and safe.
And yet you're still trying? [See below.] Amazing.
The question was why would god create them. I don't pretend to know why, nor do I pretend to be capeable of understanding it. But as anyone else I would certainly attempt to ponder the question, having made it clear that I have no idea.
The mentally ill cannot be taught to think like us, they cannot adjust to our thought patterns, nor can we do the same by them on our end. When a person is mentally ill, or normal rules of logic do not apply. A person who is insane does not and cannot think the way we do. And we cannot understand what goes on in their heads either because our brains just aren't the same. A normal person typically operates on logic. If I do A, then B will happen and so forth. A mentally ill person, who knows? There might not even be an A nor B in that person's head when it comes to determining what action to take when faced with a certain situation.
If we look at the general operandi of the mentally ill they act on logic as well. However their understanding of logic is flawed. I once met a man who thought that unless he walked around like a soldier and his hat wasn't exactly on the middle of his head his family would die. The man was clearly ill and unable to understand real cause and effect, but his actions was entirely logical based on what he believed would happen. If you told him this was nonsense and told him to stop he'd become violent, in his mind he was being asked to sacrifice his family. Certainly a seriously flawed logic, but based on his "understanding" it is entirely logical.
When it comes to psycopaths they operate on pure logic. If I ruin her career, my career will be better. If I tell my wife she's fat, and then sleep with other women I will be able to control her and keep her with me. Psycopaths are logical, but they operate with no emotion, empathy and always look to put themselves first.
You're good at speculating. That much you've made clear but again, what would you have us do?
Speculation is all I can do when I do not understand god's plans. That much must be obvious to you? Based on how god is presented in christianity it is unlikely that he has created a "type" of people that is designed to simply ruin our lives. That's the operandi of the devil, and not god.
Bravo. Has nothing to do with the topic but I suppose even a mediocre show can end on a high note.
Q: Why does god put these people on earth?
A: Dunno, if I would be speculating. My belief is.
Answer, speculation, conclusion.
