I love what Penn Jillette has to say on the subject:
I HAVE ALREADY KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE PERSON I ACTUALLY WANT TO KILL AND RAPE.
The number of my victims is ZERO, and if your number is not zero you are sick and should be kept away from society.
I agree with Penn, but I can’t help but think that if I was given a Death Note, I would feel morally obligated to write quite a few names in it. Names of people who are personally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.
It’s not that I want to kill people. It’s that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so, even if it meant killing them.
Killing in defense of innocent people is morally upright nearly without question, so you’d be clean either way.
But I’m with you that if I had a death note things would he different.
That’s kind of the second part, about removing them from society. Death is one mechanism for achieving that.
I’ve been trying to reframe things like this in my mind.
Instead of contemplating if the world would be better if they were gone, I tell myself that my wish would be for them to just be a good person.
I’m not trying to be righteous. But I think, framed like that, a good person would choose the latter. And if it really came down the power to disappear somebody, I think most people would err on the side of good.
But retribution and vengeance are strong in our lizard brains.
Ya if you kill muskrat then someone else fills his place. Instead, if we’re talking magic, let him become a truly generous and benevolent person and spend his wealth recreating our economy to solve world hunger or some such thing
Fair. But different than “wanting to kill” someone. You want to remove harm. Like the whole purpose of prison, leper colonies, community shaming, etc
It’s that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so
I understand the impulse. But I might also posit that an individual with the power to kill with impunity will quickly become a tool of national media and demagoguery. We’re seeing this play out in the age of Trump, with people like Laura Loomer and Steven Miller whispering in his ear to devastating consequence.
Anyone who claims they’d be more clear-eyed, more level-headed, and more rational need only go back a president or two to Joe Biden (genocide in Gaza) and Barack Obama (drone striker in chief, from Libya to Afghanistan). You’re going to have a modern day Allen Dulles on your shoulder, telling you all about how you’re going to be greeted as a Liberator once you put down the pen. And you’re going to kill a whole lot of people for reasons that make you feel good, but end up doing a lot of evil.
If nothing else, consider how many folks in NATO countries would have - if given the Death Note - immediately scribbled the names of a dozen world leaders from rival countries? And then a dozen political leaders from rival parties? And then a dozen national celebrities and media figures with rival ideologies? And then what would the consequences of this be? Did Iranian government become better when Khomanie’s name ended up in the book?
FFS, they explore this in the Anime. Light ends up killing a lot of good people simply because he’s personally resentful or fearful of being caught.
So, if Jeffrey Epstein was alive, the person that wants to kill him because he raped their daughter is sick and should be kept away from society?
Killing innocent people, and killing for self-defense are different.
I think the person who thinks Jeffrey Epstein would deserve to live is sick.
They didn’t say that people like that shouldn’t have consequences, drastic and significant ones, but they may disagree with the specifics.
Additionally, raping and murdering is what the quote is saying is wrong. The original quote does not state an opinion on using death as a penalty for these acts. For such a consequence, one could argue that it is necessary to distinguish murder and capital punishment as two separate acts, with the latter being justified.
Finally, the quote is meant to point out to most people that regardless of their religious beliefs, they have a moral compass that is not contingent on their religious beliefs and that most people’s compass will generally point in similar directions. One could then conclude that religion is not required to know right from wrong.
I agree with you, but it’s assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it no longer punishes those who need punished most?
Edit: original with horrible typos for posterity: I agree with you, but it’s assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it ninkonger ounushes those who need ounished most?
Learning new words today
Wow, that was nearly unreadable with how badly those typos were. I’m not sure what happened there. Lol.
Wanting to kill someone and wanting someone to be killed are quite different.
Wanting someone to face justice and wanting them dead are also quite different.
I suppose you’re right, for people that believe in “justice” administered by state. As an anarchist, I view states as fictional entities, like fiat currency, they’re not real (tho can have real effects), and are therefore not entitled to kill or imprison anyone for any reason, let alone to maintain order as they see it.
Also, wanting to kill and feeling the need to kill, such as in self-defense are different too.
I certainly do not trust the state’s justice, therefore I can’t trust them to execute someone even if we entertain he idea that executing someone is justified.
deleted by creator
Yeah, “other causes” 😉
That’s the name of their gun lol.
Mine is named “natural causes.”
Mine overdosed.
deleted by creator
If there’s no Mom, what’s stopping you from pooping your pants?
