Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Where did this nonsense about Morality being "subjective" come from? Wrong is Wrong and Right is Right. There are grey areas based upon mitigating circumstance, but Moral is still Moral.
Theft, whether by a Government or a Ganagsta, is WRONG. Period.
Murder, whether by a Policeman or a Pimp, is WRONG. Period.
Fraud, whether by the IRS or Miss Cleo, is WRONG. Period.
Slavery, whether perpetrated by the Dept. of Treasury or some thug in Sudan, is WRONG. Period.
If you allow Morality to be subjective, then you are explicitly ALLOWING all of the above criminal, Immoral acts. Murder is allowed, if it's conveniant. Rape is allowed, if the woman's a slut. Slavery is allowed because, after all, they were too weak and stupid. Fraud and Theft are allowed, if the perpetrator is a Politcally Correct minority, or poor, or a Government Agency.
Murder is WRONG/IMMORAL: Self-defense is RIGHT/MORAL
Theft is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Fraud is WRONG/IMMORAL.
Rape is WRONG/IMMORAL.
If a person emerges in society who sees the above things as permissable, and they act upon this ( Murder/rape/rob/defraud someone ) then they must be REMOVED from society: Preferably by their intended victims. If their intended victims don't do the job at the time of the attempted Tresspass, then it is the task of the State to remove the offender from Society.
For violent crimes, the best solution is that they never be allowed to occur: that the intended victim shoot their attacker dead. This person surrendered their Right to Life the moment they initiated the use of Force.
For nonviolent robberies and frauds, the best solution is imprisonment. Such a crime does not merit the loss of life, but certainly the loss of Freedom.
|
Who decides what is wrong?
is it wrong for a dog to kill a racoon?
all morality is subjective and produced by society - you are a subject of society and cannot exist outside of the environment you have lived in the last 18+ years.
How is it to be administered, this right o instant retribution? Every killer would say that the victim had attacked him and he had only defended himself... all you recomend is a state of constant civil war, constant robbery and murder and fear, of every man and against every man - the state you propose is pathetic and weak, unable to secure the peace, it is Hobbes nightmare, the state of nature, life is nasty and brutish and short.
In fact society's have existed where rape (for example) was morally permissable - you can read the Bible for examples - where t6hese people devoid of the absolute morality you preach, or did they live in society's with different morality? How will future society's judge us, our war's, our wage slavery, our exploitation of the third world, our wanton pollution of the natural environment?
I am sorry to reply three times, but the more I read this thread the more it frightens me. The first job, role, or function of every society is to keep the peace, for their to be a rule of law, so that standards and rules can be applied evenly and fairly - all you say in reality means the rule of the fist, the gun, the fire bomb. Anyone is permitted to do anything, because there is no power sufficient to prevent it, you even welcome killing - if the killer claims it was in self defence.