Sorry to be obsessive, but I really truly want to

[Guest Zoe Grace]

I still haven't heard the verdict on kitten drowning.

 

Is it moral?

 

Is it immoral?

 

Is it moral sometimes? What defines it as ok sometimes? etc.

 

I have a kitty that's currently annoying the hell out of me. His tail is covering part of my monitor screen. And I think that it's possible he's evil and sinful. I have considered drowning him in the bathtub...but I don't want to gather up two of every animal. What is the proper ritual to perform? What are biblegod's guidelines so that I can morally and ethically drown this kitty.

 

Thanks ever so.

 

p.s. Does anyone have a pool going to see how long I'll keep bringing up kitty drowning or how long Amanda or any other Christian will refuse to answer the actual question? Some people could make some money.

[Mythra]

It was moral, in that the kitties died for the greater good. God in his infinite wisdom had determined that ethnic cleansing was necessary at that time to restore the world. Mankind was evil evil evil. All kinds of meanness and anal sex happening.

 

Perhaps God found a way to comfort the little kittens as the water was rising around them, and their little "mew, mew, mews" grew stronger and louder as panic set in just before the water filled their little lungs.

 

Oh shit. Did I just throw gasoline on the fire?

[Vixentrox]

Why do you think god made hell? So he could torture people for his own amusement.

[Asimov]

kitties!!

 

No drowning!!!

[Guest Priapus]

Clearly this kitten has maternal separation issues. You must nurse this kitten from your own body. If that requires you to take some lactation hormone, then so be it. You've taken responsibility for this creature and now must carry it out.

 

Then you must teach it to hunt as part of its transition to independent adult cat-hood. Same thing with dogs. Social creatures. You gotta mount 'em and establish that dominance hierarchy.

 

GET RIGHT, ZOE!

[LloydDobler]

Clearly this kitten has maternal separation issues. You must nurse this kitten from your own body. If that requires you to take some lactation hormone, then so be it. You've taken responsibility for this creature and now must carry it out.

Ahem... FELINE lactation hormone. Prepare yourself for 6 extra boobs zoe.

[Guest Joseph]

I still haven't heard the verdict on kitten drowning.

 

Is it moral?

 

Is it immoral?

 

Is it moral sometimes?  What defines it as ok sometimes? etc.

 

Morality is not a binary situation. It is not "all good" or "all evil." Any given act is good along a continuum just like it is evil along a continuum.

 

Any given act could be moral or immoral from a given context or standpoint.

 

I have a kitty that's currently annoying the hell out of me.  His tail is covering part of my monitor screen.  And I think that it's possible he's evil and sinful.  I have considered drowning him in the bathtub...but I don't want to gather up two of every animal.  What is the proper ritual to perform?  What are biblegod's guidelines so that I can morally and ethically drown this kitty.

 

Well, not to just cop out with an old saying, but I will. In any given situation, "might wins." The old statement about "might makes right" is not the issue at all, the one with the ability to win in the end defines the morality of the situation, and by such whatever you decide on your kitty is what is moral until a greater or more powerful entity, government, people, or group decide it was not.

 

So say you decide to kill your kitten because it got in your way, you are perfectly justified to do so. But then again if this gets wind to people for the ethical treatment of animals or some such greater more powerful social structure you will then answer to their standards and be held to their punishments they force upon you. That any given group has more power than any other group does not make them the moral right at any given time, it just makes them the more powerful.

 

Thanks ever so.

 

p.s.  Does anyone have a pool going to see how long I'll keep bringing up kitty drowning or how long Amanda or any other Christian will refuse to answer the actual question?  Some people could make some money.

 

Under a relative moral system the only way to come to an understanding of whether the kitty's death was justified is to look at it from a concurrent viewpoint. Then and only then can you make a value judgement about the situation.

[Java]

KITTIES!!!!!

 

*glomps her Jynx* No hurt Jynx. Even if he's a big-ass longhair cat, he's still MY kitty.

