In order to have argumentative discussions, I decided to make a series of threads on philosophical issues. The first question is whether it is possible to kill criminals, for example, as a state execution, for serious crimes (for example, murder). It is not so much your position on this issue that is important, as the reasoning behind which you adhere to this position. If there is some feedback on this thread, then I will probably open other threads on other philosophical issues.
To simplify the dialogue, you can give examples from popular culture or literature, Rodion Raskolnikov from the Crime and Punishment of Dostoevsky. The Punisher from the movies\show. Kira from the Death Note. (Kira found a notebook that gave the power to kill anyone who would be write in it. And Kira decided to kill all criminals, I will describe some questions on this example)
I will express some theses with which I met, my accompanying questions. And I will describe my position at the end.
"moral views.. killing is bad"
- Morality varies from country to country, from culture to culture, from one time to another time. human has been killing human throughout history. Then what is morality in general? What are you appealing to? Why exactly is "morality" a factor in this question? Well, a human will kill a human.. and? What's next? Will he go to hell, or what? And there is a clear contradiction with the fact that throughout history a person constantly kills a person and this is morally justified as something right.. for example, in wars or executions, this is morally justified.
That is, public morality says killing a person is bad, and at the same time killing a person is good.. It's like a contradiction..
And in general, what is morality for you? Is it float somewhere in the air? Can you point your finger at it? No? Well, according to the scientific method, what cannot be viewed materially this does not exist. There is no morality, it is a social construct that has been imposed on everyone. Helpful rhetoric? Perhaps..An individual can adhere to any ethical position, for example - "human life has no value like other animals, the one who killed - won, who was killed - lost" And death is much more objective than some thought up morality. And that's what's really important.
"Human life is priceless. There is a commandment "thou shalt not kill" You are not God to take a person's life"
- What kind of god are we talking about? There are just a lot of stories in the Bible with justifications for murders.. The plot of Abraham and Isaac, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the murder of the Bethlehem babies, Moses' speech to the judges of Israel, Deuteronomy and so on, so on. There is too much to list. As in Judaism, Islam, and many other religions. So what? What does God have to do with it? Why is this relevant? How can a Christian god be a repeater of absolute public morality when he himself justified the murder and rape of women and children? "Human life is priceless" - Why? What about the life of a man who killed and raped children, it priceless too?
Lets assume there is no God. What's next? So in your opinion, if there is no god, then it is possible to take a person's life? Why not? The law? The law changes from time to time. When it's legal to kill others, when it's not. If you are in power and you have separated yourself on some basis from others, then you can kill others. Even quite recently in the 20th century, it was in Soviet times with the kulaks, the clergy, the party nomenclature. In Nazi Germany with Jews. It was all legal. If you appeal to the law, then you appeal to this laws too. And today, similar things are still happening, albeit on a smaller scale. For example, with oppositionists in authoritarian states.
"Kira can start killing less and less guilty ones"
- And if not? Then you'll be on Kira's side? Think of it then as an execution from the state. There is a chance to execute an innocent person, and the more authoritarian the state becomes, the more likely it is that the innocent will be executed. Again, think of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union during Stalin's time. But these states had such moral strength to do it. After all, according to supporters of natural human rights, morality spreads through the state and its law. It turns out that if they are consistent in this, they believe that the USSR and the Nazis did nothing wrong.
I believe that morality and the law as a consequence of morality in the state are just a social construct that can be convenient at one time, but disastrous at another. Then why is Kira worse?
And here's my simple argument, let's imagine a simple thought experiment:
Consider the example of murders.
We have 2 worlds.
Our world: where innocent people are killed every day. (according to the statistics of murders ~437,000 per year \ ~1200 per day) Where there is a place for wars, genocides, repression of the innocent and other similar things..
And Kira's world: A world in which the level of murders and other serious crimes is maximally reduced due to the fact that almost all criminals are killed by an invisible force, and the rest are afraid to commit any crime, and there are very few murders and other crimes in this world. So much so that even if we count the murder of all criminals by Kira + the murders from the remaining crimes, the number will be thousands of times less than in the first world.
The question is, which world will you choose? And why?
I prefer a world with fewer murders, if only purely out of rational selfishness. Because I want there to be as little chance as possible that I would be killed. A person first of all values his life. Since he can only be aware of himself, because he looks from himself in the first person. He cannot think for everyone, the life (subjective experience) of other people is unprovable. Morality exists as combinations of opinions a particular society on a particular issue. But there are no moral facts. We cannot know the truth or falsity of moral arguments.
