Morality

[Faith No More]

(7th September 2011 23:19)Rhythm Wrote:  

---

Execution is a punishment that once done, cannot be undone, unfortunate for some, and maybe not a good way to go about things in the light of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Willingham
"The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Willingham a writ of habeas corpus a month before his execution. Dr. Gerald Hurst, an Austin scientist and fire investigator, reviewed the case and concluded there was "no evidence of arson", the same conclusion reached by other fire investigators. Hurst's report was sent to governor Rick Perry's office as well as Board of Pardons and Paroles along with Willingham's appeal for clemency. Neither responded to Willingham's appeals. In response to allegations that he allowed the execution of an innocent man, Perry was quoted as stating "he was a wife beater."

"A four-person panel of the Texas Forensic Science Commission investigating evidence of arson presented in the case acknowledged on July 23, 2010, that state and local arson investigators used "flawed science" in determining the blaze had been deliberately set. It also found insufficient evidence to prove that state Deputy Fire Marshal Manuel Vasquez and Corsicana Assistant Fire Chief Douglas Fogg were negligent or guilty of misconduct in their arson work (WTF?). In 2010, the Innocence Project filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas, seeking a judgment of "official oppression""

Rick Perry 2012.

---

In Tx they'd rather execute someone than admit to making a mistake.

[Rhythm]

I'm actually surprised that he wasn't crucified on this when he announced that he was running. Maybe he was and I missed it?

[Rokcet Scientist]

(7th September 2011 23:23)Aerzia Saerules Arktuos Wrote:  

(7th September 2011 23:08)Rokcet Scientist Wrote:  But society had already killed them...

So? The touted 12% of innocents killed were a lot less damaging than the 88% remaining who were

A civilised society doesn't kill people. In the most serious cases you stick them in jail. So that – if it does turn out to be the wrong verdict (again), and an innocent person was jailed for decades and his/her life was irreparably destroyed – society can at least try to rectify the injustice, release the person, accept responsibility and take financially care of him/her for the rest of his/her destroyed life. That would be the decent thing to do. Not doing that is, consequently, indecent !

Quote:That's manslaughter, according to the same laws.
That society must go to jail for a looong time!

Quote:Laws aren't so because they are moral.

Duh!
They are sold us as serving the concept of 'justice' (ring a bell?). But IRL they of course don't, as e.g. 12% wrongly executed 'murderers' prove.

Accepting that is not only accepting immoral, perverted justice, but also accepting a statistically flawed system.
And that's just plain stupid. No morals involved.

You wouldn't accept a PC that's failing 12% of the time, but you would accept a justice system that fails in 12% of cases, and kills people in your name ?

[Peter44]

[/color]

(31st August 2011 12:26)TeslaTrooper Wrote:  Hi everyone, first post and not sure which topic area to put this in, or forum etiquette, its not really a question but something for discussion, but here it goes.

Its basically a concept I have been grappling with for a while. For those of us who aren't religious or live in secular societies, it would appear that their is a significant correlation with the decline in morality, and the decline in religion. In the past In my country, Christianity provided a "moral guideline" if you will for how we should live our lives. And through the fear of hell, or living in religious society or whatever, it kept people in line/ under control through these guidelines. It would appear that as people have lost faith, their moral standards have declined dramatically, many adopting a mentality of "why". That is to say, "why is it wrong" "why shouldn't I behave like this" "why should you tell me whats right and wrong". Which from an atheistic/agnostic viewpoint, it is very difficult to tell them otherwise, as if there is no God and if religion is a farce, then who is to say that the way they are living/behaving is wrong?

At the same time the whole concept of morality and right and wrong comes from religion/religious teachings. So apart from religion, there isn't really any other "guidelines" for us to go off. Even religion itself or even christianity seems to have deviated somewhat from the bible in order to keep its following in modern society. What some sects consider immoral, others would consider to be okay in the modern world.

So I guess what im getting at can we have morality within modern secular society? Or is religion the only real way to keep us all in line? And from an atheist viewpoint, can anything really be considered as immoral? Even if we see man made laws, most of it seems to derive from religion, do not kill, do not steal etc. Also perhaps highlights the concept that religion itself was a basic understanding of man in old times, of law an order. And that a system had to be in place to keep us all in order. otherwise we would be running riot "doing as we please."

Apologies if this is a little bit all over the place, but would appreciate some thoughts.... thank you.

This really is a misnomer and shouldn't be considered in any way as a realistic understanding of religion or belief in a God.

For a start Buddhism (which has no god) is the only religion that focuses completely on ethics and morality.

Secondary early religions prior to paternalism focused much more on females and security and doing good to each other.

Thirdly morality and ethics plays a very small role in Judaism Christianity and Islam..

