27
   

When should it be acceptable to kill a human?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 08:35 am
@IanRust,
IanRust wrote:
HUmans should be killed when they are unyieldingly destructive of life and natural order.
This way life continues
Yea! No more harvesting fish, corn nor lumber!
U gotta YIELD!





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 08:44 am
@Uncle jeff,
Uncle jeff wrote:
Hmm. Could you describe a scenario?
OK: a robbery.




( Sorry for the delay. )





David
0 Replies
 
IanRust
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Your comment does not follow.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 02:57 pm
@IanRust,
IanRust wrote:
Your comment does not follow.
That followed this exchange:


Uncle Jeff wrote:
I was wondering what people think?
Not looking for any laws just what philosophy on the question that you have.

DAVID wrote:
Self defense
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 04:45 pm
There are two arguments to terminate a persons live that together can make a strong case but that are hard to demonstrate:

1 - That an individual is extremely dangerous damaging and disruptive to society.
2 - That such individual is absolutely incapable of changing or improving his behaviour n conduct.

While the first is easy to demonstrate by publicly exposing the harmful actions n conduct that are the cause of damage to others, the second its an speculative exercise impossible to verify.

No other argument should be needed to ban dead penalty.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 07:22 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
There are two arguments to terminate a persons live that together can make a strong case
but that are hard to demonstrate:

1 - That an individual is extremely dangerous damaging and disruptive to society.
2 - That such individual is absolutely incapable of changing or improving his behaviour n conduct.

While the first is easy to demonstrate by publicly exposing the harmful actions n conduct
that are the cause of damage to others, the second its an speculative exercise impossible to verify.

No other argument should be needed to ban dead penalty.

The victim has a natural right to be AVENGED, to get even.
If government defaults in executing that right,
then that right morally REVERTS to the victim or to his survivors.
An honorable man will avenge his friend,
if government defaults in that.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 07:31 pm
@JLNobody,
Has he killed u YET??

Are u growing IMPATIENT ???
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 08:25 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Get a doctor...good day.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 08:29 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
I AM a doctor. Good night.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 09:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So what ? From where does it follow that you being a doctor makes you not require a doctor ? Mate I have nothing against you so don't just shout at me because I strongly disagree you...I honestly believe you require some sort of help. Obviously some very traumatic experience happened in your life for you to think that revenge is not an unbalanced state of mind.

Let me go more abstract as that may help you see the matter on a different light. When your phone is damaged but there is hope of fixing it do you throw it in the trash ?
My point as usual always tries to go as deep as possible and as abstract as possible and makes the case for saving energy instead of adding more entropy into any given system...revenge ads more entropy. It doesn't fix **** !

I said n I repeat there can be made a case if the person, in the future a bot or some form of AI are irretrievable for proper functionality...but taking that path is like trying to predict the weather 10 years from now...

So lecture me doctor go ahead n shoot my logic I dare you !
You see the thing is your gun is empty on bullets...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 09:37 pm
Justice is not and should be not vengeance.
Justice is fixing and not destroying.
Ideally it should retrieve anything worth retrieving and nullify anything damaging. The individual as a whole can both have things worth nullifying and things worth retrieving. Throwing out a huge set of life experiencing without retrieving anything is not energy efficient.

A good engineer a good mechanic and specially a good doctor shouldn't just try fix easy things n trash away the tougher challenges...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
So what ? From where does it follow that you being a doctor makes you not require a doctor ?
How many do u want me to have??
To be clear, my doctorate is in jurisprudence.




Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Mate [????] I have nothing against you so don't just shout at me because I strongly disagree you...
I honestly believe you require some sort of help.

Obviously some very traumatic experience happened in your life [????]
for you to think that revenge is not an unbalanced state of mind.
No. That is only in your imagination or hallucination.
I remember my 3rd Birthday Party and time leading up to it.
Since then, and before, I have had a very pleasant life.
There is not much that I 'd change, if I coud. I lived in comfort n beauty.




Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Let me go more abstract as that may help you see the matter on a different light.
OK.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
When your phone is damaged but there is hope of fixing it do you throw it in the trash ?
Yes. That has happened.
I got new ones; fast n ez; dont cost much.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
My point as usual always tries to go as deep as possible and as abstract as possible and makes the case for saving energy instead of adding more entropy into any given system...revenge ads more entropy.
However that may BE,
the victim has a natural right to get even.
He pays his taxes for government to avenge him, if he needs that.
If government defaults on its duty to avenge him,
then that right REVERTS to the victim or those who survive him.
I admire the black actor (and his brothers) Mr. T
for avenging his mother, who fell victim to assault n robbery, in their naborhood.
She identified the perpetrator, by name.




Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I said n I repeat there can be made a case if the person, in the future a bot or some form of AI are irretrievable for proper functionality...but taking that path is like trying to predict the weather 10 years from now...
I respect your freedom of speech to re-iterate your beliefs.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
So lecture me doctor go ahead n shoot my logic I dare you !
Formal lectures r un-necessary to the occasion.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
You see the thing is your gun is empty on bullets...
Thay need not ALL be loaded.
Not all of them r for security. Many r just works of art
or target pistols or revolvers. I deem my 194O 9mm Luger P-'O8 to be an artifact of history,
tho I lack its provenance. Its like a massage in my hand to hold it.
I dont keep it loaded. 9mm is not an adequate defensive round.
I believe in hollowpointed .44 caliber slugs with wide cavities
for more reliable stopping power. Do u agree with hollowpointed .44 ?





