(May 15, 2017 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 3:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be clear,  understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.

Example:

The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area. 

It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset. 

It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.

(May 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh I added one extra question to the post above!

I think I answered that in my follow up post?

"I would also like to point out that I AM 100% against punishment for punishments sake. The death penalty, etc, is flat out wrong. Rehab should be priority for people who harm others and/or themselves, and if rehab is not an option, humane ways of protecting the public should be employed (lock-up but not solitary, sunlight, activity, and decent food, etc). "

But if that isn't clear enough, I'll try and elaborate, and be more specific.

No, it is not justifiable to specifically lock someone up or put them in jail simply for breaking a law or even causing harm.

Civilized places already do the following:
Step 1.  Attempt to correct the harmful behavior.  The vast majority of misbehavior is actually made worse by simply locking a person away.  Most minor to moderate misbehaviors can be corrected with time and effort.  That's why we call it the "Corrections" system.  The goal is to correct the behavior, first, and foremost, not to punish.  Do you agree?
Step 2. If person is severely dangerous, they may need to be kept away from the public while being corrected.  This would require some form of "locking-up", though it would vary per case.  Some people could do well under house arrest, others may require being kept in special facilites.  Serial violent offenders would fall into the later category.
Step 3.  If a person cannot be corrected for whatever reason, you just keep them in step 2.  You do your best to correct them while keeping them safely away from the pubic.  This becomes permanent.  Even the worst offenders should not be put in solitary confinement as a punishment (which can turn sane people insane).  People should be periodically reviewed for their safely. Rational steps should be take between rehab and release.  

I will field the follow-up question I suspect you are going to ask before you ask it. 
The justification for locking a person up at all is pretty obvious to me and others who hold these same ideas.  We aren't locking them up for chosing to be bad or "evil", we are locking them up to keep others, and often the person in question, safe.  

Again, hope that helps answer your questions.

I have one for you.  Very seriously, how do you think Jesus would propose we deal with nonviolent criminals?  And with violent ones?

---

(May 15, 2017 at 4:07 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Nvm, just read your post and it already explained it lol.

Oh, then I went and overexplained it more, lol.

I did have that question at the end of my last post.  If you have time.

Great story Aroura

Also:

(May 15, 2017 at 3:52 pm)Aroura Wrote: [...]
"The crucial point is that you can do so without feeling offended or insulted, because these people are simply being themselves. It is their nature to be critical and judgemental, so it would be absurd for us to take offense. It would be pointless for us to get angry.
[...]

My bold.

Sam Harris Wrote:Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth, whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. We can simply be ourselves.

My bold.

Not quite related... but still.

My username on Steam is also "simplybeourselves".... and my username on MafiaScum is WeCanSimplyBeOurselves. People call me WCSBO or simply "Simply", over there.

Hehe. Meaningless coincidences but fun nevertheless.

I do tend to feel especially semi-enlightened today.

---

(May 15, 2017 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 3:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To be clear,  understand some things are worse than others and some things are a grey area. That's not what I was saying.

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

Not true. Morals have objective grey areas... which means they're not absolute. But black and white are objectively on the same spectrum... the greys are objectively all in between.

If black=bad and white=good (to be a massive, massive racist for a second, lol) then the greatest possible misery for everyone=black... the greatest possible happiness for everyone=white.... and the greys are everything in-between.

Absolute morality would be to pretend there was nothing in between. Like there was black and white but no greys and there was heaven and hell but no Earth... that would be insane lol.

---

(May 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:  
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.

Example:

The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area. 

It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset. 

It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.

I agree with all of this.

(May 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

now youre getting it.

(May 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 4:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:  
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.

Example:

The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area. 

It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset. 

It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.

Here is the problem, you and I and 99% of people might agree right now, today, that it is wrong to yell at a random person because you are having a bad day (again, my sincerest apologies about that), but that does not make it objectively wrong.
Under some circumstance, at some point in history, I'm sure that most people would have agreed it was acceptable.

For instance, what if the person yelling at you has autism?  Like severe autism, but they are still an adult.
Would you still call it objectively wrong for them to yell at a stranger because they are upset? Or is it suddenly more understandable, and therefore more acceptable, with that one little change?

If it's not objectively wrong... is it wrong at all?

(May 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 4:05 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh I added one extra question to the post above!