Often the focus is on dogma not on ethics the Bible the Torah and the Koran only have to be read in part to recognise that.

The ten commandments themselves (which form part of these main God focused dogmas) only includes morality and ethics in less than 50%. Most emphasis is on belief not morality.
Here is a run down of one version:

1.You shall have no other gods before me. Nothing to do with morality.

2.You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
Again nothing to do with morality.


3.You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
Nothing to do with morality

4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
Nothing to do with morality

5.Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
Not really to do with morality just dogma, mother and father could be axe murderers.

6.You shall not murder. Moral and ethical

7.You shall not commit adultery. Not clear why its a moral issue.

8.You shall not steal. moral and ethical

9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Ethical

10.You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”
This last is not really ethical or moral as its related to thought crime and is actually impossible and unrealistic.

So there we have in the paternalistic tradition that the basic tenants laid down for behaviour are only 40% moral or ethically focused.

This really is sad. on top of that of course the Bible and the Torah and the Koran are littered with instructions of when its appropriate to ignore this 40% and do what ever is needed to support belief I this corrupt and pathetic religious dogma.

We still have deluded indoctrinated individuals who seem to think relion has something to do with morality.

Its just unbelievable.

[Rhythm]

The notion that early religions focused more on females and security and doing good to each other is a pleasant fiction. Borne out of the desires and political leanings of modern researchers more than any actual evidence. Chief amongst the proponents of this theory is Marija Gimbutas who despite being a world class scholar eventually fell prey to describing a history she wished was present, but did not actually exist.

[Rokcet Scientist]

(8th September 2011 20:35)Rhythm Wrote:  The notion that early religions focused more on females and security and doing good to each other is a pleasant fiction. Borne out of the desires and political leanings of modern researchers more than any actual evidence. Chief amongst the proponents of this theory is Marija Gimbutas who despite being a world class scholar eventually fell prey to describing a history she wished was present, but did not actually exist.

Summarized:
religion is wishful thinking. Pure fantasy.

It's not delusion, because delusion suggests there is someone (else) doing the deluding. God? Satan? Spirits? Ghosts? Angels? Demons? It is all between our own ears. And only there! It is not part of physical reality. Ironically, the stuff that made people human – the brain, imagination – may turn out to be a self-destruct machine...

I can hear Darwin roaring with laughter!
I salute you, Charles.

[Violet Lilly Blossom]

(7th September 2011 23:26)Rhythm Wrote:  I'd let nine murderers go free if it meant that I didn't have to execute a single innocent man. The thought is unbearable. Justice isn't supposed to be pragmatic, it's supposed to be just. Would be easy to avoid if we didn't feel the need to "kill people back" as if it solved anything.

Law isn't about justice: It's damage control. Whatever it pretends to be so the masses get behind it: this is the goal.

It solves a very difficult problem, infact: preventing them from sabotaging the workings of government, and ensuring that minimal resources are used in doing so.

---

(7th September 2011 23:33)ElDinero Wrote:  Definitely got to side with Rhythm on that. You can't afford to get this sort of thing wrong. I'm against the death penalty for sure.

Yes, we can afford it... and easily too. We have a solid 10% 'unemployment' in america... that means that 10% of the currently working people can die without causing enough damage to be noticed.

And when the rest start dying: haul in the Mexicans... who are in a hurry to get here as it is

The death penalty is overvalued... some tout it as the ultimate answer and the only things criminals fear (which is bollocks)... and others scream that human life is infinitely expensive and can never have a price (which is also bollocks).

In the meantime: I'll be making closer friends with the Russian lady I hung out with today

---

(7th September 2011 23:51)Rokcet Scientist Wrote:  A civilised society doesn't kill people.

False. There is no requirement in civility which requires one not kill people. Indeed... some of the most civilized people I have ever seen have been assassins.

Quote:In the most serious cases you stick them in jail.

No... in the most serious cases: I kill them swiftly. It is you who idealize that they should waste away in prison until they kick it (effectively a death sentence carried out over the course of sometimes scores of years. This is a death penalty.)

"There are no civilized or barbaric peoples... only different cultures."

Quote:So that – if it does turn out to be the wrong verdict (again), and an innocent person was jailed for decades and his/her life was irreparably destroyed – society can at least try to rectify the injustice, release the person, accept responsibility and take financially care of him/her for the rest of his/her destroyed life. That would be the decent thing to do. Not doing that is, consequently, indecent !

A person who has been jailed for decades *has* had their life destroyed. What... you think that because they aren't dead that the world will go on as if nothing ever happened? Times are different behind the bars and outside of them.

