I Challenge You!

[redross]

This is a small debate (3 to 4 people, including me) on any moral issue except the death penalty; i already have a thread dedicated to that.

 

The only rule is, the moral issue to be discussed will be the first one suggested by you and approved by me. I hope to have a number of these threads, depending on the interest they garner.

 

Oh, another rule, stay on topic when we decide on one.

[Asimov]

Polygamy! Right or wrong? You be the judge.

[redross]

Hahaha. Jerk.

 

Right! Or at least not wrong

[Asimov]

Hahaha. Jerk.

 

Right! Or at least not wrong

 

Hehe, ok...seriously? Since we agree on nearly every issue, I dont' know what we could debate on.

[redross]

True. Anyone else?

[HuaiDan]

Assassination of a publicly elected official? Right or wrong?

 

Keeping in mind the ramification for the morally outrageuos murder of one man or woman could save the world, or doom it.

[redross]

Assassination of a publicly elected official? Right or wrong?

 

Keeping in mind the ramification for the morally outrageuos murder of one man or woman could save the world, or doom it.

 

Well, you already used the word murder (wrongful killing) so it would be wrong, regardless of the situation. If it was the killing of an elected official, it would depend on why he/she was killed.

[HuaiDan]

Any purposeful killing of a human being with malicious intent is murder. I would go so far as to include war, self defense, death penalty, etc, even though obviously the law wouldn't. Homicide is defined as any killing of a human being by another, accidental or otherwise. Therefore, all murder is homicide, but not all homicide is murder.

 

Seems perfectly reasonabloe to me if an elected official can pass a resolution to put you in army boots, give you a machine gun, and ship you off to go murder some camel jockeys armed with IEDs and RPGs, even though they posed no immediate threat to you until you stepped on their turf, that the same public official should be fair game for assassination if his reason for shipping you off to said sand dune turned out to be a steeaming pile of shit in the first place.

 

Let me be a bit more direct: ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME WE GAVE BUSH, RUMSFELD, DELAY, CHENEY, ROVE ET AL. A HOT LEAD INJECTION TO THE MEDULLA OBLONGATA?????

 

Hypothetically speaking, of course. I might voluteer, but firearms are hard to come by in China and my aim's not so good from that disatance.

[redross]

Any purposeful killing of a human being with malicious intent is murder.

 

I disagree. I can have malicious intent without being wrongful. For example, I would love to have all rapists gored and offed. That is malicious intent for sure, but, I would argue, hardly wrongful.

 

Also, I would hesitate to include the 'human being' clause in the definition of murder. While it may be permissible in some cases to kill a sentient, non-human being, to dismiss all non-human animals is wrong. It would be just as wrong to kill a pig with malicious intent (say, make it starve to death) than it would be to kill a human in the same fashion (maybe even more so).

 

As for the assassination of an official if your place of deployment turns out to be a shithole: if that's your only reason for assassinating the official, you'd be wrong. The official did nothing wrong in sending you, a soldier, to a place with subpar conditions. If it was an unelected official, then maybe. But you agreed to the democratic system by living in (and presumably voting in) a country that adopts such a system of government. As such, if that country has a voluntary military then you should not complain about where you are deployed. If the military is involuntary...move.

[HuaiDan]

MURDER n 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

3. a group or flock of crows.

–verb (used with object)

4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

 

Ok, I'll concede by throwing unlawful into the definition, but as we well know laws change from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture, as does what is considered moral or immoral. I am in no way a moral absolutist, so to make this debate resolvable (to me) I guess we would require consideration of a more narrowly defined circumstance, as in the case of an elected official, and leave the inhumane treatment of animals and the evisceration of rapists to another debate.

 

As for the assassination of an official if your place of deployment turns out to be a shithole: if that's your only reason for assassinating the official, you'd be wrong.

 

No, not the only reason, sorry if my metaphor was not clearer in that regard. If the majority elects an official based on his charisma, name recognition, and the lies he told to get himself elected, should that official later decide to resort to war based on reasons he will not forthrightly divulge to the public that elected him, then is it just or moral that one, regardless of how he or she voted in the election, should be deployed to that war and have a substantial risk of paying the ultimate price for a cause that is not know to him or her? In fact, he or she has been deceived into fighting, not for her country's principles, but for principles and people not known to him or her?Democracy, as it is well known to anyone who cares, is hardly a perfect system. And not for mere academic reasons only.

 

If it was an unelected official, then maybe. But you agreed to the democratic system by living in (and presumably voting in) a country that adopts such a system of government. As such, if that country has a voluntary military then you should not complain about where you are deployed. If the military is involuntary...move.

