From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: morality????????
Date: 19 Nov 92 04:44:57 GMT
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

>In article <ednclark.721445752@kraken> ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
>>bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:
>>
>>
>>Drug-dealers are scum, but until they authorise some form of violence
>>against a person they have not violated a person's rights. 

>  This is at the heart of the argument.  I find very few people to
>  be "scum".  I find a lot of misguided, unstable, desparate people.
>  My mother has late onset schizophrenia.  Were she to murder
>  someone when not on her medication, I would be hard pressed to
>  hold her accountable for her actions.  And not because of any
>  blood relation.  

If there was a possibility of her harming innocent members of society then
she should be restrained from doing so. However she should not be held
personally responsible, in fact personal responsibility only counts if you
are interested in retribution, which I most definitely am not. Also I should
be a little less all-encompassing than drug-dealers are scum, drug-dealers
who sell drugs knowing that the buyer is utterly hooked and will probably
overdose are scum but I find it hard to hold them responsible as the
recipient is still the one buying and using the drug (also depends on the
drug).
>>If a
>>person has, under no provocation, caused intentional physical harm to
>>another person they have forfeited their right to live in our society.

>  So if I punch you in the nose for your poor taste in clothes, I
>  have forfeited my right to live in society?  Sure, the problem
>  needs to be addressed, but are you seriously saying that such an
>  occurence is a capital offense?

Bloody oath, wearing distasteful clothes is hardly provocative behaviour
deserving of violent response. Though I don't think you should be killed for
such an action, I beleive you should get the message from society that one
more time and your out, violence is inexcusable. If however you were to belt
me until I was hospitalised for a week, then you are showing tendencies
which make it hard for me to justify letting you loose amongst the rest of
the people for you may do it again. If however, I was stealing your wallet
and making for the door and you got me and punched me in the nose I beleive
you are justified as my actions provoked you to such a response.

>>I can't see how homosexuals have anything to do with this, what they do is
>>between mutually consenting adults there is no physical harm done to anybody
>>(in fact quite the opposite).  What am I using murderers and rapists as a
>>scapegoat for, murder and rape? Who else is responsible? I don't care what
>>form of thought process they go through, unless there is mitigating
>>circumstances 

>  What I'm saying is that you lack compassion, either through choice
>  or ignorance.  Not everyone who has committed a violent crime
>  is a bad person.  People are not always responsible for their
>  actions, and oftentimes this society you holding in higher regard
>  than the individuals that form it is often responsible for how
>  they behave.  Like it or not.

This is the bleeding heart nonsense which has made our society a haven for
thugs, rapists, and the like. I know people who have had a hard childhood,
who have been under severe emotional stress, had poor role models, who have
been dealt unfair blows by this impersonal world we live in, but they have
not gone out and committed unprovoked violent acts as a result. Only a few
respond in this manner, some of them don't even have some bad childhood
excuse. Sure society sucks, but it doesn't say hey your Dad beat up on your
Mum so it's Okay for you to beat up on your wife. People who commit these
crimes know they are doing something wrong or at least knew that doing such
a thing was wrong.

I severely suggest that you meet some victims of crime sometime, it's not
pretty. These people don't understand why assholes that do such things are
allowed to roam the streets and do it again. In fact the current justice
systems puts them all together in a jail where they can swap all the latest
goss on new ways to terrorise the public when they get out. I have a lot of
compassion, just very little for those who think they can take out their
frustrations on other innocent strangers.

Sure we should work on all those societal problems which contribute to the
general societal frustration and therefore increases violent crime. I am
sure you and I would agree on most of the changes that are needed, but what
we disagree upon is just what should we do about those who have reacted to
their problems by creating problems for others. I like to think globally in
a utilitarian perspective, and I will not let the concerns of the well-being
of a rapist come in fron of my concerns for all the potential victims that
are produced if such a person is released to roam the streets again.

Jeff.



>/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ 

>Bob Beauchaine bobb@vice.ICO.TEK.COM 

>"Look, I tried the cat experiment.  On the third trial, the cat was
>dead.  On each of the subsequent 413 trials, it remained dead.  Am I
>doing something wrong?"
>			James Nicoll

>Q.  How many Heisenbergs does it take to screw in a light bulb?
>A.  If you know the number, you don't know where the light bulb is!
Newsgroups: alt.atheism