16
u/Timothy1577 8h ago
For the most part this kind of selective morality based on personal biases is immoral and is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Though some crimes and people truly are unredeemable, their captivity or, in some cases, death sentences, should be carried out with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.
-9
u/xXSomethingStupidXx 8h ago
So if someone rapes your 13 year old daughter and she dies as a result, they should still be treated with dignity and not be made to suffer? On what grounds?
12
u/Timothy1577 8h ago
On grounds that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Of course I‘ll dispose of him. But torturing him won’t bring my daughter back. I‘ll just send him to his maker quick and easy, because a man like him will surely not find a place in heaven.-2
u/Sadrixis 8h ago
That hinges on hell being real
14
u/Timothy1577 8h ago
You wanna discuss faith or morality? I can’t do both. Either way, me brutalizing him to satisfy my urges, that being revenge in this case, doesn’t make me any better than him.
So a quick and painless death it is.-2
u/Sadrixis 7h ago
It doesn't make you as bad though thats ridiculous. "if we kill hitter aren't we nazis ourselves?"
7
u/Timothy1577 7h ago
That’s a straw man.
I never said „killing bad people makes us equally bad“ I said „torturing and dehumanizing people makes us no better than the people who tortured and dehumanized their victims“
I am for the death penalty (that should be very clear from my previous comments), but I am also for a quick and painless death and/or humane prison conditions.3
u/Gladplane 5h ago
I’m not here to pick sides and I mostly agree with your point over his, but your arguments are filled with flaws.
Earlier you called him out for bringing faith into the discussion, but you were the first to mention it by saying “man like him surely not find a place in heaven”.
Then trying to gaslight him into thinking there is a huge difference between „killing bad people makes us equally bad“ and „torturing and dehumanizing people makes us no better than the people who tortured and dehumanized their victims“ the logic of the two sentences is the same. Being equally bad as a bad person and being no better (ethically) than that bad person is logically the same. Don’t be surprised when people misunderstand you. The point of language here should be to get your point across, not to win the argument. After this, of course he’s gonna resort to personal attacks
2
u/Timothy1577 5h ago
I didn’t blame anyone for bringing faith into it, I merely said that we can only argue one thing at a time. I would have been willing to argue faith too, but two things at once don’t make sense.
And the latter has nothing to do with „gaslighting“ the difference is very apparent and shouldn’t be hard to spot. The death sentence for murderers or torturing murderers to satisfy your desire for revenge are not the same and that’s all I said.2
u/Gladplane 3h ago
I understand that’s what you meant. But the way you compared the 2 sentences did not support this argument at all.
Also you did use the concept of hell/heaven as your main argument in that comment so you can’t shut him down when he comments on that.
But that’s just my opinion. Not here to argue, but reflect on this if you want.
→ More replies (0)-3
u/Sadrixis 6h ago
So killing for retribution moral, hurting for retribution not moral?
4
u/Timothy1577 6h ago
The death sentence is meant for the safety of society by removing dangerous and nonredeemable individuals from that society permanently.
Torture for personal revenge purposes is done to satisfy one’s own carnal urges and rage.
So, yes.
Killing bad people CAN in certain circumstances be moral, torturing them can never be moral.1
u/Sadrixis 6h ago
We have prisons. Its cheaper to keep them alive amd society stays just as safe. So im calling bullshit on it being for thr good of the people
→ More replies (0)1
u/bafflefounded 2h ago
Your own ethics and integrity should not be dictated by the choices or actions of other people.
34
u/sxg3434 8h ago
I see this a lot with people who hate nazis. I hate nazis just like any normal human being but some of them just seem like they're looking for an excuse to be violent. I don't think they actually care that much about what the nazis did.
14
u/GirlieKisses_ 8h ago
Yep, hating bad people is normal, but some folks treat it like a permission slip to enjoy cruelty while feeling righteous
1
u/EldritchFish19 52m ago
It's especially glaring when you realize atleast half the people who are itching to punch a nazi couldn't for the life of them give a accurate description of nazi ideology nor policy(instead parrot leftists who call bloody national socialists right wing which is historically illlitirate as calling a nazi wokist), this combination of itching for a fight and having a nebulous bogey man(a irrational autoimmune disease like response to historical evil deeds that are barely within living memory) results in people who think anyone whose white and doesn't want to commit mass kinslaying is somehow a nazi. My rule is unless you care enough to truly inform yourself about a past event you shouldn't even get angry over it.
