Help me align my moral standards

[The Funslinger]

Just align your morals to mine!

Piracy is fine, but so are the repercussions for piracy
Murder is wrong, unless motivated by revenge! (eye for an eye, not because they finished the milk and left the empty carton in the fridge)
Rape IS bad (Badong even)
Child Rape is the worst (It is not only a violent transgression but a destruction of innocence and future potential)
Tax evasion is bad because it is pathetic (It's only money. you don't support your government? Then be a man and try to overthrow them, not commit fraud)

Murders and rape cannot be equated to each other: how many apples equal the flavour of one orange? (to use a tired cliche)

Also rape is far worse than murder because it is degrading and humiliating. Death is inevitable and even when murdered you can at least die well.

Yeah, at least when you're dead you don't have to live through it.

Anyway, a lot of these things are different and incomparable. Another thing that needs to be taken into account is current social acceptability. Killing for the right reasons, and glorification of combat and death have been socially acceptable for thousands of years. Though some people are gradually changing this, even to a fault. (You know it's bad when soldiers are actually demonized by some people, which I HAVE seen) another example is rape and looting. When, let's say the hordes of Mongol raided a city; it was perfectly acceptable (nay, encouraged) for them to take what they could carry, and find a nice woman to carry off. Times have changed, and discipline is more enforced. If something like that happened now, millions of people would howl for the offending soldier's blood, and rightly so. Back then, it was just the same path of logic that was highlighted by people like Caesar (who wasn't prejudiced, and was quite even handed, even when brutal) who said that the victors of war can impose any conditions they like on the losing side.

Changes may be seen as common sense by those walking after, but there are things going on now that people argue infringe on our freedoms. People will have thought much the same when people called an end to rape and pillaging in wartime. I, myself agree and disagree with various issues that may soon change with social acceptability.

Really, it's up to you to take stock of the world around you and draw your own line. People can teach you, but nobody can make the decision for you.

 

[crudus]

I think this is winding down. Let's just tie off a few loose ends and part ways.

I'm surprised by the highness of that figure, guess some of those must be goldfish owners! If she had been an adult then risking her life would have been her own choice but I'll be damned if I let an 8 or 9 year old girl risk getting injured for the sake of a cat I don't frankly give a shit about.

Yeah, we were too. I think all of our guesses were 50-60 percent. The highest guess was 72 percent I think. Anyway you were charged with supervising the kids, not the pets. I am not really criticizing your decision. It is just an interesting piece of information that related.

Agreed, we have deviated from the original point somewhat. Taking the victim's past into account wouldn't make much of a difference though, and shouldn't at-all if the murderer was unaware of that past. The only case I can think of it where it perhaps should make a difference is if the victim has somehow terribly wronged the murderer or someone close to them, then that might be mitigating factor depending on what actually happened.

Well, I made the point as a rebuttal to "it is better for someone to murder a 92-year-old than a 20-year-old". The way I imagined it was a judge saying "You murdered someone who was 114-years-old?! In light of that, 3-5 years in prison. Thanks for getting him off of the road". Murder is murder no matter who you murder.

Well I don't live in the U.S. (I'm British) so that definition doesn't affect me unless I go on holiday to there. My definition is "the deliberate killing of a person without justification", the pretty much the same as the law, though I might stretch "justification" to include revenge in certain circumstances such as a rapist or murderer getting away without being punished.

I was just using the US as a baseline. I didn't want you to accept it, but just to get us to agree to a common definition. Throwing around terms doesn't mean anything if you don't agree what they mean. Also the law doesn't cover revenge as an acceptable reason to kill people. Revenge isn't about justice, just satisfaction. In the states (I can't say how it is up there), revenge killing is frowned upon by the media and general public(pretty much thanks to the media).

I agree with the golden rule, which is why I believe that moral justice must be enforced. If someone commits a great wrong they must be punished, that doesn't make me a hypocrite as unlike them I had a valid reason.

I can guarantee that if you ask any murderer, they will say they had a valid reason too(or that they are innocent).

I would only resort to vigilantism if the justice system had already failed since a proper system is far better than anything else, but I could never rest if I knew someone who had committed a wrong against someone I love was still at large and unpunished. I also see the idea of the revenge seeker as aesthetically beautiful, a person with one clear goal in their mind, motivated by love to aim like a homing missile towards the offender until they strike down like an angel of death upon them to dispel justice.

I find that kind of scary. Someone thinking they can just go around the law and do as they please is worrisome. The Punisher is a good comic and an interesting character, but I would be scared if there was someone doing that in real life.

 

[JoJo]

Well, I made the point as a rebuttal to "it is better for someone to murder a 92-year-old than a 20-year-old". The way I imagined it was a judge saying "You murdered someone who was 114-years-old?! In light of that, 3-5 years in prison. Thanks for getting him off of the road". Murder is murder no matter who you murder.

Assuming there aren't any other factors, you're right that murder is murder regardless of age, but that doesn't mean that some murders aren't worse than others.

I was just using the US as a baseline. I didn't want you to accept it, but just to get us to agree to a common definition. Throwing around terms doesn't mean anything if you don't agree what they mean. Also the law doesn't cover revenge as an acceptable reason to kill people. Revenge isn't about justice, just satisfaction. In the states (I can't say how it is up there), revenge killing is frowned upon by the media and general public(pretty much thanks to the media).

Revenge can be both satisfaction and justice, if done for the right reasons. Revenge killing is certainly frowned on by the media here too, as for general public that depends on their opinion on justice, the law doesn't like it which is probably a good thing otherwise it would be used too much.

I can guarantee that if you ask any murderer, they will say they had a valid reason too(or that they are innocent).

This is going to sound very subjective but by my definition most murderers don't have a valid reason. Killing a woman you just raped because you don't want her to report you isn't a valid reason, nor is stabbing a rival gang member because they "disrespected" you. The difference is that my reason is actually valid whereas theirs isn't. Technically I know that's just an opinion, but hey, I think I'm right.

I find that kind of scary. Someone thinking they can just go around the law and do as they please is worrisome. The Punisher is a good comic and an interesting character, but I would be scared if there was someone doing that in real life.

You can rest easy, the chances of me needing to take revenge in that way are very low and unless you intend to become a murderer or rapist, there's no reason I'd need to attack you in the first place! The law isn't always just as we have seen in Libya recently, thankfully in the UK most laws make sense so I'm generally a law-abiding citizen, however we should always consider our morals in relation to the law as being against the law doesn't automatically make something immoral.

I think this is winding down. Let's just tie off a few loose ends and part ways.

You are right, we've found out most of what we need to know, and to your credit your moral stances are by no means the worst I've seen, just a too idealistic perhaps.

 

[CulixCupric]

perspective of modern society. depends what you think "evil" is.