Religious nuts wouldn’t understand this response.
Because it’s waaay to clever.
I had a guy I worked with ask me “ if you don’t believe in god whats stopping you from raping and murdering people?” I said “because I don’t want to do any of those things” I definitely looked at that dude weird after that
“Nothing, do you have a sister? Where does she live?”
I am a natural born asshole and don’t think debating with the religiously impaired is a useful exercise.
I’ve always hated this question, because christians like the guy in the picture don’t draw their morality from the bible. They decide on their moral framework, then read the bible to find verses that support it. I don’t see anyone adhering to the mixed thread fabrics rule.
I never buy blended fabrics. I didn’t take much else from the bible except for the rule on blended fabrics, and the verse about a bear that mauled 42 boys for mocking a bald guy. These are the only lessons I live by.
Ezekiel 23:20 is my daily affirmation
Lol. TIL there’s a bible verse about horse jizz.
That section is weird cross between fetish erotica and hate porn:
"That faithless country is like a woman that… does depraved things. Things like, uh, what’s the most depraved I can come up with? IDK, donkey dick? I’m sure really lusty women like donkey dick. So this faithless woman just really, really enjoys donkey dick. And jizz, loads of jizz. Love that- I mean, she loves that. Not me. I’m severely disgusted by the vivid image of her just going to town on that big, nice-
Shit, gotta rewrite the page. Maybe keep it less graphic so I can actually finish writing it. Anyway, yeah, such a dirty woman.
What was I writing about anyway?"
A radical new take on religion, I dig it.
At least I know why they’re anti-gay now.
Yes, but, the scary part is that they don’t think they’re doing that! They’ve looked into the Tome of Ambiguous Stories and come out of it with whichever outcomes fit their fancy, but whichever Rorschach Lesson they learn, it carries with it the seal of Word of God.
So they can read the book (or have it read to them), come to a conclusion that vibes right, and then believe they were told that lesson by an infallible, ineffable, authority figure. One who can’t refute their claimed charge.
Not a great position to debate from.
There can be no debate with somebody who believes that truth is derived entirely from the interpreted vibes of an apparently unfathomable entity. You can justify anything as long as you know it’s coming from an ultimate authority.
come to a conclusion that vibes right,
So vibe-coding, but for religion. Makes sense.
Empathy. How is this so hard to grasp?
In-groups and out-groups, that’s how it’s “so hard”.
We all have empathy and sympathy for our in-group. When it comes to basic respect, many of us have large in-groups that include the less fortunate, animals, etc, other’s have a small in-group with themselves and their family, or their race, or their class. For the worst people, the in-group is themselves and maybe their children who can carry their legacy.
Because it’s taught and not inherent. And like with anything else some people are too dumb to learn.
I’m really struggling to wrap my head around it being a learned skill because it feels like second nature to me. Sometimes to my own detriment. But maybe that’s because it’s pretty common for ADHD folk to have high empathy.
ADHD sufferers can feel emotions more intensely, but aren’t specifically more empathetic.
Both are true, in my experience, especially with comorbid rejection sensitive dysphoria. That’s not to say that’s always the case though. In my case, empathy became my coping mechanism for the heightened emotional states and the constant anxiety of letting others down. Anecdotally I’ve heard similar from others, but certainly not everyone.
If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, then you are not a good person.
This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.
Like putting the shopping cart back where it belongs
The shopping cart wants to be free!
Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.
What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.
The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn’t “eternal damnation” (an idea that wasn’t really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.
The existence of a consequence also doesn’t establish whether or not you’re a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an “eternal reward/punishment” as a consequence that goes above any individual actor’s failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.
That’s why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the “honor system” and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.
the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience
Not really, no.
Would you want x done to you?
If not, don’t do it to others.
It’s as simple as that.
Would you want x done to you? If not, don’t do it to others.
I wouldn’t want to get bombed. Therefore, I refuse to defend Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, because it might involve bombing other people.
I wouldn’t want to get fired, therefore I will not remove a direct report who is sexually harassing a coworker.
I wouldn’t want to gain weight, therefore I will refuse to feed my young child.
We’re taking about morally good and bad here.
Killing people in self defense might be necessary, but that doesn’t make it good.
Killing people is morally bad, even if it’s someone no one in their right mind would hesitate to murder if given the opportunity, like Putin.