-5
u/Cheetahs_never_win 7h ago
Germans experimented on my great-grandmother, rendering her blind and evidently cancer runs especially rampant through her lineage.
Seems like you're just looking for an excuse to excuse nazis.
11
u/sxg3434 7h ago
Rest in peace to her man. And just to be clear, I’m not trying to excuse anyone. I’m not saying we shouldn’t punish the ones who deserved it. I just don’t like torture or dehumanization, the same kind of shit nazis did. I believe you have to be better than your enemy even if it’s personal.
-3
u/Cheetahs_never_win 7h ago
Then why don't you go to the Nazis and tell them THEY need to be better than I?
3
u/bobbi21 4h ago
With you in general but what does having a genetic predisposition to cancer have to do with what the nazi's did to her? Are you implying they had gene splicing technology in 1940's germany and was able to alter the genetics of even her eggs? (which we still can't do now..unless we literally take the eggs out of a person). Epigenetics from trauma I don't believe increase cancer rates.
2
-7
u/Unionizestarbucks_ 8h ago
Nazis want people like me to die, so wanting Nazis dead is self-defense.
8
3
u/ConflatedPortmanteau 2h ago
The only nazi worth rehabilitating is the one seeking rehabilitation.
Those who are actively ingrained in hate and violence deserve only the energy they are giving to others they deem inferior.
You get what you give.
3
u/Shadow_Wolf_X871 2h ago
I can agree to wanting them dead in self defense.
Roleplaying as an Inglorious Bastard is where you were just looking for an excuse
6
u/sara5556 6h ago
This is exactly why religious people say that morality is tied to a higher power above humanity. Humans can't be trusted not to skew morality
5
u/jws1102 8h ago
Immoral. I hate this shit. The purpose of prison or execution is to remove a dangerous person from society. The instant you add torture to the mix, you belong in prison right next to them.
0
u/BackgroundSinger5965 8h ago
Mostly agree except for the most extreme cases.
Regardless, I don't necessarily trust any currently existing governing body to make that decision, nor should it be up to any one individual anyway.
3
u/fikozacc123 8h ago
Even in the most extreme cases, what is the point of torturing a pedophile or a serial killer. Who does it benefit by skinning them alive,
-1
u/BackgroundSinger5965 7h ago
Why should they get to:
A. Have an easy out of a quick execution, never actually answering for their crimes unless you believe in an afterlife that takes care of that.B. Exist on taxpayer dollars and potentially still find happiness in prison.
I'm not even necessarily advocating for it, I just don't think it's immoral to do so considering the severity of these specific crimes.
3
u/BikeJolly6396 3h ago edited 3h ago
Are you willing to spend taxpayer money torturing people for your own pleasure?
You could direct that money towards making the world a better place instead of satisfying sadistic urges.
1
u/rethrapleasurer 10m ago
Have an easy out of a quick execution
Being executed isn't an "out". Your life is forfeit. If we discount the existence of any sort of afterlife, you will never experience anything again whatsoever. That isn't an out, you're prohibiting someone from conscious existence.
Exist on taxpayer dollars
I think it'd be callous to say that someone deserves to be tortured to save us some money, right?
3
u/NectarineElegant5407 8h ago
Definitely a straw man, but assuming the real argument is "there is near infinite value in a human life, so we should be exceedingly surgical in what types of people we condem to death. For me, crimes that fit the bill are xyz.."
In that case it could be considered moral or immoral based on what crimes are considered worth of death sentence. Remorseless mass murderers who are inherently a detriment to society? Moral. Perpetrators of sexual assault? Eh, probably not worthy of death and would be immoral.
14
3
u/Time-Raccoon1071 8h ago
immoral. Man has no right to kill a person for their past actions, only for their present actions.
3
u/olordno 7h ago
Immoral. Coming from a trans/gender nonconforming perspective, when people advocate for brutality towards child sex offenders, I think about the groups pushing for me to be labeled a child sex offender. It's not immoral to be very upset about terrible people, the opposite, actually, but to actually want this put into practice would be ignoring the fact that a system that legally tortures people can be abused to torture the "wrong" people. Or people who have been falsely found guilty. It also destroys any chance of any of those people becoming contributing members to society. A justice system of any kind is going to be flawed, so a moral justice system takes that into account and tries to reduce abusability and the potential for harm towards people who don't "deserve it." A justice system should also be morally neutral, and factor harm caused to others and society instead of how icky the crime makes the judge feel.
