I am of the philosophy that nearly everyone feels what they are doing is right or necessary at the moment they are doing it. Every man is the hero of his own book. It is just that sometimes their perceptions are so warped that they end up causing harm. Some perform horrible acts out of vengence or redirected agression, feeling that they are merely repaying a wrong done in the past to an individual or group. A fanatic believes he is directed by god's mandate. A rapist may excuse himself 'cause the whore deserved it'. A thief may feel that he deserves or needs the wealth more than those who already have so much. Some excuse their acts simply through the belief that the action felt right; how could something that feels so good possibly be wrong. The list is as long as the human race.
Clockwood is right on it. People do what they do because they see it as the right choice at the time, regardless of how fucked up it looks from elsewhere.
Wes, Clockwood, So are you saying that the rapist, who raped the woman "cause the whore deserved it," is evil? Or that those who "perform horrible acts out of vengence or redirected agression, feeling that they are merely repaying a wrong done in the past to an individual or group" are evil? Or that the fanatic who "believes he is directed by god's mandate" is evil? Do you think each of them is all evil? Do you think that because I have tortured and killed several cats, from the age of 12 to 30, that I am all evil? Nothing but evil?
Quantum Quack: Yet if we cannot even speak of what the definition of "bad" is, we cannot really address the issue. The metaphysical question of their existence is secondary to the definition of "bad" people. Clockwood: I will agree with this Platonic notion. No man does evil for the sake of evil, only out of seeking good for himself, be that good twisted or not. Cottontop3000: No, you're not -just- evil, for you're also an imbecile from what I've noticed from your posts elsewhere. Seriously. Why are you even here?
I don't buy it. I think it is more often bullshit justification for their actions. I think they know they are lying. I think perhaps, that is one clear distinction between "good" and "bad" people, in that "bad" people lack the integrity to be honest and rather twist the truth intentionally to justify their means to the ends.
interesting, so you think that badness is determined by culpability or at least a knowing that one "should" feel guilty even if they don't feel guilty.
I think that "knowing the one should feel guilty" implies bending to social pressures to conform to what is the predominate subjective ideals of "right" and "wrong". I do feel that if any objective definition of "right" and "wrong" can be applied, it would be an extention of a collective subjective personal notion. If an action was performed intentionally to harm me, I subjectively feel it is "wrong", therefore "bad" (though not necessarily done by a bad person). By that same token, if we are talking about a community (a collection of persons bound by a common objective of cooperation towards a goal/set of goals), then we can expand that definition to an action that was perfomed with the intention to harm the community or interfere with the common goals of that community. Those two paragraphs seem to be at odds with each other, I admit, but they don't have to be. I disagree with forming a community that has any goal further than the idalized Libertarian notions. If what you do does not harm me, you are free to do it. I may not agree with what you do, I may not like it, It may even repulse me. If, however, it does not harm me, I have no place in forcing my ideals onto you. The same goes for the community. If you intentionally cause harm to the community, then, it is wrong, regardless of how you justify it. If you rape, murder or in another manner bring harm to a member of the community, you are causing harm to the community itself. The purpose of a community (therefore government), in my opinion, is to pool efforts to offer protection from those who are intent on bringing harm to the memebers of that community. What goes against that common goal of protection, then, can be objectively defined as "wrong". Of course there is gray areas and nuance, but that is the reason for legislation.
Ok....say for example the guy next door want to shoot heroin. For this scenario assume he is independently wealthy, and just draws on a an inheritance or something. He is not harming any one directly, however he is providing resources to persons that may be harming persons such as children and others less fortunate. Should his heroin use be considered as a bad thing by society? If he is indirectly supporting negative impacts in that society? I think most legislation is involved in direct prohibitions but alot of the time legislation is involved in indirect prohibitions. For example the ban on Fireworks, in many places [ banned here in Australia for years} They banned them because they felt the risk to the future of society was too great.[which is a pity as I loved fireworks] The idea of amputations and eye damaged adults due to fireworks was enough to bann them. So should laws be designed to protect people from them selves because to do so improves the future well fare of that society? [ bans on cigerette smoking etc ] It is a tough issue just how far Gov. should go in regulating peoples personal behaviours....for sure.........obviously the least the better.... Sorry off topic but..... hmmmmmmmm.........
The Heroin user harms no one if Heroin is legal. There is no illegal Heroin trade if it is legal. As long as the user does not drive high, no one but himself is harmed. No, laws should not be there to protect me from myself, just to protect me from YOU.
