Have a go

[Pop]

No, wanting to tear someone's testicles off is not a reasonable course of action.

 

I would say the right not to be physically mutilated is probably inalienable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's only if we consider that everyone everywhere all the time no matter what have the same basic rights. Is it really reasonable to consider a rapist and Ghandi, or a murderer and a common citizen, as equal in all regards? I'd say that the rapists and murderers are less deserving of moral consideration. They themselves never regarded what was right, why should we include them? We're not talking about ripping the balls off of your average man or your petty thief, we're talking about ripping the balls off of people who have committed the worst violations of right & wrong imaginable.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Pop

[Pidesco]

I'd like to point that morals are all a question of convention. As such, to say that moral questions are not opinion based is wrong.

[thepixiesrock]

Here I was actually expecting reason, and all I get is an appeal to relativism. Tsk.

 

Moral questions are not opinion-based. The desire to punish criminals is an incredibly reasonable one. The concept of a convict being a victim of crimes perpetrated by the state is invalid if we consider that by violating the law, he has removed himself from the law's protections. If he is guilty of the crime, it is not unreasonable to demand that he not be protected from that crime. He has asserted that he cannot regard others' rights, and thus he himself has no rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But one of the basic foundations of the U.S. is that nobody can be removed from the law's protection, especially by the U.S.'s own justice system.

[Nartwak]

That's only if we consider that everyone everywhere all the time no matter what have the same basic rights. Is it really reasonable to consider a rapist and Ghandi, or a murderer and a common citizen, as equal in all regards?

I think in most regards it's reasonable. To do otherwise abrogates the philosophy of rights you're wanting to uphold.

 

I'd say that the rapists and murderers are less deserving of moral consideration. They themselves never regarded what was right, why should we include them?

Why should they have moral consideration for what you allege are your rights? Yours are just as phantasmal.

 

We're not talking about ripping the balls off of your average man or your petty thief, we're talking about ripping the balls off of people who have committed the worst violations of right & wrong imaginable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps. If we're being realistic we're talking about people who were convicted of crimes, not necessarily people who have committed them.

Edited November 19, 2006 by Nartwak

[Pop]

I'd like to point that morals are all a question of convention. As such, to say that moral questions are not opinion based is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bah. The equation of ethics with opinion is fallacious. The statement "I like coffee" is fundamentally different from the statement "rapists should be castrated". The former is descriptive claim that is true so long as it is the case that I like coffee, the latter is normative claim prescribing that it ought to be the case that rapists be castrated, and the truth of my claim is dependent not on how I feel, but the reasons for my conclusion. One's subjective opinions about whether or not coffee is good does not require rational defense. One's claim that rapists should be castrated does require reason, and if that reason is sound its persuasive force requires acknowledgment. If there is no good reason given, then they're just making noise and you're free to ignore them or ridicule them.

 

The very fact that there exist different conceptions of right and wrong does not make them created equal as opinion. It does not follow that there is no objective fact of the matter, and that no one is truly right nor wrong when they make a normative claim.

 

That's only if we consider that everyone everywhere all the time no matter what have the same basic rights. Is it really reasonable to consider a rapist and Ghandi, or a murderer and a common citizen, as equal in all regards?

I think in most regards it's reasonable. To do otherwise abrogates the philosophy of rights you're wanting to uphold.

Nonsense, I never stated that rights are inalienable or universally applied. One gets around the problem by concieving of a social contract that one must follow in order to recieve his/her recognized rights. The fact that those outside the contract are not considered is a strength and a weakness of the theory. A strength in that those who violate or ignore the contract forfeit their rights and thus crime and punishment becomes a relatively transparent issue, a weakness in that naturally one does wish to include some who are excluded. Social contracts are by nature conservative. But in this case, I'm willing to make rapists non-people.

 

I'd say that the rapists and murderers are less deserving of moral consideration. They themselves never regarded what was right, why should we include them?

Why should they have moral consideration for what you allege are your rights? Yours are just as phantasmal.

Naturally, because it's in their best interests to do so. Their agreement not to violate the contract and my rights as a signee with them is made with the reciprocal understanding that I cannot violate theirs. When they break the contract and harm others, they invite harm upon themselves. When they recognize and protect others' rights, they recieve those rights and enjoy them.

 

We're not talking about ripping the balls off of your average man or your petty thief, we're talking about ripping the balls off of people who have committed the worst violations of right & wrong imaginable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps. If we're being realistic we're talking about people who were convicted of crimes, not necessarily people who have committed them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, which is the most significant and reasonable argument not to rip anyone's balls off, or kill them for that matter. But that's not to say that retributive justice is wrong, it's to say that it can't be applied fairly. Once guilt is 100% assurable, we can practice such punishments. But because we'll never be 100% sure, we shouldn't practice them, lest we contradict ourselves by torturing / killing the innocent.

 

Ah, it's refreshing to try on Hobbes' shoes for a night.

[Fenghuang]

The Moon will be the new Australia.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah, we all saw how that ended. "The Earth is kind of screwing us over, let's throw rocks at them!"

[Gorth]

Perhaps send them all to a remote, heavily guarded island, where they can rape and molest each other all day long without any hopes of ever getting back onto the mainland/society? )

Don't you guys have some mining operatios up on Svalbard?

[Walsingham]

I think that lobotomy would be the best solution for serial rapists. They would be able to perform simple work like cleaning etc. so they could hold a job to support and not be a weight on society, but they would become completely pacified by the procedure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought lobotomy actually made people less easy to control, not more easy.