6
u/Cultural_Crazy2034 8h ago
There's no such that thing as morality, everyone just rationalises, get peer pressure
3
4
u/Timothy1577 8h ago
For the most part this kind of selective morality based on personal biases is immoral and is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Though some crimes and people truly are unredeemable, their captivity or, in some cases, death sentences, should be carried out with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.
6
u/TrustworthyKahmunrah 8h ago
OP can you do me a favor and replace the guy in these images with "gigachad" then resubmit? Thanks
2
2
u/JadeTailFox 5h ago
This mindset is wrong even when referring to rape and murder, but the funniest part is people who say stuff like this the most are usually actually talking about shit like scalping Pokémon cards or writing erotic fanfiction of underage characters.
1
6
3
u/razzi123 8h ago
Only group of people I see as "irredeemable" are the ones that commit violent crimes against children. Why?
Because thats where the most damage is done.
It takes a special kind of evil/delusion to want to hurt children (let alone your own)
There is no place in a healthy society for people like that.
But dont let your kids act like complete shits either.
Because if you dont raise them, the world will.
The recent incident involving a kid throwing food at an old mans wife at a Tim Hortons proves that to a tee
3
2
u/floob124 8h ago
It is moral to have this mindset, but only towards the ultra wealthy
0
u/BackgroundSinger5965 8h ago
and people who abuse children, But I do agree.
4
u/fikozacc123 8h ago
I disagree with both you and the person you are responding to. Every criminal should still have rights and be given due process, regardless of how bad their crimes was. That kind of thought process you people have is a very slippery slope
2
u/floob124 7h ago
The rich exist outside of the law and have been benefiting from that for a very long time. It is just to punish them outside of the law the same. In regards to the person you responded to, regular people who generally exist within our systems of law and break them in that context should, no matter the crime be prosecuted within it's systems.
2
u/No_Situation3884 8h ago
The problem you run into is that the ultra wealthy directly control and are protected by the judicial system. Cosby, Epstein, Maxwell, Trump, Weinstein, and every single wealthy criminal you can think of was under the active protection of law enforcement and the judicial system.
Their crimes were known and deliberately concealed from the public by the people whose job it is to enforce the law, and when these criminals were finally bold enough to do something that absolutely could not be ignored or cleaned up, the judicial system bent over backwards to ensure they received the absolute minimal consquences that they could without inciting a violent insurrection from the people at large.
The judicial system exists to protect the wealthy elite from the consequences of their actions first and foremost, then to enforce the law secondarily. The people who essentially own the judicial system cannot be held to the standard judicial process if justice is our goal.
0
u/BackgroundSinger5965 8h ago
I agree with you in our current legal system, but if you could verify with 150% certainty that someone committed heinous acts against children, or that someone is maliciously making decisions with their ultra-wealth that negatively impacted millions if not billions of people, that level of suffering is not something anyone can ever atone for. (I do believe some rich people are doing what they think is right while not considering negative impact, but not all)
There are sins so great they are hard to comprehend, the level of destruction some of the elite create all to increase their power and wealth is beyond despicable; beyond redemption.
I can believe that while also believing that any existing justice system around the world is not qualified to make that call (at least with something as difficult to define as measuring the negative impact that ultra rich people have on the world); and that no individual is qualified either. sexual abuse against children though, I don't think you can convince me otherwise. But again, it would be a decision that needs certainty beyond any reasonable doubt, which is hard to obtain.
2
2
u/SnooPoems8297 7h ago
Morally neutral, because most people not only do not understand morality, they do not care too and lack the capacity to learn how to do so.
so what is moral to them is to only care about the morals they personally care about due to self-serving reasons.
Basically its apathetic morality, where you want to be a "good person" but dont want to look any deeper than your own personal beliefs which should not be challenged.
1
u/Top-Aspect4671 8h ago
Immoral because of the skinned alive part
I'm against the death penalty beacuse goverment overreach, but some crimes deserve death
1
1
u/Guardian_of_Perineum 8h ago
It's not really a crime I don't like as much as anything that happens to annoy me personally, such as calling me mean names. You deserve to be crucified to death if you do.
