Menewsha Avatar Community - Western Society Views about Right and Wrong

Menewsha Avatar Community (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/index.php)

- Extended Discussion (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=111)

- - Western Society Views about Right and Wrong (https://www.menewsha.com/forum/showthread.php?t=140639)

Quote:

Questions to consider in summary:
1. Do two wrongs make a right? Why or why not?

I don't think it is about making something right. Especially in violent crimes there is no way to undo or repair such losses. We penalize people who do not adhere to the agreed upon rules that govern our society and lock them up if they are a threat to others. Rehabilitation (re-education), prevention and warehousing these people. At least in the Western world we make use of modern technology to make informed and in my opinion much more humane judgments.

Why do two wrongs not make a right? Because it escalates the destructive behavior rather then ending it.

I disagree with vigilantism as well. We have predefined and appointed people to represent society's will. Vigilantes only represent their own will. They are in fact breaking the agreements that govern our society by acting without the blessing of society's laws.

If we want to go by your initial post Tutela, then the people following the law are right and the ones going against it are wrong. You cannot expect us to follow that and then have an argument on how vigilantes are the same as officers. It is not illegal for an officer to drive at high speeds to catch a criminal, therefor, by your OWN words, they are right. A vigilante is NOT an officer, nor have they gone through the training/schooling and it is therefor illegal and they are, then, therefor, wrong.

Also, may I ad, that when it comes to the court system, each side elects 6 jury members. Ordinary people, like you and I, are the ones who decide the guilt/innocence and the sentence. Judges, in most cases, are only there to keep order and make sure things stay within the legal bounds. The judge is supposed to be an unbiased figure, it is the JURY who makes the decision.

Also, if someone is put into prison and later found to be innocent, they can receive SERIOUS compensation. Often they will be offered one, or they can take up a civil suit. It sucks, yeah, and money doesn't make up for the time they lost. It's not like they aren't getting NOTHING out it though. If this ever happens to someone and they take up a civil suit (which I don't see why they wouldn't) they will be set for life money wise.

NOTE: None of this is my opinion, it is merely facts that I am pointing out.

I am speaking of basic ideals.
Officers kill, Vigilantes kill, death row executioners kill.
Civilians speed, Officers speed.
Civilians vandalize, Officers vandalize

This discussion was not made to discuss right versus wrong, but rather when is it/should it be acceptable to allow exceptions to the rule. And why do we make these exceptions under the false pretense "for the better good." when we cannot define accurately what good and bad are?

Tutela, you need to get your debate thread straight. YOU originally gave us what is "right" and what is "wrong", so WHY are you now saying "we cannot accurately define what good and bad are". Did you even read my post? This entire thread is moot by your own ORIGINAL post. YOU defined what is "right" and what is "wrong". So what exactly are we arguing? If you've already defined it for us, then by YOUR definition vigilantism is wrong. If you want to argue "exceptions" then you are going to HAVE to argue why those exceptions would be allowed, which would bring up the definition of right and wrong. If we aren't allowed to argue the definition of right and wrong how are we to know when exceptions should be made?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765752999)

Fine, for the sake of the argument ignore my initial definition of right and wrong. (This was my first post created on Menewsha and so I wasn't aware of the way people debated. I came from Gaia, and unless you defined everything in your post they would say "define this," or "define that" to everything you wrote and miss the whole point of the argument. My definitions were my attempt to avoid the immaturity, my apologies)

However, please keep in mind that I do not equate right with good and I do not equate wrong with bad/evil.

Right and Wrong are societal terms that define a tolerance spectrum regarding actions done by every human and are judged by those humans. Humans have the ability to change that tolerance spectrum to suit their own needs when they need it the most. I am asking why this is.

Killing humans is wrong according to society. If killing (taking the life away from another human being) is wrong, why do we make exceptions/different scales of tolerance for soldiers, executioners, and officers? Killing involves the following:
Murder, Manslaughter, Infanticide, suicide, genocide, assassination, war, executions by law, etc.
Why is one form of killing worse than another, and why are they treated differently within society. Now I will agree that if one killing is wrong to the society, then by that same logic multiple killings is worse. Genocide, as an example, can refer to killing one person for being a specific race, so do not go with the Hitler example of multiple jews when you argue these points. Assume each type of kill as equal, meaning one person only dies in each or several people die in each with the exception of suicide of course.

Killing is just one example of inconsistency in society. Please feel free to discuss others I have listed as well as any you can think of.

NOTE: For my views personally on the act of killing, I view it as a natural function of an animal. Since humans are animals I do not view killing as wrong or evil but rather as neutral. However I feel if society thinks killing is wrong, then they should view all killing as wrong and not discriminate between each form of killing.

