- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
We dedicate quite a bit of brain space to moral reasoning. .
Well, we wouldn't be debating on this topic if we weren't. But that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the final decision made in a case(like this) where morality among people leads to conflicting opinions.
Justice that doesn't depend on morality? Morality is the only basis of what is right. Without morality we cannot provide justice instead it makes what's worse more worser. Also without morality we lose our dignity and respect to ourselves, look at the poor prostitutes who trade themselves for money. They also think it is the best to have sex with foreigners just to give their family something to eat. Same to those executors who kill just to provide safety for the citizen. Tell me , If a person has a benevolent intention but makes a cruel action can it be qualified as good ?
You just seem to support my point.. the question you asked in the end makes it clear why "justice" should be morality free. Morality leads to dilemmas that can't be explained to have a common solution, some people would classify your question to be among good acts, while many would do the opposite. One thing we can all agree upon is logic, hence a quantitative decision is the best fit for the situation.
Fair in what terms? In death? I refuse to allow more deaths to occure. Where's that Moral lesson that you learned when you were a kid? Elders told you to value life of human, if you don't do so. You're judged as immoral. If you kill my mother, you become guilty. If I kill you, will that end your guilt? No, you'll just die, nothing happens, no one learns nor is there any wrong corrected. Your delusion of justice is not fair in terms of peace. It's only fair in terms of death.
What is moral to you need not be for another. Morality depends on what you've been taught as a kid by your parents. More specifically, it depends on the environment you grew up as a kid. The only thing then that would make sense is to have justice which doesn't depend on morality. In which case a quantitative standpoint like that of what I stand for, would be the best solution.
Look man, you're looking at the issue from an emotional stance. You're putting yourself in the shoes of either the criminal or a victim and then coming to a conclusion of "what you'd probably like/what anyone would probably like." The thing is, it's either fear or compassion driving you to make that statement that if maybe you do end up in a situation like that, what would you like. See beyond emotions.
To answer your question, do I like it? no. Is it fair? yes.
Death penalty for all crimes? hell no.
Death penalty for crimes that have taken lives? yes.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!