 

Actually, in part due to that very reason, I did. And not for fear of military service, I served my time a long time ago and I doubt we'll ever be short enough on cannon fodder that they would call up someone as old as I. I hope. But I'll be damned if a penny of my income is going into the treasury of this administration.

 

But that's a bit off topic. The founding fathers of the US sanctioned violent revolution, and an obvious side effect of revolution, if not a desired consequence, is that the heads of the party being revolted against will be slain in the turmoil. Isn't assassination just another form of revolution? How many people do you have to have fighting for a cause before it can be called a revolution? is just one enough? Or do you have to have a majority?

[redross]

MURDER n 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

3. a group or flock of crows.

–verb (used with object)

4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

 

Ok, I'll concede by throwing unlawful into the definition, but as we well know laws change from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture, as does what is considered moral or immoral. I am in no way a moral absolutist, so to make this debate resolvable (to me) I guess we would require consideration of a more narrowly defined circumstance, as in the case of an elected official, and leave the inhumane treatment of animals and the evisceration of rapists to another debate.

 

Let's leave the law out of this. Also, I wasn't going off topic with my mention of animals and criminals, I was just defining murder so we have a framework to work within.

 

Your original question is very broad. I would say it would be alright to assassinate an elected official if the official committed a crime that made him deserve to be offed. Assassination due to conflicting political beliefs, general dislike, just to make a point, etc. is immoral.

 

Also, the assassination would have to be done by the proper person, such as a police officer or agent, and not just some Joe off the street.

[duderonomy]

MURDER n 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!

3. a group or flock of crows.

–verb (used with object)

4. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

 

Ok, I'll concede by throwing unlawful into the definition, but as we well know laws change from time to time, place to place, and culture to culture, as does what is considered moral or immoral. I am in no way a moral absolutist, so to make this debate resolvable (to me) I guess we would require consideration of a more narrowly defined circumstance, as in the case of an elected official, and leave the inhumane treatment of animals and the evisceration of rapists to another debate.

 

Let's leave the law out of this. Also, I wasn't going off topic with my mention of animals and criminals, I was just defining murder so we have a framework to work within.

 

Your original question is very broad. I would say it would be alright to assassinate an elected official if the official committed a crime that made him deserve to be offed. Assassination due to conflicting political beliefs, general dislike, just to make a point, etc. is immoral.

 

Also, the assassination would have to be done by the proper person, such as a police officer or agent, and not just some Joe off the street.

 

Not to take sides (I'm not), but how can one 'leave the law out of this', in such a discussion.

 

Without the law, you are both arguing from a position of anarchy, where everyone is the law unto themselves, thus 'murder' is in the eyes of the beholder, as it were. the question then narrows to whose law? The law of the land? The jungle? The elected representatives? The Bible? The Quaran? The music of The Monkees? Mom?

 

Who is the one to decide whom is an 'official' that is then 'authorized' to commit a killing of another?

 

We all have some law that we live with or without. In my more than humble opinion, any party that tries to make a point based upon the morality of 'the law', must first define to themselves, each other, what, or whose (whom's?) version of the law is right.

 

But then, right according to whom?

 

Just my 2 cents. Sorry to butt in.

[redross]

The law has nothing to do with morality, unless it's moral law.

 

I've been thinking and I have to say that the murder of an elected official would be the same, in terms of it's moral correctness, as any other murder: wrong. I think the term 'elected official' is a red herring.

 

The difficulty lies in the justification for the assassination. There may be very good reasons to justify murdering the official but that does not make the killing immoral.

[redross]

Also, feel free to butt in. You're still in under the 3 to 4 people max. I wanted. Anyone with a username as cool as yours is allowed

[Asimov]

Not to take sides (I'm not), but how can one 'leave the law out of this', in such a discussion.

 

He means US law definitions.

[duderonomy]

"He means US law definitions." says Asimov.

 

How do you know, and what makes you think so? He who?

[Asimov]

"He means US law definitions." says Asimov.

 

How do you know, and what makes you think so? He who?

 

I know because we've discussed this before, and I'm talking about redross.

 

He's trying to stop people in his threads from assuming he's taking about the US Law and how they define an act.

[KT45]

Hazing by this definition

 

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source haze2 (hz) Pronunciation Key

tr.v. hazed, haz·ing, haz·es

To persecute or harass with meaningless, difficult, or humiliating tasks.

To initiate, as into a college fraternity, by exacting humiliating performances from or playing rough practical jokes upon.

 

Immoral or not? What if voluntary?

 

-EDIT-

Sorry read the first thread. Oh well..

 

If you want a different debate here is one that people have different thoughts on

 

Disciplining kids through physical strikes aka spanking

 

Moral?