If this isn't technically a debate or not, I still find it interesting enough to reply giving 'my two cents' on my views for the spooners. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc (Post 1765469268)

1. Do two wrongs make a right? Why or why not?

My initial response is no, but the more I think of it and how I feel about the death penalty perhaps there's room for interpretation. The reason being is there are a lot of criminals who do a crime, get let out for good behavior, and turn around and do it again - getting thrown back into jail. Also, the tax payers have to pay to maintain those thrown in jail, so those who live in it are fed and patrolled over, etc. If they are going to be in there the rest of their life, or have repeatedly committed crimes and show no hope of turning a new leaf, why should we have to continue to maintain their standard of life in jail? People are bound to change, but change is definitely not something that is easy for someone to do and they have to want to change in order for it to happen... It's just another question that has a lot of room for interpretation and I don't think any answer is 100% right or wrong. :|

Quote:

2. If no, why do we allow government exceptions to this rule? Are they truly above what is right/wrong?

I don't think anyone is really 'above' it, but at the same time we do need to have a representative and ideal way to govern the community. If you simply left it up to every individual to dish out their own sense of 'justice', the world would be truly chaotic. You've got to realize that every action has a positive and negative spin to it, and depending on the situation and who is involved it would get incredibly complicated in a hurry.

I'd also like to think that by having laws in place it will deter most people from doing things that would harm me or the people I care about so that the argument never comes in question.

There's a flip side to justice though, and leaving it in the hands of an official. I can think of a few instances where there feels like there isn't fair representation and because the laws are written out the way they are, one person unfairly benefits from them. The biggest one that has effected my own life greatly is child support. I strongly feel that the mother is given way too much power, and that there are times where the child would be much better off in the father's care. Perhaps they weren't at first, but the two of us have really built a strong relationship and really feel we could do a better job of parenting, but unless we have solid evidence that the children's wellbeing are at stake, we don't stand a chance. It's either that, or the mother would have to throw the white flag and give up. It's such a difficult situation to be hurled into. :|

Your logic is flawed tutela. Other animals kill because of instinct. For land, to protect themselves, for a mate. Humans often kill just because they can, or because they get some kind of satisfaction form it. Officers are here to protect those of us who aren't like that. they take it upon themselves to carry that burden around with them, so that WE don't have to. Do you think it's an easy thing for an officer to shoot someone down? No. But if they don't, innocent people will get hurt. Do you think it's something any normal person could just DO? Killing to protect people as a whole is completely different from exacting your revenge. THAT is the difference between a vigilante and an officer. The officer takes no pride in it, or at least shouldn't (and doesn't from the dozens of cops I personally know), they aren't doing it for revenge. they aren't doing it for themselves. They aren't doing it for anyone specifically. They are doing it for people as a whole. It isn't the KILLING that makes it wrong it the REASON behind it.

@Izumi: Chaos is not necessarily a 'wrong' or 'evil' thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765755939)

I find it funny that you failed to mention "for food" and "for being weak." I assume your argument to mean that if a human kills for any reason an animal does, then they should not be in the 'wrong?' If I am wrong in assuming this, then please tell me why. If I am right in assuming this, then please read examples below that shows that this is not the case when society becomes involved in the decision making of determining if a kill is wrong or right.

1. I am going to assume that your definition of "for land" can also be interpreted as "territorial gain." Am I correct in saying this? I would like an answer before I continue on this point so we can both be on the same level of thinking when discussing this.

2. For your second point of self-defense, I have only to say that animals kill under the assumption that they are being threatened. Please read article below that explains all the technicalities one must take into account to perform self-defense in a 'legal' manner so as not to be charged. I have included both the legal definition of "non-lethal" self defense and "lethal" self defense. Please note that animals (other than humans) do not differentiate between the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by article of self defense

CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Self-defense, non-lethal force:

Criminal liability is distinguished from civil liability in that it is the state which brings charges against the defendant, as opposed to the victim or his estate. The general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate, non-deadly force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used on him. Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this position. The critical language under this standard is ‘reasonable belief’, ‘unlawful’, ‘about to’ and ‘necessary and proportionate’.

In order to establish a reasonable belief, the court will use both a subjective and an objective standard. The subjective standard determines whether this defendant did in fact believe that an attack was imminent (whether reasonably or unreasonably). In arriving at this conclusion, the defendant’s state of mind is relevant. Thus, a paranoid defendant might introduce evidence of his condition to show that his belief, however unreasonable, was at least genuine.