I might be wrong but I thought the law concening heroin etc is about protecting our children in particular from the temptations of experimentation that may lead to addiction. To minimise the possibility of those less able becoming victims of their own whim. If I was tempting 4 years olds with candy laced with crack and especially if it was your child I think you would be a little concerned yes? I think most laws are there to protect the less capable of society..... If a man is good with a gun why does he need laws about the use of firearms in public places....well he might get shot by a man that is good with a gun thats why......I guess
Yes. Just as upset as I would be if you were tempting childrn with candy laced with arsenic. What does that have to do with anything? As for protecting our children from temptation, why is alcohol legal? It has nothing to do with protecting the innocent children from temptation at all. Laws restricting legal age of use to adults (as with alcohol) are valid for that purpose. If it was about the protection of our youth, nothing that is legal for adults would be legal for children. Because public places are crowded, and no matter how good with a gun you are, the more corwded a place is, the more likely someone will be accidentally injured.
I just reread this and realized it came out completely wrong. "nothing that is illegal for childern would be legal for adults" is what I meant to say.
well when it comes to people who want money regardless of teh consequences it is the weak in society that get trageted. Which is why laws are about protecting the week from the strong. A drug pusher has little regard to where he gets his money. And thats one reason to make it illegal. An awful lot of people do not have the capacity to make a measured judgement about these temptations as you or I might be able to do.... The people that live next door to me and down the road and most people that go shopping are oblivious of most of what they are doing.... we have trade practice laws, food an drug laws, and so on to protect people from the voracious appetitie some persons have for money. To legalise heroin or crack would increase the risk of minors getting hooked....and unless you can lock your children away form society you have no choice but to make these things illegal. Sure it pushes the price up and sure it drives it underground but the end result is less children get hooked. If heroin was freely available there is no doubt that society would suffer enormous consequences. money and marketing talks .........[ just remembering what the British were doing to China with opium..years ago..hmmmmm]
How many people do you see on street corners pushing whiskey onto children because of the profit they can get off it? How often do you read in the news about rival bootlegging gangs fighting each other? Why not? Alcohol is legal, controlled and processed on an industrial scale which pushes bootleggers out of business. By legalizing, controlling and legislating the processing and sale of drugs, we would: Create a cleaner, safer product Reduce or completely eliminate street trade and drug gangs Have further control over who gets the product (yes, children CAN get alcohol, but nothing you can do will comepletely remove it from access) Without legalization, there is no control.
possibly it's because of the difference in the degree of addictiveness. How rapid a person becomes dependent on the drug. Not much value in pushing Liquor as the customer has more than enough time to regulate his drinking where as heroin's addictiveness does not allow for such self-moderation
If people were allowed to go to the Drug Store and buy themselves a package of Heroin, do you really think anyone would bother buying any off the street? Especially if the stuff in the store is cheaper and the production is government regulated virtually guaranteing a product without contaminates! Why would they buy the more expensive, more dangerous illegal stuff on the street? That's just silly and unreasonable. During the prohibition (when alcohol was illegal in The States) there was a ton of illegal alcohol trade because there was no legal way to get it. The alcohol was dangerous, often poisonous. People bought illegal unsafe product because it was all they could get. Once it was legal again, illegal sales pretty much stopped overnight.
Sure! Anyone not "permitted" to buy it would find it illegally on the streets. And, as I understand it, most people get hooked on drugs as teenagers ...which presumably wouldn't be "permitted" to buy it at the store. Also, many buyers of illegal drugs, especially when they're hooked on it, can't actually pay for the amount that they use. So they resort to crime in order to fund their drug habits. So in that regard, the Drug Store idea doesn't help a bit. I think the "idea" is fine, it's just that it won't actually work as well as the "idea". During Prohibition, when it became legal it was still pretty cheap and available. And I might point out that VERY few teenagers were drinkers!! Most kids in those days obeyed their parents and the laws! Big, big difference. Baron Max
Is this the best that the prince can do to sound "superior?" Let's see: Really? Are you serious? You must be. You do seem a little off. Do you think that I didn't know that torturing, for weeks, and ultimately killing these 7-8 cats was wrong? I will tell you straight up that I knew it was wrong. I did it anyway, for 18 years. Why? Do you even give a shit? Have you really never done anything wrong that you knew was wrong at the time? If you can honestly answer this "yes" I will give you a good pat on the back. If so, you are deluding yourself. What is your religious standing? Are you "good" with the lord?
How many people are selling flasks of moonshine on street corners to minors? Like I said, yes, minors will get drugs, just as they get alcohol now. There is no way to stop that. However, if we regulate sales, we stand a much better chance. Drugs processed on an industrial scale would be much cheaper. It may not, but I think it's a chance we would do well to take. Besides. All the pragmatic issues of the practicality of keeping them from kids, I don't think teh government, or anyone else, has the right to tell an adult how to treat his or her own body. Just as mass produced drugs would be. I'm not so sure about that. Are you just making assumptions, or did you actually read that somewhere and can back it up?