 

...and for your tests, Jynx gets pissed at water too. He go (=°_°=)

[Heimdall]

Your problem is, you are looking at the matter as a member of Homo Sapiens, you need to look at it as a Felinus Sapiens (common house cat). They rule, you must bow to their every wish. If anyone drowns anyone, they will drown you. They are the spawn of Satan! I know because I am owned by the Siamese mix know as Jezzie Belle and she is evil incarnate. always punishing me! - Heimdall

[Ouroboros]

Don't you know! The kittens were punished because of their sins!

 

They had stolen fish, they had killed little birds, they were full of pride and selfishness. So you see, according to God they deserved to die...

 

The only two surviving cats where the righteous cats: Pussy and Furball.

 

And when they landed Pussy gave a sacrifice to God, a mouse on the doorstep to heaven.

 

 

**edit**

 

This whole event led to the word: Cat-astrophy.

[Guest Joseph]

perhaps.  but biblegod is supposed to be "All good" therefore his actions must also be "all good"  If his actions are not all good then he is not.  He isn't good because he is labeled so...he is only good as far as his actions show he is good...if his actions  show him to be evil....well...

 

"Biblegod" never claims omnibenevolence. Quite the opposite in fact.

Read Isaiah 45:7.

 

actually this attitude makes me sick.  You are saying on the one hand that it's morally ok to kill your kitten as long as no one with more power than you is there to stop it...

 

Not entirely.

I'm saying that the moral question does not come into play until someone with more power than you has the ability to force their moral standard upon you. Until then it is a vacuum of morality, inwhich your actions are judged by and justified by yourself. And humans have an exceptional ability at justification.

 

There is no way to assign a moral label upon any given action without the "surrounding" information. Moral labeling is relative to given circumstances and is entirely defined by temporal labels of changing societies. There is no absolute standard that any given human has a right to cling to unless by blind faith alone. Just like the Christian leaders who kill in the name of their country/god or the Islamic leaders who kill in the name of their country/god, their morality is situational at best.

 

Now, is there a viewpoint from which you can say absolutely that a given act is wrong or not? That would be a statement made entirely upon blind faith, as no such moral absolute standard has ever been demonstrated.

 

...but then you contradict yourself by saying that any given group with more power isn't necessarily morally right just because they have more power.

 

That is not a contradiction at all. You need to realize that in saying that morality is relative (the death of the kitten is justified or not) has little relation to whether those in power are morally right (whether those in power are the ones that decide to kill innocent kittens( A ) or save innocent kittens ( B ). And in the end, we can not even make a value judgement about whether A or B is the better way to handle the situation without all surrounding data as well. Until then it is a moral vaccum, a "philosophical flatland."

 

Example to explain this.

 

On a "lower level" I have a kitten and decide not to kill it and say I am justified because I have a love of life as one of my inherent ideas about morality. Many would agree that this is the moral right action for me to take.

 

In steps the local government who says that I have too many kittens and/or the single kitten I have should perish because you can not own kittens in that governmental area (within their jurisdiction). So my kitten is taken to an animal shelter and in three days they kill it.

 

Those in power made the correct choice from their viewpoint and myself (a lower level under the FORCE of the greater governmental entity that existed) see them as wrong and doing an immoral act from my viewpoint. Which is in fact the immoral act is entirely based upon nothing more than point of view. Arbitrary at best. Relative. Neither having the ability to assign an "absolute" claim to their viewpoint. And that is why christianity is so dangerous, it attempts to assign an absolute moral standard in a relative world.

 

Might doesn't make right, it just wins. So whether any given powerful group is saying to save or kill kittens doesn't make them morally right or wrong, it just means that their wishes will be carried out in the end (due to the ability to enforce their desires upon the population through some type of "force" if necessary). Whether or not you would agree with those in power is entirely based upon your arbitrary relative viewpoint. Nothing more.