David
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
The fact that you believe energy efficiency is of no consequence doesn't make nature act accordingly although you may want to bring Cyracuz to lend you a hand on that argument to help your case... Very Happy

...the good thing about truth is that it is not democratic nor prone to opinion making.

Recycling is fashion now, so be very wary, your whole world is changing below your feet... Cool
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 10:32 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Justice is not and should be not vengeance.
I disagree; not qua myself, in that I have nothing to avenge.
I have no complaints.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Justice is fixing and not destroying.
PROVE IT



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Ideally it should retrieve anything worth retrieving and nullify anything damaging.
The individual as a whole can both have things worth nullifying and things worth retrieving.
Throwing out a huge set of life experiencing without retrieving anything is not energy efficient.
In very rare instances, u might be right;
e.g., if Tesla or Einstein had committed murders,
then we 'd be better off by keeping him alive. That is un-usual.
Generally, we need not be so obsessively stingy.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
A good engineer a good mechanic and specially a good doctor shouldn't
just try fix easy things n trash away the tougher challenges...
You need not worship at the feet of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
We need not be so stingy, as a general rule.
I cheered in 1953, when we fried the Rosenbergs.
In retrospect, for what thay did, I wish that we had done worse to them. Thay got off ez.
U see that as a LOSS????? What did we lose??

When we fried Bruno Hauptmann, what did we lose????

We kept Jack Ruby alive; how much did he contribute
to our happiness since his conviction??? Please explain.





David
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I am not trying to precise with exactness on what we lose when we kill someone, nor do I need to David to make a case...it suffices to say that we are losing something in an inefficient way no need of précising in what order or what it is along those huge strings of data on human experience...

Ideally people should be fixed not killed...and you certainly can agree that people are not black n white.

Of course vengeance is a far more instinctively pleasant path to follow...n that is the real reason justifying its enduring. People like to feel empowered n unfortunately they believe vengeance empowers them on some sort or level...obviously the world keeps being just as round as ever...

The problem of our world is that it is not really interested in correcting wrongs by preventing them in the first place...

...if anything we enjoy wrong doers so we ourselves feel a little bit upper in the social ladder of illusions...punishment is a form of exorcism mixed with torture...the correct wording should be fixing not punishing...

of course you can always counter that punishment although intellectually inferior is a form of Pavlovian conditioning which is faster less complicated n more satisfying then fixing reverse engineering n rebuilding...

...perhaps the all discussion is bottom line about the lack of critical mass to make fixing cheaper in the short term then social conditioning people through punishment n brain washing people to think they are "bad"...people are "damaged" not "bad"...retrieving n rebuilding the best in them should be a long term goal of civilization because in the long term is less costly...if anything for the sake of energy efficiency instead of spreading entropy all over the place.
Considering easy access to information social super entropy will be our doom sooner rather then later. Terrorism in its modern form is a perfect example.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Mar, 2014 11:14 pm
It is true that such goals wont make any sense when we are over populated right now...but that doesn't make the ideal any less correct in a fully balanced system. Debating from the POV of a totally unbalanced system doesn't make the argument sound any better to me.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 12:06 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The fact that you believe energy efficiency is of no consequence
doesn't make nature act accordingly
OK. On that we can agree.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
although you may want to bring Cyracuz
to lend you a hand on that argument to help your case... Very Happy
I dunno Y.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...the good thing about truth
is that it is not democratic nor prone to opinion making.
SO STIPULATED.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Recycling is fashion now, so be very wary,
your whole world is changing below your feet... Cool
Remind me to look down 1ce in a while.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 09:06 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
I am not trying to precise with exactness on what we lose when we kill someone,
nor do I need to David to make a case...
Your case is naked ASSUMPTION based on idle conjecture,
because of your failure of meticulous analysis. For shame.
To substitute assumption for analysis is questionable.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
it suffices to say that we are losing
something in an inefficient way
no need of précising in what order or what it is along those
huge strings of data on human experience...
U have not proven that there are more efficient ways to lose it.





Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Ideally people should be fixed not killed...
and you certainly can agree that people are not black n white.
I dont necessarily agree with those assertions.




Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Of course vengeance is a far more instinctively pleasant path to follow...
Yes; much nicer.




Fil Albuquerque wrote:
n that is the real reason justifying its enduring.
People like to feel empowered n unfortunately
they believe vengeance empowers them on some sort or level...
obviously the world keeps being just as round as ever...
Vengeance empowers them to do what is right, good and just.
Your contentions to the contrary not withstanding,
I deem vengeance (in an appropriate degree) to be fair, just and admirable.

Merely watching a fictional movie depicting the absence
of sufficient vengeance exasperates my sensibilities.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The problem of our world is that it is not really interested
in correcting wrongs by preventing them in the first place...
That is not always feasible.



Fil Albuquerque wrote:
...if anything we enjoy wrong doers so we ourselves
feel a little bit upper in the social ladder of illusions...
Speak for yourself, not for me.

I usually cheer for the victim.
I LOVE it when the victim kills the predator,
e.g. zebra kicks lion and breaks his jaw.


Fil Albuquerque wrote:
punishment is a form of exorcism mixed with torture...
the correct wording should be fixing not punishing...
Sez u.
0 Replies
 
IanRust
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 01:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It still doesn't...
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Mar, 2014 01:10 pm
@IanRust,
That is not comprehensible.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/28/2022 at 03:24:17