[HuaiDan]

I kind of understand where he's coming from when he says "Leave the law out of this". This is a moral debate, not a legal one. If we just go around following the letter of the law, then we have no better understanding of morality than a follower of a faith who does what he believes is the right thing to do for fear of going to hell, or fear of whatever punishment his religion claims is in store for evildoers. And what of immoral laws? Is it not possible that immoral laws have been put into effect because they seemed like a good idea at the time, only later determined to be bad? What if all law, or the concept of law, is immoral? Also, the law is usually pretty clear on what is right and wrong in its own eyes, and the only thing debatable about the law is interpretation.

 

Only by examining the reasons why we pass and follow laws do we understand morality. Understanding the law itself leads only to a superficial understanding of morality.

[redross]

Hazing by this definition

 

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source haze2 (hz) Pronunciation Key

tr.v. hazed, haz·ing, haz·es

To persecute or harass with meaningless, difficult, or humiliating tasks.

To initiate, as into a college fraternity, by exacting humiliating performances from or playing rough practical jokes upon.

 

Immoral or not? What if voluntary?

 

-EDIT-

Sorry read the first thread. Oh well..

 

If you want a different debate here is one that people have different thoughts on

 

Disciplining kids through physical strikes aka spanking

 

Moral?

 

That would be a good topic to do next, if and when we come to a conclusion about this one. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

And what of immoral laws? Is it not possible that immoral laws have been put into effect because they seemed like a good idea at the time, only later determined to be bad? What if all law, or the concept of law, is immoral? Also, the law is usually pretty clear on what is right and wrong in its own eyes, and the only thing debatable about the law is interpretation.

 

Only by examining the reasons why we pass and follow laws do we understand morality. Understanding the law itself leads only to a superficial understanding of morality.

 

When I say 'moral law' I don't mean law in the legal sense, I mean it strictly in the sense that morality has it's own law seperate from any legal system. I do not mean to get into a discussion about which societal laws are moral or immoral. So, when talking about moral law there is no such thing as 'immoral law'. An act is immoral if and only if it goes against moral law (again, no legal sense here). Sure, laws usually help reinforce our intuitive sense of morality, but not all laws deal with morality (jaywalking) and, like you said, not all laws are moral.

[duderonomy]

redross,

 

I'm a bit confused. You speak of a 'moral law', and I assume you mean not man-made. Where does this moral law you speak of come from? Intuition? God? The Universe? You seem to lean toward intuition in your last post.

 

I know you don't mean 'law' as in 'Speed Limit 35 mph', but still, how can we have any standards of conduct without some authority saying so? How can morality have it's own laws seperate from any legal system? then who, or what, is morality to you?

 

 

They say you can't legislate morality, but in fact, every law is someone's morality, whether in a human sense or some other.

 

[redross]

redross,

 

I'm a bit confused. You speak of a 'moral law', and I assume you mean not man-made. Where does this moral law you speak of come from? Intuition? God? The Universe? You seem to lean toward intuition in your last post.

 

I know you don't mean 'law' as in 'Speed Limit 35 mph', but still, how can we have any standards of conduct without some authority saying so? How can morality have it's own laws seperate from any legal system? then who, or what, is morality to you?

 

 

They say you can't legislate morality, but in fact, every law is someone's morality, whether in a human sense or some other.

 

 

Well, I believe that morality arose out of the need to create sustainable societies. Society needs to maintain certain social bonds in order to survive and if we condone murder, theft, and the like then those social bonds will never form and society will crumble. So I guess morals are man-made in that sense, but they arise out of necessity. Just like the first human who hid in a cave to shelter himself from harsh environmental conditions; you could say that he created housing, but that creation arose out of necessity.

 

Yes, society's need some authority to enforce the laws that keep society together and citizens safe. Since all societies need certain prohibitions to survive, they develop laws to protect the societal structure. So while societal laws may, in some cases, reflect moral intuition they need not be an accurate indicator of the moral right/wrongness of an action. In either case, the function of moral and societal law is the same: to maintain the societal structure.

[redross]

This thread has been stagnant for a while. Does that mean that you agree that murdering an elected official is no different than murdering any other person?

 

If so we can move on to the issue of spanking as a form of punishment. Speak up!

[duderonomy]

This thread has been stagnant for a while. Does that mean that you agree that murdering an elected official is no different than murdering any other person?

 

If so we can move on to the issue of spanking as a form of punishment. Speak up!

 

 

First, you have to define what right and wrong is, and according to which or who's authority. Since you haven't explained what you consider moral law to be other than it is the same as societal laws, yet not the same, I'd have to say that to debate you on this issue any further...for me...would be like trying to pin Jello to a plate with a pocketknife.

 

Don't know what the others may think.

[redross]

I've made it clear what I think: murdering an elected official is no different than murdering anyone else. I believe that the needs of society contribute to the development of morality, but not everything society deems 'law' is moral.