Which do you prefer, to punish the guilty or to reduce the rate of immorality?

originally posted by: beezzer
Crime rates will always be reduced if we make crime legal.

I don't understand your logic there.

Because you are arguing from the narrow label of "crime". If we label something immoral, whether we make it illegal or not, we can still track its rate of occurrence and determine if that is a good thing or not.

"so that people WANT to behave instead of feeling like they HAVE to behave"

What makes people want to behave? The consequences of not behaving.

Well it looks like it may be education, and yes education on the consequences of not behaving, but also on the benefits of playing by the rules.

You mean "obligating".

As in, "so that people WANT to behave instead of feeling like they feel obligated to behave".

A moral compass usually dictates whether people will behave or not. The lack of a moral base, the lack of a moral outlook, usually indicates that the individual feels no obligation to society to behave.

Very few people don't have moral compasses though. Many times, what makes a person immoral is their upbringing, environment, and #ty education. Fix those things and I'd bet you'd fix a lot of problems with society.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Many times, what makes a person immoral is their upbringing, environment, and #ty education. Fix those things and I'd bet you'd fix a lot of problems with society.

There's the problem.

It's none of my business concerning ones education, upbringing, environment.

That's up to the parents and the indivuduals themselves.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well that is really the TRUE viewpoint isn't it? Morality is really just relative. So why do we punish people for doing things that we disapprove of? Shouldn't it make more sense for us to make a logical case for them to behave as we think by weighing the pros and cons of the particular morality in question against what they are doing.

For instance, incest. Incest has been shown to be scientifically detrimental to the offspring produced by the incestuous couple. We can then relate to someone this fact so that it discourages them from pursuing any incestuous relationships, but if the person disregards this information and does one anyways, it doesn't make sense to PUNISH this person for this action. In this case, we may have a child that NEEDS parental support more than ever and instead we'd see to putting the parents in jail for creating the child. It doesn't make sense.

a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

I recently read a stat that since Colorado started offering free long term birth control (IUDs as opposed to condoms or pills) there has been a 40% drop in abortions.

There are so many more compassionate, helpful, pro-active things that people could be doing to improve the overall situation and reduce the need for abortions. But I guess it's just easier to sit back and call women whores and murderers. *shrug*

The right:

ABORTION IS MURDER! RAAAH!

STOP SUBSIDIZING CONTRACEPTION!

...Wait, what?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Many times, what makes a person immoral is their upbringing, environment, and #ty education. Fix those things and I'd bet you'd fix a lot of problems with society.

It's none of my business concerning ones education, upbringing, environment.
That's up to the parents and the indivuduals themselves.

originally posted by: beezzer

It is societies responsibility.

Sorry to be a pain, but I'm reading that as a contradiction. Are you part of society?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

For instance, incest. Incest has been shown to be scientifically detrimental to the offspring produced by the incestuous couple. We can then relate to someone this fact so that it discourages them from pursuing any incestuous relationships, but if the person disregards this information and does one anyways, it doesn't make sense to PUNISH this person for this action. In this case, we may have a child that NEEDS parental support more than ever and instead we'd see to putting the parents in jail for creating the child. It doesn't make sense.

It isn't incestuous relationships between two consenting adults that are the problem. It is when they procreate, the problem arises. So the discouragement shouldn't necessarily be against the relationship, but against procreation in said relationship. Though I'm thinking this is what you meant to say.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

originally posted by: angryhulk


Sorry to be a pain, but I'm reading that as a contradiction. Are you part of society?

Figured on this.

I'm a part of society, unfortunately. I have to play by society's rules. If I were in charge, it'sd be different.

Stupid people would be slapped repeatedly, if I were in charge, but alas.

We are all slaves to the social group that we live in.

Personally? I don't concern myself with how a person is educated or how their moral compass is developed.

It would be imposing my singular ideological stance on things.