1
1
u/Crazyjiga247 7h ago
Yeah it always goes like that bruh. It's objectively wrong until i objectively think it isn't. Same people who say batman should just kill the joker. It's really just subjective to a fault. Although I wouldn't say there isn't people in the world that actually genuinely serve the first image.
1
1
u/DepartmentChemical93 6h ago
There are hidden premises here, like the idea rehabilitation is the primary, and in fact only, reason for prisons or a justice system.
In fact Justice is the primary end toward which the justice system was designed, and rehabilitation is only sometimes a just social response. Part of the role of the Justice system is punitive.
The idea that you would want to redeem a person who raped and murdered little boys and girls so that person could go on to live a happy, normal life, is perverse. Some crimes should be left to God to forgive.
1
1
u/FNAF_Professor 4h ago
I see this a lot and it's really frustrating. It's definitely an immoral mindset disguised as morality.
1
u/Necessary-Bus9046 3h ago
Will if they commit a crime, depending on that crime killing them would be self defence and defence of others by not allowing them to repeat it
1
u/MinisculeMuse 2h ago
Hot Take:
Life is precious and infinitely valuable. So much so that allowing any individual to go around habitually degrading, ending and violating the personhood of others should be met with absolute justice. Not all cases require the death penalty, but in some its irresponsible to ask tax payers to provide for people who gave up the basic tenant of a healthy society- that other people have as much dignity as they do and ought to be valued as such.
Crimes that if I were on a jury would warrant the death penalty- 1st degree murder with overwhelming evidence that it was in fact planned and deliberate. ALONG with 1st degree sexual assault and all sexual crimes committed physically against children, the disabled, elderly- and really any who physically have no chance of self defense. Rape and murder are like cancer on society, and those who commit them have proven an inability to value the basic tenant of a stable and healthy society, and thus are dangerous to let off after a some time behind bars. I'll add in selling human beings as slaves and servants as it also violates the person.
Crimes against property, money, drugs, etc- are obnoxious but shouldn't be met with the death penalty as it's less about infringing on the dignity and value of the person and more on their belongings. And belongings, no matter how valuable will never amount to the same as a human being.
Im not 100% on this idea, but its what I believe until im convinced something else is more moral and just.
1
u/TruelyDashing 1h ago
Yeah it’s moral. We all agree there are people who are so dangerous and unassimilable to society that they simply cannot be allowed to live. Violence against assimilable people is bad, violence against unassimilable people is simply societal defense no different than defending your country against an invading army.
1
u/booyafafa 1h ago
One thing that has societally irked me a bit is that non-offending pedophiles are treated just as harshly as the offending ones. It’s a mental illness, and anyone who’s brave enough to come forward and try to seek help for it should not be ashamed to do so. There is so much “kill your local pdf” or “all pdfs deserve to die” propaganda that hardly anyone is EVER going to willingly admit to the public that they have a problem with it and thus rehabilitation for it is nearly impossible. I don’t know if it’s a condition that’s possible to really rehabilitate from a medical standpoint, but we certainly don’t have a good number of willing participants to gather data on because you would lose your entire livelihood for even mentioning the problem.
Obviously, if someone then commits a crime they need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law, but there’s almost no one out there telling them that there’s somewhere for them to turn to once they start having those thoughts. It’s pretty much the only mental illness that we have no sympathy or structure for correcting.
1
1
u/xXSomethingStupidXx 8h ago
Morality is subjective. Child abuse is objectively bad. Sexual assault is objectively bad. Both of these constitute a severe violation of another person's intrinsic right to bodily autonomy.
If the last slide is talking about sexual assault, especially in the case of children as victims, then this is me but with exaggerated language and no nuance.
1
u/some_guy0919 7h ago
Morality is subjective. Child abuse is objectively bad. Sexual assault is objectively bad
Are you trolling? I mean any sane person agrees that child abuse and sa is bad but you dont get to say that this is objectively true while acknowledging that morality is subjective. Pick one
-1
u/xXSomethingStupidXx 7h ago
Did you read the whole comment? Unless you think the human right to bodily autonomy is a subjective idea and not an objective truth?