Prisons are about the most barbaric creations I know of. Death is not only preferable... it is decent and an honorable way to go. Wasting away in your cell for years while they decide to let you go or keep you rotting... there is no decency in this. It stands quite close to rape on the scale of despicable actions.

The 'decent' thing to do is neither imprison nor kill the person... but to keep a somewhat closer eye on them and perhaps restrict their access to some things. But this is also expensive... as decency always is expensive. I will take death over imprisoned for life (whether guilty or not I do not care) every single time I am given the option.

Quote:Duh!
They are sold us as serving the concept of 'justice' (ring a bell?). But IRL they of course don't, as e.g. 12% wrongly executed 'murderers' prove.

No, it doesn't ring any bells. Law is order... since when has order been just?

Quote:Accepting that is not only accepting immoral, perverted justice, but also accepting a statistically flawed system.
And that's just plain stupid. No morals involved.

I am told that being economical is stupid. All the smart kids are deep in credit card debt. Duh! Of course I should join them. I'd have to be a moron not to.

How is a system that is 88% accurate "flawed"? That sounds to me like there is room for improvement, but the system is correct roughly 8/9ths of the time. That's fantastic, considering the subject.

Quote:You wouldn't accept a PC that's failing 12% of the time, but you would accept a justice system that fails in 12% of cases, and kills people in your name ?

I certainly would accept a PC that fails 12% of the time... so don't stick words in my mouth. Infact, I used a computer for a year and a half who had a faulty disk drive, terrible power brick that rarely worked, and had a habit of turning off without warning about once a week

12% failure rate is the same as 88% success rate. I'll take that any day over serial killers and psychos walking free as butchers. And perhaps it is obvious... but I really don't give a shit over killing people. Get over it.

[Rwandrall]

The legal system is not perfect. However this is not the lawmakers' fault : a law system CANNOT realistically be perfect. Every case is different just like every person is different and as such creating a system through which everyone must be judged upon certain criteria (a requirement for a fair system) is an almost impossible one.

That is without adding the new scenarios that add up every day, with new forms of evidence (computers, DNA testing) that are recent.

For example, the Supreme Court makes decisions that cannot be appealed against. Whilst this can mean that a "bad" judgment becomes law, which would be a mistake, an un-appealable Court is necessary for any law system to function.

12% error does not mean the system is flawed. It only means that we have not yet found a more efficient system, after lawmakers spent hundreds of years perfecting this one.

Remember the law system is made of fallible humans: a 88% success rate is absolutely insanely high.

As for prison vs death penalty, the main reason lawmakers in many states around the world removed it is because studies have shown that prison is a better deterrent: criminals are more afraid of 30 years in a hole than swift and painful death, imagine that !

But this is a highly cultural matter, as such it changes from culture to culture what the value of life is, what honor means, and even what death means, and saying death penalty is wrong across the board no matter what is a very self-centered view on the world.

[Peter44]

(8th September 2011 20:35)Rhythm Wrote:  The notion that early religions focused more on females and security and doing good to each other is a pleasant fiction. Borne out of the desires and political leanings of modern researchers more than any actual evidence. Chief amongst the proponents of this theory is Marija Gimbutas who despite being a world class scholar eventually fell prey to describing a history she wished was present, but did not actually exist.

I think that the overall interpretation is still valid.
When females are given status (as they certainly used to be) the very nature of protecting and providing for has to be accepted. when the weak in a society are respected more than the strong for qualities of communication home building and family care. Some measure of difference exists.
Not to mention freely availble sex without silly religious dogma. Thats got to be 'Good'.
I dont think Marija Gimbutas is Chief of anything and of course its very easy to criticise prehistory (that's what we are talking about) because it was prehistory.
Too many try to interpret history using today's values and mores which of course is just silly. The underlying trend is clear.

When males became interested in community at all coincides with the start of male dominated (paternalistic) religions. Its likely this was at least motivated by the increase in wealth (not a hand to mouth existence) and the realisation that sex and conception were linked.
That in particular meant men needed to know who their children where (still not guaranteed) so they didnt support the children of other men or pass their wealth and property (now it existed) to others.
The result is paternalistic religion and a strict and cruel imposition on females. Sex restrictions. war with others who don't agree, clothing restrictions and even mutilation all play apart.

Support for this comes from anthropological studies in the Pacific and other islands where woman are respected often as equals and sex was not a taboo until the arrival of (Christianity / Islam).

The Trobriand Islands in particular show that conception and sex were often not accepted as related. The picture on these islands being even more confused by the contraceptive effects of the local yams.

[ElDinero]

Sae, if you really don't care about innocent people being executed 12% of the time, I think you're a sociopath. I wonder if you'd still be so callous about it if someone you cared about (if such a person exists) was staring down a lethal injection and they were innocent? If so, you're definitely a sociopath.