 

It is not contradictory to say that morality is relative (based upon viewpoint) and at the sametime to say that a given moral standard will be enforced by the powerful group running a given locality. The way you phrased it simply leads one to not see the entire picture correctly. Absolute Morality is not dictated by the powerful, but the powerful's relative moral standards are enforced. Thus even though there is no absolute moral standard under human reasoning existing does not matter because the powerful enforce their relative moral standard upon everyone that they have jurisdiction over.

 

You are saying on the one hand that it's morally ok to kill your kitten as long as no one with more power than you is there to stop it...but then you contradict yourself by saying that any given group with more power isn't necessarily morally right just because they have more power.

 

It is morally without assignment ( "flatland" ) inwhich it could be right or wrong to kill a kitten and until a greater moral entity of some type forces their relative moral system upon you what you decide from your relative arbitrary moral standard is what "is moral."

 

If only me and my kitten exist and I decide whether to kill or not the kitten, then what I decide is what is "moral." Justified by whatever relative arbitrary subjective means I deem a reason to keep or kill a kitten. And there is no outside entity that is "forcing" me to decide in such an arrangement.

 

Now, reality is very different. There ARE outside factors which influence my decision. Theological works, moral systems (such as Kant's), and perhaps even the moral systems of law that my government has over me (and thus my kitten too).

 

The "moral choice," and this includes the saving and killing of the kitten as being a possible choice is open to relative interpretation only. No one can make a value judgement about whether the kitten should or should not die without all the surrounding information, and even then they would be doing nothing more than attempting to place their relative moral label upon a situation that they are viewing from a certain background, bias, stance, etc. Making their moral claim nothing more than relative, arbitrary and only as enforceable as their power (ability to apply force upon another) dictates in the end.

 

That most humans value life and wish to save life (for the most part) does not mean that it is an "absolute moral standard" to wish to save life by any degree, it merely means that most people like the idea of allowing things to live over killing them. This does not assign a moral absolute but is entirely relative to the viewpoint of the majority of humans. Even in saying this we kill off bugs, viri, bacteria, lab rats, monkies, and various other species simply because they are in our way or cause disease or are inhabiting an area we need. So even the relative moral "idea" does not even relate to reality and the majority of human action as well as we would like it to in the end.

[pandora]

so you are saying putting a little water on my kitties is as bad as hell?   Come on...I'm just trying to explore the weirdness that is my Spike.  He's an odd one.

 

he'll also let you cuddle him and carry him like a baby were he's sortof "on his back"  most cats hate that.  he'll just let you carry him around like that lol.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I too have a kitty like your Spike. Her name is Sneakers. She lets me hold her like a baby on her back, and she purrs practically nonstop. She also doesn't mind baths. No mewing or scratching, jus tsitting there with a look on her face that says, "One of these days, cats will rule the earth" as I rub her down and get her all squeaky clean. She's a cutie!

[Guest Joseph]

Zoe Grace,Jul 23 2005, 05:22 PM

So why would you worship such a beast? Do you just enjoy following tyranny? Or are you a coward?

 

I see you retracked, but then again, worship is more-so for the worshiper than any supposedly infinite entity that might exist.

 

I do not follow tyranny, but any supposed infinite mind would know what was best for myself including any horrors of this world that I would face would be given for some type of purpose beyond my current level of understanding. Without such a viewpoint it is left to nothing but randomness and all our suffering is for nothing in the end.

 

I agree with you there, almost no one thinks they are a bad person...and when they do people say they have self-esteem problems.

This is true...however in moral situations...despite earlier more primitive moral structures it all seems to come down to "doing no harm" When you are doing harm to another living being it is very often considered wrong.

 

Again, doing harm is nothing but relative. Such as the philosophical statements about it always being wrong to cut someone with a knife, then you have to start making exceptions to the rule (making it not an absolute) because of the doctor who operates on a person to help them.

 

If "harming someone" is considered situationally moral...it is only believed to be so after justification. When an act is truly moral (by the standards of most) no justification is needed.

 

All actions require justification in order to BE moral. Unless you justify saving or perserving life as a moral act then you have no morality to speak of. The binary thought process of many morals systems do not necessarily fit our world either. There are many instances inwhich you must choose between a given evil or a lesser evil, or perhaps a good or greater good.

