Enough to make one support the death penalty...

[Arcade22]

No, animals are often like that, too.

Well, at least not good moral and normal animals. Normal animals don't rape and kill alright. Just like god intended.

 

[Belz...]

Indeed, but given how many humans acted that way in history, I find it odd to call such a behaviour sub-human or inhuman, even when one strongly disagrees with it. It's an emotional reaction, not a rational one.

Are you suggesting that the majority of humans have acted that way through out history?

Sometimes I wonder how people read texts. How can you possibly interpret my post this way ?

 

[Belz...]

Well, at least not good moral and normal animals. Normal animals don't rape and kill alright. Just like god intended.

A no true chimpanzee argument ?

 

[Belz...]

If a person uses deadly force to prevent the gang-rape or worse of innocent girls and the girls parents are so happy to see their daughters returned unharmed that they throw a big celebration for the person who saved them, is it wrong for:

1 the parents to celebrate. (Don't forget their daughters are alive as the result of someone being made dead)
2 for the person to feel good about saving the girls. (Don't forget he did kill someone to save them)

In this example it's given that killing was the only alternative to letting the girls be raped and possibility murdered.

If the gang-rape can be prevented by capturing the perpetrators instead, isn't that "better" than killing them for the same result ?

 

[Belz...]

If one doesn't doesn't feel bad are they a sociopath?

Well yeah.

 

[Polaris]

Because humans like to label other humans as sub-human so they can treat them in ways humans have always treated other humans, but not consider themselves as base as other humans.

Context.

Those who would commit 9/11, or gang rape and murder two teenage girls and hang their bodies from a tree do plenty enough by their actions to label themselves as subhuman. Those of us who do label them don't do so without good reason, nor do we wish to see them punished severely for committing such horrors without good reason.

To equate committing a horror with punishing those who do just seems...inhuman.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Context.

Always important.

Those who would commit 9/11, or gang rape and murder two teenage girls and hang their bodies from a tree do plenty enough by their actions to label themselves as subhuman. Those of us who do label them don't do so without good reason, nor do we wish to see them punished severely for committing such horrors without good reason.

Take a minute to reflect on why a person would travel to a foreign country far from friends and family, stay in that foreign country to train as a pilot, board a plane full of passengers, and then hijack that plane and fly it into a building full of office workers. Do you suppose that in their minds they did so on a whim or for "good reason"? Do you think they gave this lots of thought and came to the conclusion that all the deaths caused by their actions, including their own, were justified? Do you think they had determined that the punishment they were delivering was well earned by those being punished?

While I disagree with their conclusion, I think you are overlooking their reasoning. I think you have to overlook their reasoning. To look closely at their reasoning may feel a bit too familiar.

To equate committing a horror with punishing those who do just seems...inhuman.

I suppose that is why no one has done that in this thread.

But to ignore the similarities in thinking, the thought process that starts with defining the other as other, then marking some of the other as sub-human, then justifying your actions because they are not delivered upon a true human, but only the sub-human class of other, is a bit much for folks who want to be called critical thinkers. Critical thinking requires that we be critical of our thought processes, our decision making criteria, our own reactions.

I'm merely asking that we take the time to analyze the thought process and see whether that is the sort of thought process we should be using to guide our actions. Does this sort of thought process reliably lead to positive decisions? If not, then why should we rely on it?

 

[Belz...]

Those who would commit 9/11, or gang rape and murder two teenage girls and hang their bodies from a tree do plenty enough by their actions to label themselves as subhuman.

Define "sub-human", then.

To equate committing a horror with punishing those who do just seems...inhuman.

That's not what was equated, but the process through which considering other people as inhuman in order to justify doing something to them that you wouldn't otherwise consider doing.

 

[MontagK505]

Originally Posted by MontagK505:
If one doesn't doesn't feel bad are they a sociopath?

Well yeah.

So people who don't feel the way you think they should, are sociopaths?

 

[MontagK505]

Always important.




<snip>
But to ignore the similarities in thinking, the thought process that starts with defining the other as other, then marking some of the other as sub-human, then justifying your actions because they are not delivered upon a true human, but only the sub-human class of other, is a bit much for folks who want to be called critical thinkers. Critical thinking requires that we be critical of our thought processes, our decision making criteria, our own reactions.

