RE: Humanism
March 21, 2012 at 6:20 am
(This post was last modified: March 21, 2012 at 6:22 am by Creed of Heresy.)
Largely hypothetical, but ultimately based on the expenditure of human life. Someone who takes another life for something like the pleasure of it needs to pay the toll. Lifetime for a lifetime; you may not know how long the other individual would have lived otherwise...so the same must be said for the murderer. No idea how long he will live; throw him in isolation in a prison and find out how long he'll live, something that could have been done with the other person, but alas, they interfered. Murder, rape, slavery...these are things that violate the very element that makes a human being a human being; freedom of choice. The awareness of the world, and the perception of it. To violate this is the highest of crimes, and must be paid in the fullest measure. Death is too quick a sentence; a lifetime spent in isolation, in the dark, in silence, is far more just.
As far as the murderous retaliation goes, that is why the council of peers must be sought. AND their approval given. Who those peers might be differs from person to person. But one cannot take the law into their own hands when it comes down to matters of life and death. And if the law fails, then those in your life who remain ought to provide you with council for what your decision should be, because your own judgment will be corrupted by bias and emotion. In truth...this should, SHOULD, prevent an individual from spilling blood. Killing someone, when you are not an individual altogether familiar with spilling blood, changes you, and not for the better, either.
Alas, the justice system is NOT a self-correcting mechanism. It is a monolithic thing, and that is where it fails.
I suppose my own ethical leanings tend towards consequential humanism. If you see someone doing wrong, you don't stand back and wait for authorities if you can stop what is happening yourself. Too many people take the view of "let someone else handle it." If I am walking down the street and I hear a woman being raped in an alley, and I have a gun and a cell phone, do I just let the woman keep being raped while I call the cops and wait for them to show, or do I pistol whip the fucker to stop him while the cops arrive? It may not be legal to pistol-whip the guy but if it guarantees he stops and can't get away, and I must serve some punishment for this...so be it, it's a worthy sacrifice, I think.
As far as the murderous retaliation goes, that is why the council of peers must be sought. AND their approval given. Who those peers might be differs from person to person. But one cannot take the law into their own hands when it comes down to matters of life and death. And if the law fails, then those in your life who remain ought to provide you with council for what your decision should be, because your own judgment will be corrupted by bias and emotion. In truth...this should, SHOULD, prevent an individual from spilling blood. Killing someone, when you are not an individual altogether familiar with spilling blood, changes you, and not for the better, either.
Alas, the justice system is NOT a self-correcting mechanism. It is a monolithic thing, and that is where it fails.
I suppose my own ethical leanings tend towards consequential humanism. If you see someone doing wrong, you don't stand back and wait for authorities if you can stop what is happening yourself. Too many people take the view of "let someone else handle it." If I am walking down the street and I hear a woman being raped in an alley, and I have a gun and a cell phone, do I just let the woman keep being raped while I call the cops and wait for them to show, or do I pistol whip the fucker to stop him while the cops arrive? It may not be legal to pistol-whip the guy but if it guarantees he stops and can't get away, and I must serve some punishment for this...so be it, it's a worthy sacrifice, I think.