 

I think that even the idea of "harming someone" can not be seen as a standard rule of moral action because in many instances (perhaps the majority up through time even) humans have had to do great harm to other creatures and/or other humans in order to survive. We as a more modern society have been greatly removed from such instances, but only in so far as our society remains stable, and even in our own day the majority of the Earth (and human experience for that matter) is not stable. America is truly insulated for the most part.

 

When was the last time you had to justify the morality of NOT killing your dog? etc.

 

I had a very sick cat once that I ended up having to kill. I had to justify keeping him alive for a long time and finally he was purely suffering without any quality of life to speak of. At this point my justifications fell flat and I had to take the morally correct action to end his suffering.

 

It seems that on some level most people have SOME idea of what is right and wrong.

 

Arbitrary subjective biased moral systems which we as human like to think have meaning outside a given social structure or culture when in fact those labels are meaningless removed from the exact situation they are within.

 

Whether it's all relative or conditioned by society etc. etc. it's still the human race who has decided "this is right and that is wrong."

 

We had a discussion once about what "the human race" has decided is "right or wrong" which goes beyond culture. The only thing that anyone came up with was incest and even this was a guideline not a rule in all societies. So when you make the claim that humanity has decided upon a given moral standard, realize that there is not a single moral system in operation at any given time, neither would the moral systems in effect/affect in Russia even come close to those in America. Or perhaps the moral systems in effect in America in relation to S. Arabia would be even a more stark contrast.

 

And if biblegod is all "in charge" in his book of laws he said:"no killing" it would seem he thinks that's wrong (unless he wants to leave all the fun stuff for himself.)

 

Under proper translation, the verse reads, "thou shalt not murder." The KJV is perhaps one of the most ignorant translations ever done, even purposely including pious fraud within it at times in order to retroactively insert the pagan christian mangod into the jewish scriptures.

 

I can see what you are saying...HOWEVER I'm talking about a specific situation. Do you think that it's morally ok for an all powerful god to drown practically everything on the earth because some people were bad?

 

The only way I can make a moral judgement call about such an action is to take a point of view first. Then an only then does it make sense. Now, let me use two different viewpoints and come to very different conclusions.

 

From the point of view of any Deity that might exist, humanity is His creation, a finite one at that. He has control over their existence on more than the temperal realm and even if they die they have eternity to deal with the after effects of that death. Being from the viewpoint of a Deity a human's death is perhaps a non-event in that He/She/It would see human life as but a vapor and thus the killing of such a lifeform is not of importance especially if those that existed were suppose to die in such a fashion. Any Omniscient Entity would have known how they were to die from the beginning of time anyways. And we are all taken out of this realm by something.

 

From the point of view of a human, the act of dying by drowning is perhaps one of my greatest fears and I would hope that whatever Deity exists would take pity on me and not allow me to die in such a manner, but that in no way makes my value judgement absolute in nature, it merely means that relative to my point of view I cherish my life and do not wish to die such a death. And by such a viewpoint I would assign an arbitrary label of wrongfulness and killing people in such a fashion due to my finite limited mindset and my inability to see things from an eternal viewpoint. I have no way of knowing that an afterlife exists and by such I see their deaths as the end of their existence, far cry different from the viewpoint of any Deity that might exist.

 

Thus the morality of this situation is nothing but relative and by such while a human might label such actions as "inherently evil" it is only from the viewpoint of the finite that such an arbitrary label is placed and perhaps that label is placed souly due to the lack of knowledge more-so than due to the presence of understanding. It is basically an argument from ignorance in the end...as is all our relative moral systems.

 

You don't think that there was a better way to handle that situation?

 

I can think of various ways to think of "handling" the situation beyond killing everyone. However, it is not for me to second guess the writings of ancient men about their god...I merely understand that any action taken by any Deity does not need to be justified to myself defacto, the Infinite need not explain themselves to the finite (which may not even be possible without our destruction). Think of it this way, a full glass of water does something that a half of glass of water doesn't understand. The half a glass of water (finite) wants to understand but for it to grasp what the full glass has done it would be filled...and by such a finite can not know infinite without its destruction.

 

I see various actions of YHVH-God within the Jewish scripture as evil acts, specifically the death of David's baby from Basheba (spell?) and the death of innocent children in Egypt. But that from my viewpoint such actions are evil do not in fact make them absolutely evil, it just means from my understanding they were unjustifed actions. The life of that child of David was under the guide of a Deity if the story is true and by such if it entered into eternity how can I know what happened to that soul/spirit/entity at the death which perhaps could make the story more acceptable to my finite understanding. Same goes with the children killed in Egypt. We see death as an end. A total destruction. And by such the killing of innocent life by a Deity rings as an evil act to us as humans, but this in no way makes them absolutely evil.

 

YHVH-God claimed to set evil and good before mankind. To have generated evil (Isaiah 45:7). Amos 3:6 is even harder to take literally. Various scriptures say that YHVH-God sends "evil" spirits to test mankind, evil from our standpoint, merely "for a purpose" from God's standpoint perhaps. That we even have an idea of good and evil might be the greatest test of all, inthat we should learn that what we would label as "evils" or "goods" is merely delusions of culture and society in the end.

 

A more moral way?

 

Well, again, without saying that the author attributed natural disaster to God without good reason (quite possible) I would just say that even if any Deity did do such things it would certainly be beyond our reasoning as to exactly the infinite variables at play which lead to such an action. I believe that everything is connected in some way and by such the death of various peoples up through time shaped history...and by such lead the future to what it now is. Had other people died or lived than who did, an entirely different world would be presented in our future.

 

I have found it very funny that many people pick on "biblegod" so much but do not comment on the utter lunacy of some administrations and war hawks in our own day.

 

Because I can tell you I wouldn't have done it that way if I had the power because I instinctively know it's WRONG, situational ethics aside.

 

You realize that the future of mankind would be entirely different. That cultures inwhich the gravest of moral flaws (child sacrifice, and others) would have taken hold and been given up through time. Oppressive and totalitarianism would spread and instead of the ideas of a constitution coming about and liberty coming about...mankind remains in the dark ages centuries beyond what is needed...all because you wouldn't take out a few morons who worship a false idea about who you (as a god) are.

 

In all honesty, I am surprised that any Deity that exists hasn't done MORE to shape man's path. Truly He/She/It must have some sort of "prime directive" in mind or else much more would be happening which goes unexplained. Then again, the argument could be made that this entity works through nature.

 

So I'm more moral than biblegod...

 

From a given point of view.

Course, I do not know what you do behind doors, so your level of morality is but a question-mark, heh.

 

Again, many times we as humans must decide between a lesser or greater evil (not having the option of "a good action") and by such think of how it would be for any Deity in the end.

 

...one of the reasons (besides the fact that I think he's imaginary) that i won't follow him.

 

Well, any Deity that exists probably wouldn't care about what we actually believe, (do we care what bacteria believes in?) that is more-so for theological groups to worry about so that their ideas about God are the most powerful in a given culture. Perhaps in our relative reality the curses/doubt of the atheist equate to the worship of the faithful in the end. Both demonstrating the Omniscience to some small finite portion of the whole of existence.

 

I don't need an example to explain this...my abilities to understand situational ethics aren't in question here.

This is true...People consider death bad. They consider pain bad. They avoid those things for themselves as much as possible and then if they are moral avoid them for others.

 

Not necessarily. Again, to make a blanket statement that "to avoid those things for others is intrinsically moral" does not demonstrate an understanding of relative morality. Again, many times it is the moral right action to cause death and inflict pain upon others. I realize that is hard to grasp as written, but think of self defense, war, or perhaps killing a chid that has ebola before it enters a village. Such extremes are not even needed...think of the child that you hurt to remove the splinter. We can not take an arbitrary statement and attempt to apply it to all circumstances due to the relative nature of our existence. Think about our law system for example, human law is always at fault as it can not hope to apply to all situations in a meaningful light.