For me, the one who chooses a world with a lot of murders is clearly wrong. For this reason, I support the execution of the state. But on condition that it is a state that values human life and human freedoms. And no matter what it changes, it would be good if there were a law on the free carrying of weapons.
To simplify the dialogue, you can give examples from popular culture or literature, Rodion Raskolnikov from the Crime and Punishment of Dostoevsky. The Punisher from the movies\show. Kira from the Death Note. (Kira found a notebook that gave the power to kill anyone who would be write in it. And Kira decided to kill all criminals, I will describe some questions on this example)
I will express some theses with which I met, my accompanying questions. And I will describe my position at the end.
"moral views.. killing is bad"
- Morality varies from country to country, from culture to culture, from one time to another time. human has been killing human throughout history. Then what is morality in general? What are you appealing to? Why exactly is "morality" a factor in this question? Well, a human will kill a human.. and? What's next? Will he go to hell, or what? And there is a clear contradiction with the fact that throughout history a person constantly kills a person and this is morally justified as something right.. for example, in wars or executions, this is morally justified.
That is, public morality says killing a person is bad, and at the same time killing a person is good.. It's like a contradiction..
And in general, what is morality for you? Is it float somewhere in the air? Can you point your finger at it? No? Well, according to the scientific method, what cannot be viewed materially this does not exist. There is no morality, it is a social construct that has been imposed on everyone. Helpful rhetoric? Perhaps..An individual can adhere to any ethical position, for example - "human life has no value like other animals, the one who killed - won, who was killed - lost" And death is much more objective than some thought up morality. And that's what's really important.
"Human life is priceless. There is a commandment "thou shalt not kill" You are not God to take a person's life"
- What kind of god are we talking about? There are just a lot of stories in the Bible with justifications for murders.. The plot of Abraham and Isaac, the hardening of Pharaoh's heart and the murder of the Bethlehem babies, Moses' speech to the judges of Israel, Deuteronomy and so on, so on. There is too much to list. As in Judaism, Islam, and many other religions. So what? What does God have to do with it? Why is this relevant? How can a Christian god be a repeater of absolute public morality when he himself justified the murder and rape of women and children? "Human life is priceless" - Why? What about the life of a man who killed and raped children, it priceless too?
Lets assume there is no God. What's next? So in your opinion, if there is no god, then it is possible to take a person's life? Why not? The law? The law changes from time to time. When it's legal to kill others, when it's not. If you are in power and you have separated yourself on some basis from others, then you can kill others. Even quite recently in the 20th century, it was in Soviet times with the kulaks, the clergy, the party nomenclature. In Nazi Germany with Jews. It was all legal. If you appeal to the law, then you appeal to this laws too. And today, similar things are still happening, albeit on a smaller scale. For example, with oppositionists in authoritarian states.
"Kira can start killing less and less guilty ones"
- And if not? Then you'll be on Kira's side? Think of it then as an execution from the state. There is a chance to execute an innocent person, and the more authoritarian the state becomes, the more likely it is that the innocent will be executed. Again, think of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union during Stalin's time. But these states had such moral strength to do it. After all, according to supporters of natural human rights, morality spreads through the state and its law. It turns out that if they are consistent in this, they believe that the USSR and the Nazis did nothing wrong.
I believe that morality and the law as a consequence of morality in the state are just a social construct that can be convenient at one time, but disastrous at another. Then why is Kira worse?
And here's my simple argument, let's imagine a simple thought experiment:
Consider the example of murders.
We have 2 worlds.
Our world: where innocent people are killed every day. (according to the statistics of murders ~437,000 per year \ ~1200 per day) Where there is a place for wars, genocides, repression of the innocent and other similar things..
And Kira's world: A world in which the level of murders and other serious crimes is maximally reduced due to the fact that almost all criminals are killed by an invisible force, and the rest are afraid to commit any crime, and there are very few murders and other crimes in this world. So much so that even if we count the murder of all criminals by Kira + the murders from the remaining crimes, the number will be thousands of times less than in the first world.
The question is, which world will you choose? And why?
I prefer a world with fewer murders, if only purely out of rational selfishness. Because I want there to be as little chance as possible that I would be killed. A person first of all values his life. Since he can only be aware of himself, because he looks from himself in the first person. He cannot think for everyone, the life (subjective experience) of other people is unprovable. Morality exists as combinations of opinions a particular society on a particular issue. But there are no moral facts. We cannot know the truth or falsity of moral arguments.
For me, the one who chooses a world with a lot of murders is clearly wrong. For this reason, I support the execution of the state. But on condition that it is a state that values human life and human freedoms. And no matter what it changes, it would be good if there were a law on the free carrying of weapons.