The reasonableness of the defendant’s actions is judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. The reasonable person standard is one of the most difficult aspects of the law to understand. In an effort to do justice to both sides, the law requires the trier-of-fact (usually the jury) to consider whether an ordinary person in the defendant’s position would believe that force was about to be used against him. The defendant’s (and the assailant’s) physical characteristics and past history will be taken into account, but mental condition is of no concern. Thus, comparative size, weight, strength, handicap or pre-existing injury may support a reasonableness finding, but unusual sensitivity or fear will not.

There is no simple formula for the legal application of force in self-defense under American law. The confusion is due, in part, to the complexity of the issue itself, and in part to the variety of state laws within the American legal system. The requirement that the force defended against be unlawful simply excludes the right of self defense when an ‘assailant’, such as a police officer, is legally authorized to use force. It must be noted however, that a majority of jurisdictions allow the use of force, including deadly force, in resisting an attack by a person not known to be a police officer, and the use of non-deadly force against a known police-officer attempting to make a wrongful arrest. Pennsylvania does not allow the use of force in resisting wrongful arrest, but it does allow the use of force if an arresting officer unlawfully threatens to use deadly force, or does not identify himself.

‘About to’ refers to the imminence requirement for the right to self-defense. It is not enough that the assailant threatens to use force in the future, or upon the happening of a certain event. Thus the statement "If you do that one more time, I’ll punch you" is insufficient to trigger the right to self-defense. The threatened use of force must be immediate.

The force used in self defense must reasonably appear to be necessary to prevent the attack, and must be proportionate to the gravity of the attack. Thus, for example, if an assailant is about to slap the victim, responding with the use of a fire-arm would be excessive and therefore beyond the scope of the right to self-defense. The proportionality standard under Pennsylvania law is articulated as a prohibition on the use of excessive force, but the fact that death results does not automatically produce a finding of excessive force.

Self-defense, lethal force:

The standard for use of deadly force is, predictably, higher. The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him. Again, Pennsylvania law is generally consistent with this standard.

The faultlessness requirement does not mean that the victim must be pure of heart and without sin. It does mean that the right of self-defense will not be available to one who has substantially encouraged or provoked an attack. The general rule is that words alone are not enough to be considered a provocation under this standard, but there are exceptions. For example, saying ‘I am about to shoot you’ might well constitute sufficient provocation.

One of the circumstances which helps to determine the level of threat encountered by the victim is the nature of the assailant’s weapon (if any). As a general rule, anything which might be used to kill a person, no matter how odd, is considered a deadly weapon. Thus, a chair, a lamp or a screwdriver may all be considered deadly weapons. In some instances, the law will treat a trained fighters hands as a deadly weapon, but in order to trigger the right to self-defense using lethal force against such a person, the victim must, of course, know of the attacker’s special training.

U.S. courts are split with respect to an additional factor in the lawfulness of the use of deadly force in self-defense. A minority of jurisdictions require a victim to retreat to the wall if it is safe to do so, before using deadly force. ‘Retreat to the wall’ is generally construed to mean taking any reasonable and apparent avenue of exit. However, even minority jurisdictions do not require retreat under three circumstances. There is no duty to retreat from one’s own home, if one is being or has been robbed or raped, or if the victim is a police-officer making a lawful arrest. In 1996 the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that "although a person is afforded discretion in determining necessity, level and manner of force to defend one’s self, the right to use force in self defense is a qualified, not an absolute right." Pennsylvania is a retreat jurisdiction.

Even an initial aggressor may be given the right to self-defense under certain circumstances. If the initial aggressor withdraws from the confrontation, and communicates this withdrawal to the other party, he regains the right to self-defense. Also, if the victim of relatively minor aggression ‘suddenly escalates’ the confrontation to one involving deadly force, without providing adequate space for withdrawal, the initial aggressor may still invoke the right to self-defense.

Now please explain why society deems self defense a touchy subject, whereas an animal can kill in defense without any second thought.

3. Your mating argument is the most ridiculous one yet. I do believe it is completely illegal by society standards to "kill for a mate." In fact, even if you have your "mate" claimed, it is completely illegal to kill one who would intentionally steal your mate from you. For other animals, it is understood that you kill others who threaten to keep your own mate. This is understood to show the animal's dominance and status as well as reflecting on "survival of the fittest" by getting their own seed procreated so that their bloodline will continue to live.

4. If you want me to argue the other two points I brought up (for food, and for being weak), please let me know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765755939)

Officers are here to protect those of us who aren't like that. They take it upon themselves to carry that burden around with them, so that WE don't have to.

1. If society and religion both taught that killing was acceptable, then I don't think anyone would consider "killing" another as a burden, but rather as a necessity to continue living.

