RE: In certain circumstances, is some crime understandable ( and laudable )?
March 26, 2009 at 8:44 am
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2009 at 8:46 am by Kyuuketsuki.)
(March 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm)padraic Wrote: A moral relativist, of course I argue crime is perfectly OK at times.Eg stealing to prevent one self or others starving to death. The principle is expressed as "the ends justifies the means" which we use all the time as a society and as individuals,. .
Yes I would say I am a moral relativist inasmuch as I don't believe that there are any moral absolutes.
(March 25, 2009 at 5:53 pm)padraic Wrote: Realsitically,there is a big difference between between "the law" and "justice" and an even bigger difference between "legal" "and "moral".Especially noticeable when it comes to protecting property and making money..
That's true but in a rights-based democratic society I would argue that laws have a tendency to reflect societal morals.
Take speed limits ... I don't believe they were created simply to piss people off (though I think some drivers believe they were), they reflect societies general concern for the wellbeing of their fellows.
Actually I got into a long winded but very amusing argument with a friend about speeding ... he was moaning about speed cameras being dangerous because they slowed traffic down, I told him that was because the motorists were going too fast in the first place (I'm not claiming to be an angel); the argument continued and he claimed that speeding was actually safer under certain conditions (he was talking about motorways that were relatively empty I suppose) and he admitted he had on several (implicitly many) occasions done in excess of 120 MPH. That’s when I pointed out (red rag to a bull) that it was not possible to create a positively moral argument in favour of exceeding the speed limit ... it was very funny, he went everywhere with that one (citing technologies, speed limits in other countries, slow lane drivers, the works) but eventually had to (very grudgingly) concede I was correct.
(March 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I have a problem that this is more media hype frenzy. A minority of people (earn) take obscene amounts of money that no person could ever justify. We must put up with this for the prosperity of our society we're told. Meanwhile real justice is met out on poor people stealing crumbs.
You're a socialist?
(March 25, 2009 at 4:54 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Under certain circumstances crime is understandable, even laudable yes ... just because something is on the books as a crime does not make it morally wrong to break the relevant law.That's what Islamic fundamentalists say anyway[/quote]
I guess that was humour, still I would argue that they are wrong (or at least not as right as they think they are) because even though Islam does seem to embrace social violence more than say the UK (I'm not trying to justify that above my impression) I would argue that very few of them would specifically condone flying aircraft into buildings ... not sure about that especially when I saw a "Question Time" (BBC program) shortly after and there were several young Muslims in the audience who, despite their (to my mind) extreme clothing, were obviously intelligent and well educated and refused to condemn the WTC carnage.
Kyu
The question I have to ask on the Goodwin thing is, if caught, should these people be tried and (potentially) found guilty because they are, after all, taking on a vigilante style role?
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator