Help me align my moral standards

[SillyBear]

I think murdering innocent people in horible ways is the worst thing a human being can do. People can come back from rape. People can come back from abuse. People can't come back from death.

That's my way of thinking.

 

[JoJo]

I disagree, some people are worth more than others due to their remaining years. inherent innocence or actions during life. Below I have included some rough guidelines for my personal order of worth, from highest to lowest:

Children
Teens or young adults or parents/guardians to a child
Non-parent adult
Middle aged
Elderly
Criminals who have caused a lot of harm (but not quite as bad as the below)
Murderers, torturers and violent rapists
Sentient animals
Non-sentient animals
Plants and all other non-animal organisms

This is only rough of course and other factors do measure into worth too, parents get a boost as it's very harmful for a child to lose or be seperated from a parent, while serious criminals get moved downwards due to their lack of respect for other people's rights. Other life-forms come below. Murdering someone higher up the list would be worse in my opinion.

So you are effectively calling someone worth less because they are sterile, don't have the money to support a child, or don't want children. Calling your guidelines "rough" is quite an understatement. What about criminals of victimless crimes or nonviolent offenders? War heroes? Amputees? Doctors? Organ donors? Smokers? Nuns? Priests? Whether they bought a car made in their country? To actually say "it is better to kill this person, but not this person", you can't say "because I say so" without being ignored. You have to put a lot of thought into it, and have legitimate reasons into why you rate a habitual marijuana smoker over a couch potato. Now what seems to really fuck with your system is a criminal who is a parent or a grandfather who is a legal guardian(real parents dead, etc).

Yes, someone is worth less overall if they don't have their own children, as their child depends on them for care and love and will be severely hurt if the parent is lost, so overall killing a parent has more negative effect than killing a non-parent. Non-violent offenders weren't counted in my rating as they aren't different enough from law-abiding people to put on the scale at this distance, they would be treated exactly the same as normal. As for the parent/criminal duality, that would depend on the severity of their crime exactly where they would be placed. It is only a rough guide though and isn't intended to be exact, and I've backed-up all my statements with reasons, not just "I say so". I find it confusing you treat all lives as if they are worth the same, here's a dilemma for you:

If you had a choice between the following, what would you choose?

A) Innocent 5 year old girl dies
b) 35 year old murderer dies
c) 50/50 chance of either, decided at random by dice

 

[SilentCom]

Why do people feel the need to try and measure things up to each other all the time? If it's bad then don't do it. People can debate all they want about which ones are worse, just like they can debate what fruit is the best...

I can speak for myself only, I like to think about such problems, they bother me and keep my thoughts spinning. In my opinion is a rather lame excuse to say: "If it's bad then don't do it." The church says that it is bad to have sex before marriage, so let's not do it?? That's as debatable as anything.

Of course you can compare an apple with an orange and you can compare several apples with one orange. That is definitely possible and has been done several times. That's why have apple plantations and orange plantations in the first place.

Back to the topic at hand,
our different law systems measure crimes differently. They have good reasons to do so. I'm not going to say they are doing a good/bad job. But someone has to do it in the end.
I'm not here to discuss the whole "death penalty" thing. I don't like that discussion, it's overused and blatantly boring.

Murdering a dictator is bad, if you resort to such measures you are hardly any better than her.
Raping a dictator is bad too, but at least you can sent her to trial afterwards.
Raping the dictator's little children is worse than raping him but less worse than murdering him. You can't measure the value (especially the future value) of a human being, because you don't know. You can help the kids though, so that they manage to recover (to an extent).

In the end, I just have the feeling that people get away with murder far more often than with rape. This shows in videogames as well.

So when playing I like to explore the dark side of a murdering bastard on a killing spree and people seem to barely even notice. Some people even support me to do so. Yeah, I know, it's only a bunch of pixels.
Now imagine that I would like to explore the dark, self-torturing side of a child-rapist plaqued by guilt, now that get's all people excited and it could get me into serious trouble. You know what, it's only a bunch of pixels again, but suddenly people start bringing arguments why this is soooooo bad.

This is frightening.

The point I made "If it's bad, then don't do it" isn't based on other people's views but rather the view of the individual. If it seems bad to you, then don't do it.

Also, you stated "people get away with murder far more often than with rape." I think a reason as to why that happens is because 'dead men tell no tales' or otherwise, if the victim is murdered, then they can't exactly report the crime or give a description of the perpetrator. Criminals usually don't want people seeing them commit a crime, therefore unless they murder whomever they rape, the rape victim would likely be able to report them.

 

[crudus]

Yes, someone is worth less overall if they don't have their own children, as their child depends on them for care and love and will be severely hurt if the parent is lost, so overall killing a parent has more negative effect than killing a non-parent. Non-violent offenders weren't counted in my rating as they aren't different enough from law-abiding people to put on the scale at this distance, they would be treated exactly the same as normal. As for the parent/criminal duality, that would depend on the severity of their crime exactly where they would be placed. It is only a rough guide though and isn't intended to be exact, and I've backed-up all my statements with reasons, not just "I say so". I find it confusing you treat all lives as if they are worth the same, here's a dilemma for you:

If you had a choice between the following, what would you choose?

A) Innocent 5 year old girl dies
b) 35 year old murderer dies
c) 50/50 chance of either, decided at random by dice

I find it confusing that you seem to be haphazardly blanketing statements like that. I understand that you say it is a rough guide, but I am not sure you know just how detailed you are going to have to get with it to define values to people like that. Nothing is really as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I am fine with people assigning values to the lives of each person as long as it is done in a very meticulous, objective manner. Also, you seem to value people more if they got pregnant in their teens or very early twenties(maybe I am just reading too much into it).

Your dilemma is skewed to give you the answer you want. You very clearly value A more than B. If B wasn't a murderer or 5 was terminally ill, the answer to this question may reveal some meaningful data. However, I would choose C. If I directly chose to kill either of them, I wouldn't be any better than a murderer. I am more like a general sending troops into battle with C.

I think murdering innocent people in horible ways is the worst thing a human being can do. People can come back from rape. People can come back from abuse. People can't come back from death.

That's my way of thinking.

Spoiler: not yet

 

[manic_depressive13]

The things you listed are neither good nor bad. Some of them might upset or offend one's concept of fairness and justice, so it would be preferable if people didn't do them. You can't just let people tell you "child rape is worse that adult rape" or "the death of a human is worse than the death of an animal". You have to make your own judgements. If they don't bother you, they're not bad.

 

[chaosyoshimage]

I laugh so hard at the ridiculousness of video games numbered karma/morality systems, however, people putting this kind of system into their actual viewpoints of morality is scary...

 

[Olivia Faraday]

Murder is worse than rape. No argument.

I was raped repeatedly as a young child (I realize this comes off as I'M SPARTACUS but you have to just accept that I'm telling the truth, it was a non-immediate but close family member who was my primary babysitter, they drove themselves mad with guilt induced dementia and died when I was thirteen, don't want to give more details than that.) I think I was probably raped more than thirty times though I was very young and obviously, quite traumatized. I think the last time was when I was nine. I have full memory of some of these events, partial memory of others, some are forgotten for good.

That was a horrible thing that happened to me, but I am so glad that that person didn't KILL me instead.

Last month I finished the first draft of my first novel. In the new year my sister is moving to the city of her dreams and I'm so excited to wave her goodbye. My uncle is currently dying of cancer and I'm really bonding with him. I was able to save my mother from a suicide attempt when I was twenty. I saw the Lion King in theatres when I was ten and it was the coolest thing that ever happened to me. Hell, today I ate a sweet onion chicken teriyaki sub from subway and it was fucking delicious. Every single one of those things was awesome as hell and I'm so glad I was alive to experience them.

Not gonna lie, I'm super fucked up, but forgive me if I can definitely 100% say that being raped as a child is better than being murdered, and therefore a child rapist is less evil than a murderer. I'm living a life that I'm happy to live and every single day brings new joys and blessings, even if they're sometimes just the delicious crispy top of subway's parmesan oregano bread.

To quote the wonderful Tyrion Lannister: death is so terribly final and life is full of possibilities.

 

[JoJo]

I find it confusing that you seem to be haphazardly blanketing statements like that. I understand that you say it is a rough guide, but I am not sure you know just how detailed you are going to have to get with it to define values to people like that. Nothing is really as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I am fine with people assigning values to the lives of each person as long as it is done in a very meticulous, objective manner. Also, you seem to value people more if they got pregnant in their teens or very early twenties(maybe I am just reading too much into it).

Your dilemma is skewed to give you the answer you want. You very clearly value A more than B. If B wasn't a murderer or 5 was terminally ill, the answer to this question may reveal some meaningful data. However, I would choose C. If I directly chose to kill either of them, I wouldn't be any better than a murderer. I am more like a general sending troops into battle with C.

Trust me, I have thought this though carefully, it is a part of my own personal morality after-all. I don't increase value on people specifically because they "got pregnant in their teens or very early twenties", I increase the value of anyone who is parentally responsible for a young child, regardless of what their age is or whether they are biologically the parent or not. That doesn't mean that their value can't also be lowered by other factors (such as criminality). The increase is for the child's sake, not for the parents. If I had an actual situation where I had to choose between two people, I would take every availible scrap of information into consideration before I made my choice although it would unlikely to not follow this list above.

My intention of the question was to show you that you too have some sort of internal rating system, however I'm surprised at your answer. I personally would hold you responsible if the child ended up dying rather than the murderer, and you can bet if that child was someone I care about like my younger sister then I wouldn't rest until I had my revenge. From my own point of view I would see you as no better than a murderer if you risked and ended up sacrificing an innocent child's life just for the life of a murderer. Nothing personal of-course, I'd do the same to anyone.

 

[crudus]

My intention of the question was to show you that you too have some sort of internal rating system, however I'm surprised at your answer. I personally would hold you responsible if the child ended up dying rather than the murderer, and you can bet if that child was someone I care about like my younger sister then I wouldn't rest until I had my revenge. From my own point of view I would see you as no better than a murderer if you risked and ended up sacrificing an innocent child's life just for the life of a murderer. Nothing personal of-course, I'd do the same to anyone.

But I don't hold people's lives above others. I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives. As such, I do not have the right to say a murderer deserves life less than a random child who has been described as "innocent". Quick question though: would you really be any better if you killed a murderer? You would have committed a murder[footnote]Murder here being "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."(<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder>Dictionary.com)[/footnote] which would yourself make you a murderer.

 

[Woodsey]

Once you're at child rape and murder you've gone past the point where you can quantify which is worse.

 

[JoJo]

But I don't hold people's lives above others. I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives. As such, I do not have the right to say a murderer deserves life less than a random child who has been described as "innocent". Quick question though: would you really be any better if you killed a murderer? You would have committed a murder[footnote]Murder here being "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."(<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder>Dictionary.com)[footnote] which would yourself make you a murderer.

Depends on the circumstance in which I killed the murderer. If I just killed him randomly for fun because I just wanted to kill someone, then yes that would make me a murderer. If it was to save a child's life then no of course not, it's not like I wanted to kill the murderer, I've simply decided that if one of them has to die it might as well be the one who has done a very bad deed rather than the one who is innocent and (at-least should be) held very dear by her family. You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

 

[Indeterminacy]

Depends on the circumstance in which I killed the murderer. If I just killed him randomly for fun because I just wanted to kill someone, then yes that would make me a murderer. If it was to save a child's life then no of course not, it's not like I wanted to kill the murderer, I've simply decided that if one of them has to die it might as well be the one who has done a very bad deed rather than the one who is innocent and (at-least should be) held very dear by her family. You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

While I can't speak for your respondent, I have a similar perspective, though the choice of (C) is dependent on the availability of certain decisive information. In the absence of any data whatsoever other than "person A is this, person B is this, and one of them will die with equal chance of each", I just lack any warrant to intervene in the process that decides which.

In order to make a decision as to which life to save, there needs to be some information as to the situation in which the two people are being presented to be killed. If I'm not given sufficient accurate information to be able to truthfully say that there is a determinate fact of the matter as to which of the two "is better", then I simply lack any kind of ability to make a sound judgement to any effect. Moreover, what if the information denies there being a "wrong" choice, such as where both are to some extent either due to be killed? Again, this would seem to be a situation in which I lack critical faculties required to judge effectively.

I believe (C) is the rational option in cases where the way in which the choice has been presented lacks sufficient data to make a clear analysis, because if I have not been given enough information, there is too much of a risk that I have been primed to divert responsibility from those actually performing the deed pending my intervention.

I think your choice between "a child" and "a murderer" is one such situation. Why do I have any reason to think either is more morally deserving of death right now?

 

[jimahaff]

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Morality is something you need to figure out for your self; mostly because everybody disagrees about when immoral things could potentially be considered acceptable.
For me it is only acceptable to take a life when you are protecting someone else and giving up your own life is not enough to guarantee that the person or persons you are protecting survive.
Not that I'm trying to say that I'm the most moral person here, or that everybody should follow my moral code, I am just saying that what this is the code I live by. This example is a little extreme and I picked it for a reason; I know that most of you will either disagree with me, or want to edit that example slightly before you would follow it, and that's OK. Different people have very different moral codes, you should figure yours out for yourself and not blindly follow a code that isn't yours(even if that moral code is the one the legal system enforces).

Also to me it is unthinkable to compare or rate "bad" actions on a scale. Just don't do it unless you consider yourself to be justified, and you have already covered all the bases.

So button line; create your own moral system that transcends the legal system of whatever nation you live in. Decide for your self whether or not all those stupid laws are worth following and why; and remember that "I just don't want to deal with the legal system" is a perfectly valid reason to follow their laws.

Before all else do what you consider to be the right thing before you even consider doing what the government(or anyone really) tells you to do; if you can get that down you will live a life without regret and that peace of mind is worth more than words can describe.

Sorry if this was a little long, and props if you read the whole thing.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

Sorry if this was a little long, and props if you read the whole thing.

Most of my posts were longer and I did neither apologies nor encourage the brave readers. Now I feel bad.

Anyway, I'm have my system of morals up and running for a while now. Its decent enough to get by without getting into serious trouble so far.
Sometimes I see discrepancies, sometimes I see illogical arguments that collide with my system and when such things happen I start something like these threads here.

I'm quite relieved that some of the posters have a functioning system others seem to contradict themselves, but I am not here to judge, I just ask for opinions and observe.

But I still can't fathom why games (or their developers and publishers) treat those different capital crimes not equally but in a completely biased way.

 

[jimahaff]

First off let me just say that was a very imtimating block of text, and secondly for the most part I agree with you. There is just one thing I view differently. Now I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I am more right I'm just adding fuel to the discussion.

a maniacal psycho who kills people for uncontrollable psychological reasons might warrant different treatment than a person who, in a fit of vengeful passion, killed their cheating spouse. For the spouse-killer, the crime was tied to a specific incident, whereas for the psycho the crime is almost an inherent part of their personality. And if the spouse-killer never killed again, is there any point to keeping them locked up?

So what you believe is that the severity of the punishment should be dependent on their motivation and likely hood or committing the crime again; right? Very reasonable but like I said- I view it differently.

For me the spouse-killer has shown a lack of moral character sever enough as to let them murder another humane being for emotional reasons. To me that is pride and arrogance and the ugliest thing I can see in another humane being. Sure the likelihood of it happening again is low and it is dependent on someone else triggering those emotional reasons. But that action (spouse-murder) still shows a fundamental weakness of character, and by violating the basic humane rights of another, this person has given up his right to exist in civilized society(take that to mean whatever you want).

Now just to put this in context; I would snap necks without hesitation under the right circumstances. I would still see it as wrong and would turn myself in to face society, but I would never regret my decision. It isn't that the specific situation I am thinking of justifies my actions(hypothetical murder in this case)its that I would rather live with myself knowing that I have taken another humane life, than life with myself knowing that I have violated my own moral code, betrayed what that moral code stands for, and failed to protect what that moral code is in place to protect.

That is all....

 

[weker]

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Questions:
Is child rape worse that murder? Why?
Yes? Then how many murders equals one child rape?
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder?

Piracy is bad. Correct
Murder is bad. Correct
Rape is bad. Correct
Child Rape is bad. Correct
Tax Evasion is bad. Correct

Questions:
Is child rape worse that murder? Why? Child rape will damage the child mentally, but killing someone leaves them without a life, on the whole murder is worse, but rape can have repercussions.

No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

 

[jimahaff]

Fair enough. Mine would be something closer to

Domesticated animals
Food Animals
Murderers and such

You can't tell right now but I am trembling with joy at your post, please don't take this personally. Now on to playing devils advocate.

So if you remove our cultural horror of cannibalism what your post says to me is that you would rather eat "Murderers and such" than you would eat say a hamburger(made from cows, or "Food Animals"). =D Think about it for a second, you have said that you value/respect food animals more than humans who have crossed some invisible line. So you if your hand were forced you would naturally rather eat the thing you value/respect the least.

OK enough of that; and I'm sorry for picking on you, I just couldn't resist. My view is that no matter how far a humane falls they are still a humane and we should treat them with the respect that we would all humane. Should they be punished? absolutely, but a persons actions can't change their inherent value. There fore Leapold II (who I hate(also look him up or watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378 (if the link doesn't work just google video White king red rubber black death))) is due more respect than my beloved cat, or a house plant; on merit of him being a humane being. Ya I know I have some crazy beliefs.

Sorry for posting so much I just really love this thread, and hard core serious props if you actually watch that entire movie I linked. OK I'm done (gets off soap box and walks out of the room).

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

[...]
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

While the last bit was a bit confusing I think the reasoning behind the numbers is sound. Thank you.

To satisfy my curiostity allow me a question:
Did you ever play videogames where you murdered someone? How did it feel? If there would be an additional rape option, would you have prefered it (instead of murder)? I'm just curious because I'm asking this myself when I murdered.
I'm not here to judge, I'm just interested in this whole dilemma of taboos our society got itself into.

 

[DEAD34345]

Fair enough. Mine would be something closer to

Domesticated animals
Food Animals
Murderers and such

You can't tell right now but I am trembling with joy at your post, please don't take this personally. Now on to playing devils advocate.

So if you remove our cultural horror of cannibalism what your post says to me is that you would rather eat "Murderers and such" than you would eat say a hamburger(made from cows, or "Food Animals"). =D Think about it for a second, you have said that you value/respect food animals more than humans who have crossed some invisible line. So you if your hand were forced you would naturally rather eat the thing you value/respect the least.

OK enough of that; and I'm sorry for picking on you, I just couldn't resist. My view is that no matter how far a humane falls they are still a humane and we should treat them with the respect that we would all humane. Should they be punished? absolutely, but a persons actions can't change their inherent value. There fore Leapold II (who I hate(also look him up or watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378 (if the link doesn't work just google video White king red rubber black death))) is due more respect than my beloved cat, or a house plant; on merit of him being a humane being. Ya I know I have some crazy beliefs.

Sorry for posting so much I just really love this thread, and hard core serious props if you actually watch that entire movie I linked. OK I'm done (gets off soap box and walks out of the room).

Uh... you seem to have messed up the quote somehow, because I never actually said that. I'm pretty sure you meant to quote the guy who posted above me, ccdohl.

Since you responded to me, I'd like to say I disagree with your reasoning anyway. Cannibalism is a special case that naturally repulses people with good reason, since there is supposedly a number of diseases you can get get from it. However, if you were to ask whether I would rather murder an innocent cow or a child molester, I'd kill the child molester. I just wouldn't want to eat him (or her, women can be child molesters too, gender equality and all that).

Also I seem to have almost the opposite view to you on the worth of human beings, as I think that a person's actions (or potential actions) are the only things that gives them any value at all. I don't believe in an "inherent value" people gain just for existing.

 

[weker]

[...]
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

While the last bit was a bit confusing I think the reasoning behind the numbers is sound. Thank you.

To satisfy my curiostity allow me a question:
Did you ever play videogames where you murdered someone? How did it feel? If there would be an additional rape option, would you have prefered it (instead of murder)? I'm just curious because I'm asking this myself when I murdered.
I'm not here to judge, I'm just interested in this whole dilemma of taboos our society got itself into.

With rape, it tends to be vastly more visually degrading, with murder short and quick, and it doesn't last that long. Rape is slow, and there is more emotions attacking you if it occurred, as there is more feedback from the victim. Rape would feel really bad in a game, as murder in video games is also the norm, and rape in our society has become extremely taboo.

some what relevant video, which sort of reflects part of the "Rape taboo"