jawab soalan ini

Debat Soalan

A soalan on Morals

Couldn't think of a relevant tajuk and I'm not sure if this type of soalan has been asked before (probably has, I'm too lazy to look)...

A person goes around killing only murderers, rapists, life-endangering criminals etc. in the most humane ways possible and they do it in a manner so that they never get caught. They always kill the correct felon and never kill atau harm innocents sejak mistake. They have no real motivation for performing these acts, except they believe they are doing good for the masses.

Does this person have good, bad atau twisted morals ? And in what way should they be punished, if it all ?

Detailed jawapan are always lebih appreciated :)
 Ryuuikari posted hampir setahun yang lalu
next question »

Debat Jawapan

whiteflame55 said:
That's a very interesting Dextion... I mean question. Perhaps I should check for the answer in my little black book...

The morals of taking peoples lives in any case is something of a thorny issue. If we assume all of the positives you're talking about here as certainties, then we're really only left with the idea of vigilante justice being meted out, and what that means.

I don't think a simple "good" atau "bad" suffices. This isn't a Batman-esque character who is obviously taking the moral high ground sejak not killing anyone - we're talking about the ending of a life here. But still, it's worth discussing the moral quandaries that exist with that type of actor. Is justice without a courtroom really justice? One could say that the certainty of a person's guilt should be enough, but without running it through the legal system, it's not justice in the sense that many of us know it to be. Essentially, these people are spurning the rule of law. Even if the purpose is good, that's something to take into account.

Taking that justice so far as to execute someone on behalf of the legal system that either couldn't atau wouldn't is also a difficult issue. Suddenly, that justice becomes murder. One could say that someone doing this would only be defending others from further heinous crimes, but there's a difference between killing someone who is about to commit a crime versus killing someone who has committed a heinous crime in the past. In doing so, there is no certainty that the vigilante is actually saving anyone's lives, at least not with any certainty. It's somewhat similar to the concept behind Minority Report, except we're talking about people who have already done something horrible committing future crimes. A likelihood isn't a certainty. It would be similar to Batman saying it's OK to lock up Poison Ivy when she was just getting out of katil in the morning. Sure, Poison Ivy might be planning some crimes later in the week, but unless there's proof, she's innocent of that potential crime. Killing someone just ensures that they actually are innocent of their own future crimes, as they'll never commit them.

But how do we balance this against the facts regarding these people? They should obviously be punished, there's no doubt about that, and in these cases we can assume that these criminals will never be punished to the full extent of the law. I personally don't find that incredibly convincing, but it is a point. The better point for me is that they have a very high recidivism rate. Even if they went to prison and are on parole, these offenders will be far lebih likely than others in the general population to commit the same crime. There is, thus, a unique benefit to removing them from the population.
select as best answer
posted hampir setahun yang lalu 
*
For me, the balance tips against the vigilante. They should be punished and, much as I feel their reasons are to be commended, murder in the first degree should be the sentence sought out. Whatever their motivations, and whomever their choice of targets, they are making the decision to kill people with full knowledge of what they are doing. Whether they're good atau bad people that they are killing doesn't really matter - a life is a life.
whiteflame55 posted hampir setahun yang lalu
*
I really need to have a read of that little black book anda possess :P indeed, anything that involves murder is a very blurred area that most people would like to avoid. I'm still struggling (and will continue to struggle) to decide whether I agree with the point, "killing for a just cause" as unacceptable. The general thinkings of the populace would lean towards the notion of murder being wrong in any form. I'm still wobbling on that fence. I believe justice to be entirely subjective, and if your justice leads anda to kill another, well I can't stop you. I think I've deviated from my point... damnit...
Ryuuikari posted hampir setahun yang lalu
*
It's a rough issue, one I'm certainly not 100% on.
whiteflame55 posted hampir setahun yang lalu
next question »