2. "WE don't have to" implies that we are still allowed to, which is not the case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765755939)

Do you think it's an easy thing for an officer to shoot someone down? No. But if they don't, innocent people will get hurt. Do you think it's something any normal person could just DO?

Read example above and please understand from it that people's morals are directly affected by the society they live in. It is flawed to assume that a human (animal) would feel guilt in killing if they were not told it was wrong in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765755939)

Killing to protect people as a whole is completely different from exacting your revenge. THAT is the difference between a vigilante and an officer.

So volunteering to take the job of officer, knowing full well it can involve killing, is not a form of vigilantism. Just because they followed society's acceptable guidelines to be allowed to kill does not make the officer any different from the vigilante. The only difference is that society accepts one and not the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shalandriel (Post 1765755939)

The officer takes no pride in it, or at least shouldn't (and doesn't from the dozens of cops I personally know), they aren't doing it for revenge. they aren't doing it for themselves. They aren't doing it for anyone specifically. They are doing it for people as a whole. It isn't the KILLING that makes it wrong it the REASON behind it.

Pride has no factor in this argument and neither does the reason per se. I have given several examples explaining how the different reasons define how severe the killing is viewed as. Why do we make these discriminations on what type of killing it is? That is my question. I do not care about the way society justifies their actions. I only care about the action itself. A kill is simply a kill. Why judge between the reasons a killing is done?

Also, you failed to mention the executioner, as an executioner can be anyone off the street that volunteers to file paperwork, again accepted by society, to allow themselves to kill someone on Death Row. Would this not be vigilantism either?

i just typed for about 10 minutes a response to this and my computer deleted it o_e i dont even know why it deleted it but i now want to kill my computer and that would make 2 wrongs but not a right D:

Quote:

Originally Posted by neko xoxox (Post 1765781708)

That really really sucks. Will you be trying again? ^^;

For the speeding situation; For the police to enter into a high speed chase is not wrong. It's not like they WANT to speed, they're whole goal is to keep people safe. If someone was to go speeding down the road and enters an intersection through a red light, they're likely to get and hit someone else. However if there are lights and sirens behind the speeding car, a car entering the intersection might think twice. We give the exceptions to speed to the police to protect us. As for whether it's "wrong" It isn't. If you're defining "wrong" as not following the law, then the police are not wrong because the law says they can exceed the speed limits when necessary.

For the Death Penalty, again same point as above. It's not wrong because the law says it's okay. However many people have other moral ideas about this. Personally I find people who are against the death penalty and for abortion incredibly hypocritical, however the death penalty is simply a punishment for murder. It a punishment known by everyone. Now if someone knows they might get the death penalty and still commits a murder, then they deserve the consequences. Going to jail for the rest of your life isn't as bad as you may think. Many jails have things like TV, internet, sports, three square meals a day, free place to sleep and live, place to shower, free medical care. So basically, the guy kills a girl, then the girl's family's taxes pay for the killer's TV and medical care. There is a middle eastern country where if you are caught stealing something then it is typical punishment to have your hand cut off. As a result, VERY FEW people attempt to steal anything.

If there are easy or no consequences for horrible crimes then more people would be encouraged to commit them.

Two wrongs do not make a right, however we give the police and judicial system more power than the rest of us to allow them to protect us and our society. Consequences are always necessary and whether it is seen as revenge or simply punishment is up to the person examining it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayzel (Post 1765991645)

So, to sum it all up in a nutshell. Your view is that anything that follows the law is correct? Even if the law is inconsistent in its very nature? Death penalty is killing someone intentionally. Murder is killing someone intentionally. What is the difference? Both result in the same end. Society has only served to brainwash you into thinking certain types of killing are bad and certain types are justifiably good. I don't think killing is wrong at all and also that it should not be restricted by a government that is completely inconsistent in its very nature.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc (Post 1765991912)

Now your putting words in my mouth.

You set the definitions of right and wrong as follows...

Quote:

"Right" will be assumed to mean following the laws that are governed by the leader that we as humans elect to represent us.
"Wrong" will be assumed to mean breaking or disregarding the laws that are in place.

The law states that if someone is speeding and refusing to pull over for a police officer, the police officer has the go ahead to chase. Whether or not the law is inconsistent, that is what it says. And according to your definitions, no that is no wrong.

Shooting someone in self defense is killing some intentionally. Killing someone in self defense isn't "accidental" so does that make it wrong? The difference is the death penalty is a punishment to keep dangerous murderer's(usually serial killers) off the streets. The constitution states that if a law is broken that basically takes away rights of another person, then the person breaking the law is giving up his own rights(something to that effect).