I think I answered that in my follow up post?

"I would also like to point out that I AM 100% against punishment for punishments sake. The death penalty, etc, is flat out wrong. Rehab should be priority for people who harm others and/or themselves, and if rehab is not an option, humane ways of protecting the public should be employed (lock-up but not solitary, sunlight, activity, and decent food, etc). "

But if that isn't clear enough, I'll try and elaborate, and be more specific.

No, it is not justifiable to specifically lock someone up or put them in jail simply for breaking a law or even causing harm.

Civilized places already do the following:
Step 1.  Attempt to correct the harmful behavior.  The vast majority of misbehavior is actually made worse by simply locking a person away.  Most minor to moderate misbehaviors can be corrected with time and effort.  That's why we call it the "Corrections" system.  The goal is to correct the behavior, first, and foremost, not to punish.  Do you agree?
Step 2. If person is severely dangerous, they may need to be kept away from the public while being corrected.  This would require some form of "locking-up", though it would vary per case.  Some people could do well under house arrest, others may require being kept in special facilites.  Serial violent offenders would fall into the later category.
Step 3.  If a person cannot be corrected for whatever reason, you just keep them in step 2.  You do your best to correct them while keeping them safely away from the pubic.  This becomes permanent.  Even the worst offenders should not be put in solitary confinement as a punishment (which can turn sane people insane).  People should be periodically reviewed for their safely. Rational steps should be take between rehab and release.  

I will field the follow-up question I suspect you are going to ask before you ask it. 
The justification for locking a person up at all is pretty obvious to me and others who hold these same ideas.  We aren't locking them up for chosing to be bad or "evil", we are locking them up to keep others, and often the person in question, safe.  

Again, hope that helps answer your questions.

I have one for you.  Very seriously, how do you think Jesus would propose we deal with nonviolent criminals?  And with violent ones?

Yeah, I saw you had already answered after I read what you wrote lol. Sorry bout that. 

I think there are 2 justifiable reasons for putting people in jail:

1. To protect the rights of others. (For stealing, harming, raping, destroying property, or killing. People who do drugs/prostitution should not go to jail bc they are not infringing on others' rights)

2. To deter people from committing crimes by establishing jail time as a consequence.

Like you, I disagree with the death penalty, solitary confinement, and am even starting to wonder if life in prison without possibility of parole is ok.

I agree that imprisonment shouldn't be done as punishment for punishment's sake.   

However, if I thought the criminal did not choose to act the way they did, I still wouldn't feel right about them being imprisoned, even under the 2 justifiable reasons I posted above. So for people who I believe actually didn't choose to act as they did, such as those who are innocent for reason of insanity, I think they should stay at a hospital and maybe house arrest, and only for long enough until they are treated. 

I try to hold the position that I think Jesus would hold, so if I had to guess on His position, it would be the same one I already explained above. To recap: 

1. Imprisonment for those who infringe on other's rights (thieves, rapists, murderers, etc), while still respecting their human dignity by outlawing death penalty and solitary confinement.   

2. No imprisonment for those who don't infringe on other's rights (prostitutes, drug users, etc) 

3. Treatment and no imprisonment who those who had no control over the crime they committed (insane people)

Hehe...CL: does that mean that if you stopped believing in free will then you'd start believing that all criminals were insane because they had no control over their crimes?

(May 15, 2017 at 4:45 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: If it's not objectively wrong... is it wrong at all?

Only if the society in which it takes place agrees that it is.  

(May 15, 2017 at 4:40 pm)Aroura Wrote:

(May 15, 2017 at 4:24 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.

Example:

The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area. 

It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset. 

It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.

Here is the problem, you and I and 99% of people might agree right now, today, that it is wrong to yell at a random person because you are having a bad day (again, my sincerest apologies about that), but that does not make it objectively wrong.
Under some circumstance, at some point in history, I'm sure that most people would have agreed it was acceptable.

For instance, what if the person yelling at you has autism?  Like severe autism, but they are still an adult.
Would you still call it objectively wrong for them to yell at a stranger because they are upset? Or is it suddenly more understandable, and therefore more acceptable, with that one little change?

If the person yelling at an innocent bystander has some kind of mental illness, I would say the act of yelling is still objectively wrong, but the yeller's culpability is lessened (if not entirely gone) due to his mental illness.