I'm merely asking that we take the time to analyze the thought process and see whether that is the sort of thought process we should be using to guide our actions. Does this sort of thought process reliably lead to positive decisions? If not, then why should we rely on it?

I don't disagree with what you say here. But, some posters are labeling certain kinds of thinking as wrong or sociopathic. I don't think this attitude encourages the self analysis you think is desirable. If someone is encouraged to regard their own thoughts as wrong doesn't that sound a little Orwellian?

 

[Belz...]

If one doesn't doesn't feel bad are they a sociopath?

Well yeah.

So people who don't feel the way you think they should, are sociopaths?

One of those two things you said is not like the other.

The definition of sociopath implies that someone lacks empathy.

 

[MontagK505]

One of those two things you said is not like the other.

The definition of sociopath implies that someone lacks empathy.

Empathy implies the willingness to take the viewpoint of another. I doubt many people can take the viewpoint of a rapist / murder. Does this make them a sociopath?

If the parents were to lynch the people who murdered their daughters, would a lack of empathy for the rapist / murders, while disapproving of lynching as a principle of justice, still make one a sociopath?

 

[Belz...]

Empathy implies the willingness to take the viewpoint of another. I doubt many people can take the viewpoint of a rapist / murder. Does this make them a sociopath?

You are twisting definitions, here.

Empathy is the ability to see others as feeling creatures and put oneself in their place, emotionally speaking. Taking someone else's viewpoint can be done entirely logically and dispassionately. Sociopaths do not see other people are living things but as objects or playthings.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I don't disagree with what you say here.

Somehow, that feels like a win that will shortly be marked from the books. But let me bask in it nonetheless . . . ah . . . that felt good.

But, some posters are labeling certain kinds of thinking as wrong or sociopathic.

Yeah, but not me.

And, as Belz points out, the shorthand layman's definition of sociopath is lacking empathy. If you can't grasp the negative aspects associated with killing someone, then that seems to inch towards that simplified definition

I don't think this attitude encourages the self analysis you think is desirable. If someone is encouraged to regard their own thoughts as wrong doesn't that sound a little Orwellian?

Well, if you think all your thoughts are right doesn't that seem to short circuit any form of self analysis? Besides, I don't think others have been calling your thoughts wrong in an Orwellian sense.

I think what others have encouraged you to do is to look at decisions as not binary (good v. bad) and to not ignore the impact of taking a human life, even one that has been misspent by your own reckoning.

As has been pointed out many times in this thread by others more eloquent than me, and yet without making much of a dent in your comments, there can be less bad options that are far better than the more bad options. Taking a human life should always be considered a negative on the scales while trying to determine a course of action, and yet one human life may be outweighed by other human lives.

But when you slip to a point where taking a human life is not even put up on the scale, when the life is considered completely sub-human, that is when disturbing things seem to happen. That is not saying you will get a bad decision, but history has shown us that many bad decisions start by dehumanizing a group of humans. We should not ignore that history.

 

[newyorkguy]

...About ten years ago three cops -- friends of friends -- were involved in a deadly shooting of a seventeen-year-old kid. The boy was armed with a handgun and had been threatening neighbors. He fired shots at responding police who fired back. Two of the officers later resigned...

Sounds like an interesting case. I'd like to read more about it. What year did this take place in? What borough? What was the victims name?

It was about ten years ago and it happened in Brooklyn. I didn't learn of this through a news report. I have a close friend who is a police officer -- we've been friends for over thirty years -- and he told me about it in the context that one of the officers resigning was a cousin of a cop he had worked with and greatly respected. What was remarkable about it was, two of three officers involved in a shooting had resigned.

If you doubt for one moment that police shootings exact an emotional toll on officers...don't! I also pasted a link to a site dealing with emotional turmoil police go through. Have you looked at it? The link I posted was to one account by one officer. He could've been talking about some of the posters in this thread when he wrote:

This type of mentality is very common on the part of the general public, as well as the police hierarchy. Everything is black and white, right and wrong. If the shooting is justified, there are no problems...