The difference is also in who's being killed. Killing an innocent child, or putting to death a guilty killer. The laws are set up to protect the citizens under it's government.

If your going to talk about brainwashing you have to be careful. Technically we've all been brainwashed to think something. We've ALL been taught by someone or something what is right and what is wrong. If you've been taught or told that killing is right no matter what, then you've been brainwashed to think that. Brainwashing is inevitable.

Also, if two people have sex and the girl gets pregnant, what's the difference between that and a girl getting raped and getting pregnant? By saying two things are the same because the results are the same is very incorrect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayzel (Post 1765992238)

Now your putting words in my mouth.

You set the definitions of right and wrong as follows...

The law states that if someone is speeding and refusing to pull over for a police officer, the police officer has the go ahead to chase. Whether or not the law is inconsistent, that is what it says. And according to your definitions, no that is no wrong.

*sigh* and so the misunderstanding begins. This was my first Topic and therefore I made a mistake in my definitions. Please read the following quote to see what I meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tutela

The quote above can be found on page 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayzel (Post 1765992238)

Shooting someone in self defense is killing some intentionally. Killing someone in self defense isn't "accidental" so does that make it wrong? The difference is the death penalty is a punishment to keep dangerous murderer's(usually serial killers) off the streets. The constitution states that if a law is broken that basically takes away rights of another person, then the person breaking the law is giving up his own rights(something to that effect).

The difference is also in who's being killed. Killing an innocent child, or putting to death a guilty killer. The laws are set up to protect the citizens under it's government.

The question is, should the government be able to decide what rights each person has based on their actions? Also, why doesn't this apply to those that seem to be above the law such as Police Officers, and Government officials. If they claim to not be above the law, then should they not be restricted by the law just as every other citizen in America is?

It does not matter who is killed or how. Killing is killing. I do not think killing is wrong, but a natural way for us to help control our population. The fact that it is restricted to such an extent is only causing us to overpopulate more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayzel (Post 1765992238)

If your going to talk about brainwashing you have to be careful. Technically we've all been brainwashed to think something. We've ALL been taught by someone or something what is right and what is wrong. If you've been taught or told that killing is right no matter what, then you've been brainwashed to think that. Brainwashing is inevitable.

Yes, however the difference is that my mind is unclouded. I have learned both sides. I have been taught that killing is wrong and believed that for the longest time. However, good and evil are societal terms that do not literally exist. They are implemented to execute a type of control over the masses. The only things that exist are natural and unnatural. Unnatural would be defying death, something society advocates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hayzel (Post 1765992238)

Also, if two people have sex and the girl gets pregnant, what's the difference between that and a girl getting raped and getting pregnant? By saying two things are the same because the results are the same is very incorrect.

There is no difference except one was forced physically (The ability to rape to mate), the other was forced charismatically.(The ability to seduce to mate.) Each one resulted in procreation and neither are necessarily wrong except through ideals conditioned by said society.

Quote:

*sigh* and so the misunderstanding begins. This was my first Topic and therefore I made a mistake in my definitions. Please read the following quote to see what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tutela
Fine, for the sake of the argument ignore my initial definition of right and wrong. (This was my first post created on Menewsha and so I wasn't aware of the way people debated. I came from Gaia, and unless you defined everything in your post they would say "define this," or "define that" to everything you wrote and miss the whole point of the argument. My definitions were my attempt to avoid the immaturity, my apologies)

However, please keep in mind that I do not equate right with good and I do not equate wrong with bad/evil.

Right and Wrong are societal terms that define a tolerance spectrum regarding actions done by every human and are judged by those humans. Humans have the ability to change that tolerance spectrum to suit their own needs when they need it the most. I am asking why this is.
The quote above can be found on page 2.

You should change those definitions in your main post then. Those were the definitions I was going by and the definitions that should be considered when reading my posts.

Quote:

This is philosophy, not what the original debate is about.

Quote:

Tell that to rape victims. The reason it is considered wrong by society is because people come away from it traumatized and deeply hurt, not to mention physically harmed. And that's kind of my point. Yeah the result was the same, but there was a difference in the WAY the result was achieved.

Quote:

I don't know what kind of morals you have however, if killing was allowed then there would be no order nor civilization and you would have the complete opposite of evolution. So yes, in order to obtain a civilized community, some have been put above others in such ways to punish those who commit crimes.

As far as overpopulation, that's crap. If you organized the world into families of four, and gave them each a 1/2 acre of land, Texas wouldn't even be filled up. Just because Cities are overpopulated doesn't mean the world is.