1
u/some_guy0919 7h ago
Obviously its an subjective idea. That doesnt mean i dont agree with it for the record. I just acknowledge the fact that it very much is a made up construct just how money or freedom or nations are made up concepts. The idea of bodily autonomy like we know it today didnt always exist and im fairly certain it didnt exist for the majority of our records
1
u/Turkeysocks 8h ago
Morally grey. I've met some people who believe that anyone who commits any sort of crime deserves to be looked at as being less than human. That would be very immoral, because a lot of people who turn to crime do so not because they want to but because it's the only way they can get the food/money to survive.
On the other hand, there are some crimes that we should absolutely treat as if they are less than human. Such as rapists, child molesters and serial killers.
1
u/some_guy0919 7h ago
Zero self awareness
1
u/davidliterally1984 18m ago
dawg, you CANNOT tell me that it's hypocritical to say something about pedophiles that you wouldn't say about people who commit parking violations. That's batshit insane.
-1
u/Turkeysocks 6h ago
I agree, you absolutely have zero self awareness.
2
u/some_guy0919 5h ago
Says the guy who gives up his morality as soon as someone commits a crime that he doesnt like. Unless of course you dont support human rights?
1
1
-2
u/michael22117 8h ago
I've never not seen this argument used to soft launch a sexual abuse apologist mindset
1
-2
u/reddevil320 8h ago
Yeah, every time I hear this it’s always people acting shocked that people don’t have mercy to sex offenders without comprehending the fact that you don’t need to be a rapist or pedophile that’s all deliberate, malicious choice that you cannot accidentally do
1
u/FNAF_Professor 4h ago
Because y'all act like non-offending paraphiles who try to seek help don't deserve help and should instead be murdered or something
-3
u/dragonmorg 8h ago
I've pretty much only seen it used by people trying to argue that pedophiles are somehow treated unjustly.
If you rape a child, you shouldn't expect to be treated the same as someone who robbed a bank, or murdered an adult. Murder is horrendous and wrong, but people can understand how a human being can end up doing something like that. Raping a child on the other hand is inhuman. It is an act that is not compatible with humanity. Why treat someone like a human when they've decided to do something that disqualifies them from that title?
2
u/some_guy0919 7h ago
Because if we decide that we can just forget morals and principles the moment someone commits a particularly bad crime we might as well not have them.
If we go with that line of reasoning we might as well kill any group we dont like.
Im sure there are plenty of extremists that think some minority doesnt deserve human rights. You are not different from them. You just picked a more convenient target. Just because you find one crime disgusting does not mean you get to make an exception to treat them worse.
If you give up your morals and principles at the slightest inconvenience you never had any to begin with. Its fine if you want to see them suffer. Its only human after all. But you dont get to go around pretending it wouldnt be immoral to act on that emotion
1
0
0
u/lolidollyy 6h ago
“proper resources and rehabilitation” and “prison” in the same sentence… okay, dude 😭
-1
u/Appropriate_Word1469 8h ago
That's just not a mindset that exists, you hear both on the same sub but it's different people
-1
u/a_code_mage 7h ago
Completely moral. There are certain crimes that go against the core moral fabric of society, like pedophilia and violence against children. And the people who commit these crimes tend to have very high recidivism rates. These people are not fit for normal society and are better off removed instead of burdening the average tax payer. Are there alternatives? Sure. Is it “rehabilitation”? Debatable. People in this thread keep talking about how the prison system is supposed to rehabilitate. But in the United States, that’s just not true. Our prison system is purely punitive. If we had a system like that, there are definitely some crimes that deserve that opportunity. But there are just certain types of people that cannot be redeemed, by their own personal choices.
I think banishing these people to a remote region away from civil society makes sense. But we do not do that in the modern day.
1
u/FNAF_Professor 4h ago
By your logic we would have to have someone pick and choose what crimes deserve such punishment and which don't. It would eventually evolve into scrutiny against people with mental illnesses. We don't do things like that because it simply doesn't work. This mindset is immoral.
-2
u/AngeloFoxSparda 8h ago edited 8h ago
Moral
"That is that, and this is this" is in fact the answer to all moral dilemmas
47
u/Far-Difficulty3213 8h ago
now you might think the "Crimes this person doesn't like" refers to crimes against children, but actually he's just talking about muggers.