 

[i have tried to get the quote function to work three edits now, do not know what is wrong with it...last try...]

[Abiyoyo]

I still haven't heard the verdict on kitten drowning.

 

Is it moral?

 

Is it immoral?

 

Is it moral sometimes?  What defines it as ok sometimes? etc.

 

I have a kitty that's currently annoying the hell out of me.  His tail is covering part of my monitor screen.  And I think that it's possible he's evil and sinful.  I have considered drowning him in the bathtub...but I don't want to gather up two of every animal.  What is the proper ritual to perform?  What are biblegod's guidelines so that I can morally and ethically drown this kitty.

 

Thanks ever so.

 

p.s.  Does anyone have a pool going to see how long I'll keep bringing up kitty drowning or how long Amanda or any other Christian will refuse to answer the actual question?  Some people could make some money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What Would Jesus Do? WWJD.

[duderonomy]

Ummmm...

Zoe...

Funny you should bring this up.

My Great-Uncle, who was old school, a cowboy in Montana, and a guy who 'knew Eddie Rickenbacker when he was a kid in knee pants (all true)', used to drown kittens. Of course, he's also the ex-saxophone player that chased his cats down Walnut St. in Howard City naked on occasion.

I don't have an answer to your question, but your post reminded me of this, so I thought I'd share...

For what it's worth...none of the rest of us approved of his kitten drowning, nor liked his doing so (we were kids and couldn't stop it).

God could have stopped it though...but didn't.

For what it's worth...

[Guest Joseph]

Ummmm...

Zoe...

Funny you should bring this up.

My Great-Uncle, who was old school, a cowboy in Montana, and a guy who 'knew Eddie Rickenbacker when he was a kid in knee pants (all true)',  used to drown kittens. Of course, he's also the ex-saxophone player that chased his cats down Walnut St. in Howard City naked on occasion.

I don't have an answer to your question, but your post reminded me of this, so I thought I'd share...

For what it's worth...none of the rest of us approved of his kitten drowning, nor liked  his doing so (we were kids and couldn't stop it).

God could have stopped it though...but didn't.

For what it's worth...

 

Since you're involved in this I guess it is ok to tell you.

 

Tonight I had one of the biggest and most real cases of deja vue (spell?) I have ever had in my life. It happened during a Magnum P. I. rerun of all things, I then wrote myself a note. So that whomever would read it would know. Now, this is the strangest thing of all, that it keeps going as I write this note. I came to this site to make a new thread to cover this topic but saw your post and decided to read it first. As I type this it is like I have written every word thousands of times, reliving them. The little bit you wrote above was like an old nursery rhyme that you memorize as a kid, barely remembering it, yet it's there. The part that was the absolute spookiest was the "My Great-Uncle, who was old school, a cowboy in Montana, and a guy who 'knew Eddie Rickenbacker when he was a kid in knee pants (all true)', used to drown kittens." It is like I remember that from another time, and of all strange and unheard of stories to tell someone...that takes the cake.

 

Anyways, when I think of this I begin to wonder what if it is true, what if our reality is nothing but a repetition somehow, and we aren't the first time through. But that sounds crazy even to me, and yet, as I write this, every single word of it sounds like I have typed it a thousand times.

 

I must say that as far as strange events go in my life, this takes the cake. I can not help but think that the last sentence I typed has been typed before...exactly as you seem them now.

 

Joseph

PS: ...the edit was the last part "exactly as you see them now." Because I believe that was the ending, in the past. Including this PS.

[Kay]

If "harming someone" is considered situationally moral...it is only believed to be so after justification. When an act is truly moral (by the standards of most) no justification is needed.

 

Zoe, when I grab the nearest knife to come to your self defence against a rapist, the first thing on my mind before I even commit the action is: It's very moral of me to stick this knife between his ribs and I'd probably spit in the face of someone asking me to justify the way I acted.