Only everything isn't quite so simple in the real world. Have a look: Link

Voicing a threat to kill is so common that people get desensitized to it. I think sometimes we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, "Is that REALLY what I think?"

 

[Trakar]

Fortunately, most of us live in a world without an unobtainium rigid definition of "good"...

Rationalization is a slipper-slope problem for moral issues as people are pretty good at extending such considerations to the point where regardless of their actions and choices they can manufacture a perspective in which their action was good and just, that is one of the roots of sociopathic thinking.

 

[Trakar]

Would it be a good option (not kill anybody) to allow the innocent to be killed by someone else, given that killing is the only option to defend them?

No, it would still be a bad option as the choice of inaction is still an decision and action taken and it results in a death. As I have repeatedly stated, it is quite likely that many such circumstances and decisions have no good action option. In that case, you make a bad choice and accept the consequences of that choice, which at the very least means living the rest of your life knowing and acknowledging that you have robbed another human being of their life.

 

[Trakar]

Context.

Those who would commit 9/11, or gang rape and murder two teenage girls and hang their bodies from a tree do plenty enough by their actions to label themselves as subhuman. Those of us who do label them don't do so without good reason, nor do we wish to see them punished severely for committing such horrors without good reason.

To equate committing a horror with punishing those who do just seems...inhuman.

What is the benefit of punishment?

(BTW, you are aware, are you not, that in these people's eyes they were delivering deserved punishment upon individuals who had earned that treatment. Whether or not we agree with their understandings and actions, they are expressing the same dismay and disbelief that others would see them as the criminals rather than the deliverers of justice and just punishment for improper behavior and crimes.)

I am not saying that they are innocent, far from it, but when there is agreement on methods (someone needs to die for their crimes) and only disagreement upon the proper perspective to use for determining who committed the crimes that deserve death, we run into problems.

 

[Trakar]

Always important.



Take a minute to reflect on why a person would travel to a foreign country far from friends and family, stay in that foreign country to train as a pilot, board a plane full of passengers, and then hijack that plane and fly it into a building full of office workers. Do you suppose that in their minds they did so on a whim or for "good reason"? Do you think they gave this lots of thought and came to the conclusion that all the deaths caused by their actions, including their own, were justified? Do you think they had determined that the punishment they were delivering was well earned by those being punished?

While I disagree with their conclusion, I think you are overlooking their reasoning. I think you have to overlook their reasoning. To look closely at their reasoning may feel a bit too familiar.



I suppose that is why no one has done that in this thread.

But to ignore the similarities in thinking, the thought process that starts with defining the other as other, then marking some of the other as sub-human, then justifying your actions because they are not delivered upon a true human, but only the sub-human class of other, is a bit much for folks who want to be called critical thinkers. Critical thinking requires that we be critical of our thought processes, our decision making criteria, our own reactions.

I'm merely asking that we take the time to analyze the thought process and see whether that is the sort of thought process we should be using to guide our actions. Does this sort of thought process reliably lead to positive decisions? If not, then why should we rely on it?

If I had a better response I would use it!

 

[trustbutverify]

It was about ten years ago and it happened in Brooklyn. I didn't learn of this through a news report. I have a close friend who is a police officer -- we've been friends for over thirty years -- and he told me about it in the context that one of the officers resigning was a cousin of a cop he had worked with and greatly respected. What was remarkable about it was, two of three officers involved in a shooting had resigned.

If you doubt for one moment that police shootings exact an emotional toll on officers...don't! I also pasted a link to a site dealing with emotional turmoil police go through.

I was living in Park Slope about 10 years ago. I have no doubt that killing a person exacts an emotional toll on cops. Having lived most of my life in the NY metro area, I'm interested in this particular case. I'm sure the tabloids, especially the Post, would have jumped all over such a dramatic situation. I'm not a great Googler, but I've been doing my best to search for an incident like this occurring "about 10 years ago". So far...nothing. Can you help me narrow it down? Can you speak to your close friend about a few details- or better yet, a link? A name? I'm surprised I have no memory of this incident.