And you all would be pissed as hell if I were the one making the rules.
(see the idiot-slapping thing above)

To encapsulate this, I'm not always right.
Society isn't always right either.

But it's the world we live in.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: beezzer

But it IS your business to punish them if they don't act how you want them to act then?

No.

It is societies responsibility.

Why?

You want your business to become my business?

That'd be intrusive and authoritarian.

This question cannot be answered by a full generalisation because each case is different...

Because some things that are immoral cannot be re-educated...
I'm thinking psychopathy, paedophilia, and sometimes theft (in cases of starvation it's not immoral to steal)...

So in these instances it's not about re-education but either punishment in the case of those without a moral compass (psychos, paedos) or social changes (so that starvation is not an option).



Some of us have a moral standpoint that means we cannot be lumped into the either-or box.

So, meaning punishment for immorality to me when it comes to abortion is to punish women uterus for the decisions they take base on their personal choices

Morality is such a social issue more often than not dictated by religious fanatics.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Umm i think the medical procedure is being performed on a bit more than just YOUR body. What is that world you used? Other?

So, killing of other people is on much higher ground than stealing from other people.

Hm. Interesting..I think you need to get real with the fact that a fetus is a life, not a stone in possession of your pocket.

I feel i must add something. Even with my views i both believe in and practice contraceptives and casual sex.

I know right? Must be mind blowing to some of you.

originally posted by: angryhulk
Sorry to be a pain, but I'm reading that as a contradiction. Are you part of society?

That's how I'm reading it. It's easy to tell someone how to behave morally (by one's morals), but to then use "society" as a scapegoat when the actual responsibility comes into it, is a cop out.

Les Mis is right. Morality is conditional. And trying to legislate morality (make something illegal because WE think it's immoral) is useless. We don't need to legislate morality, all we need to do is consider the WHOLE when talking about what should be legal and illegal. Murder, theft, etc are illegal because they violate the rights of others.

When we bring lawsuits in this country, we have to show "standing" (how the other party's actions damages us). A lawsuit against someone for "gay marriage" fails every time, because there is no standing. It doesn't damage others.

n the United States, the current doctrine is that a person cannot bring a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that he/she/it is or will "imminently" be harmed by the law. Otherwise, the court will rule that the plaintiff "lacks standing" to bring the suit, and will dismiss the case without considering the merits of the claim of unconstitutionality.

To have a court declare a law unconstitutional, there must be a valid reason for the lawsuit. The party suing must have something to lose in order to sue unless it has automatic standing by action of law.

Source

Beezer, it has NOTHING to do with you being a man. It has to do with the damage done to you by ME (or a million other women) having an abortion. Unless you're the father, it's simply NONE of your business.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: angryhulk


Sorry to be a pain, but I'm reading that as a contradiction. Are you part of society?

Figured on this.

I'm a part of society, unfortunately. I have to play by society's rules. If I were in charge, it'sd be different.

Stupid people would be slapped repeatedly, if I were in charge, but alas.

I'm sure you wouldn't be alone, the problem is that legalising stupid-people-slapping, will reduce the amount of stupid-people-slapping, which I guess means there would be less (or none) stupid people over a period of time. Wait, slapping stupid people isn't illegal? I'm away to get my gloves.

I'm trying to stick to the premise of the thread.

originally posted by: beezzer
Personally? I don't concern myself with how a person is educated or how their moral compass is developed.

But you concern yourself with how a person handles their own personal medical care.

It would be imposing my singular ideological stance on things.

EXACTLY!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And my opinion *sigh* is that abortion is murder.

Good thing I'm not in charge, eh?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

And my opinion *sigh* is that abortion is murder.

Look it up. "Murder" is the UNLAWFUL killing of someone. By definition, abortion is NOT murder because abortion is legal. "Abortion is murder" is just ignorance, and something people say to give their position more drama. Abortion isn't unlawful.

But feel free to have the opinion that abortion is illegal.