 

Is this relevant?

[Vixentrox]

Well, WWJD? Since Jesus is the same god of the old testament, he might drown them. He might cut thier bellies open. He might make them eat poop. He might slowly roast them forever without letting them die or, he might turn them into a pillar of salt. He might.......well, you get the idea.

[Ouroboros]

What Would Jesus Do? WWJD. 

You got the acronym totally wrong!

 

WWJD = Who Would Jesus Drown

 

Since we're talking about drowning kittens...

[Ouroboros]

FINE I RECANT.  Goddammit lol.  Fine all ethics/morals are situational there is no absolute moral code.  we are all adrift in a sea of whatever the hell we want to do.  happy?

Moral Luck. It's a concept without an answer.

 

Moral is mostly judged based on outcome of an event, rather the intent or the random circumstances leading to the event.

 

We judge other people for their actions,

but we judge ourselves for what we intendend to do.

[Guest Joseph]

Moral Luck. It's a concept without an answer.

 

Moral is mostly judged based on outcome of an event, rather the intent or the random circumstances leading to the event.

 

Yes, I loved the old philosophical story that goes...

 

There is a doctor who goes into a surgery and attempts with all his abilities to save a life and the person dies. He looses everything he owns and is banished from the medical field forever.

 

There is another doctor who goes into a surgery and attempts with all his abilities to kill his patient and (miraculously) the person lives. He is given an award for saving the life of his patient and become a fellow of a respected hospital.

 

Was justice served?

 

There really isn't a good answer to this because intent can not be demonstrated very well...it must be assumed.

 

We judge other people for their actions,

but we judge ourselves for what we intendend to do.

 

Yep, very good. What I find funny is that if you can demonstrate "planning" in a court of law then you have intent. The problem is that in various instances the "planning" could be taken innocently (he planned a romantic weekend out in the country) outside of the events that they end in (inwhich he got mad and killed her). Again, we are left with a very poor GUESS as to what the real intent was much of the time and a good prosecutor knows this and forms the story around just such an idea, so that the "guess" ends up with the intent being "evil."

 

It is the difference between life in prison or a needle in many cases, go figure.

[Ouroboros]

Yes, I loved the old philosophical story that goes...

 

There is a doctor who goes into a surgery and attempts with all his abilities to save a life and the person dies.  He looses everything he owns and is banished from the medical field forever.

 

There is another doctor who goes into a surgery and attempts with all his abilities to kill his patient and (miraculously) the person lives.  He is given an award for saving the life of his patient and become a fellow of a respected hospital.

 

Was justice served?

Very good analogy.

 

There really isn't a good answer to this because intent can not be demonstrated very well...it must be assumed.

Yep, very good.  What I find funny is that if you can demonstrate "planning" in a court of law then you have intent.  The problem is that in various instances the "planning" could be taken innocently (he planned a romantic weekend out in the country) outside of the events that they end in (inwhich he got mad and killed her).  Again, we are left with a very poor GUESS as to what the real intent was much of the time and a good prosecutor knows this and forms the story around just such an idea, so that the "guess" ends up with the intent being "evil."

Yeah, the intent and planning could be done in a fraction of a second, or take two months. When it's two months then its a clear intent, but if it took a second, it's heat in the moment, and not really intent. So where does the line goes if you stretch the second to five seconds, one minute, five minutes, and the other one two months, to one month, or only one day, or one hour. Where's the line? 5 minutes?

 

It is the difference between life in prison or a needle in many cases, go figure.

Yup.

 

But all of this comes down to that the Law has nothing to do with the word "moral" or "ethical". It's just the law. Morality is personal, just like faith, but morality is the contract of accepted behavior in a group, and that contract can change, and can be different between different groups.

 

One thing that upset me about the Iraq war, was that people was talking about it as a morally right thing to do. I can understand the idea that we want to help people and save them from a cruel dictator, but were does the line go between our concept of morality and another country's culture based morality?