We’re taking about morally good and bad here.
Morality varies widely by individual and culture.
Killing people is morally bad
Pro-Life folks have been saying this for decades.
Ffs, Zionists have been saying this.
You need more than just platitudes to build a moral foundation
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
ancient scripture is no foundation for morality
By what standard?
It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built
-
Killing people is wrong. This is an immortal and unquestionable truth that everyone has always agreed upon
-
We didn’t have a proper moral foundation until very recently, so disregard everything older than several hundred years ago.
What?
-
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn’t you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren’t in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
might be necessary
If it’s truly necessary, there’s no option to run - no alternatives - it’s your life or theirs.
I don’t believe that you are picking up what I’m putting down. Why shouldn’t you die instead? Why do we consider it understandable to defend yourself to the death? Obviously it is because we value lives more than whatever the other person wants that drives them to attack someone, but there isn’t a strict reason for that beyond social acceptance. We could just as easy decide, as a society, that those who can’t defend themselves should be culled. Or that murder is so incomprehensible that there is no reason to consider it.
Murder and death are obviously extreme examples, but you work that idea forward to charity, politeness, and social contract to yield to a government authority.
I can’t believe someone made such a good post and still got downvoted for it. It’s not a disagree button…
People are getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in the op too, so yeah.
I didn’t downvote the other person… but isn’t it kind of a disagree button? What are the buttons for, if not to vote up the things you like, down the things you don’t, and thus float the “best” to the top?
I guess one can respectfully disagree, given that we’re kinda debating philosophy, or one can structurally disagree, and maybe those result in different kinds of voting behaviour.
I think this is also why there’s more “criminality” in opressed communities. Why would I work or sacrifice to uphold a system that is unfair to me? If I don’t believe in it, if I don’t see benefit from it, why should I attach my own ethics to it?
My favorite answer is a question: So without God, you would murder, rape and steal? No? Well, then it seems to me you don’t need God to know what is morally correct.
Unless they say yes…
Yeah a decent amount would. Even more would say no but do it anyways… Even back in the days when everyone believed they were eternally damned if they killed someone or worse.
A lot of those religious types scare me that one of the first things they’d do without consequences is murder and rape.
I’ll entertain the spirit of the question.
Most “good choices” and “bad choices” are fairly easy to figure out. Would you want this thing done to you? If no, then do not do that thing. That’s going to cover the vast majority of cases.
There are some exceptions. Sometimes one might need to balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. Sometimes one might be presented with a set of all-bad options. Those situations are vanishingly rare, and usually limited to circumstances where group consensus can help one determine which choice is acceptable to the greatest number.
But it’s not always easy, and it’s not always clear. I actually had a version of this conversation at a wedding with a guy who had his master’s degree in philosophy and another guy who was a devout Christian who was suffering a profound crisis of faith because his toddler nephew had just died of a brain aneurism.
The crisis-experiencing Christian asked me “Isn’t it scary when there aren’t clear answers?”
And my answer was “Yes, frequently. I often wish that there was an obvious or comforting answer to the terrifying conundrums of reality. But there often isn’t, and it’s my job as an adult to figure out what to do in those situations. Work out the moral calculus of what kind of world I want to create, try to work towards that world, and try to cope when reality won’t cooperate in the ways that I wish it would.”
Sometimes it’s a cold universe out there, and you’ve got to build yourself a fire out of coherent philosophy to get through the night. Relying on dogma is a lot like a shot of brandy; it might make you feel warm for a while, but eventually the cold will get to you, and you’ve got to have that sustaining fire or else you’re going to freeze to death.
This argument has bugged me since the early 2000s. The guy who did the McDonalds Super Size Me (somewhat fake, I now understand) documentary got a stupid reality tv show and some dumbass christian (who had to live with a Muslim family for a month) asked the same goddamned question.
He also wondered if the family, while saying prayers in their native language, might be saying something like “death to america.” You know, in front of television cameras during the height of our “war on terror.” That’s how fucking stupid these people are.
They are holding us back. If their fear and hatred couldn’t be weaponized, we’d have a much nicer society.
christian (who had to live with a Muslim family
don’t forget Christians and Muslims are literally cut from the same cloth - both are pretty much just offshoots of Judaism. Judaism itself is just a random tribal religion (of which there have been countless thousands) that somehow didn’t get dropped and forgotten about as humans moved into the modern era. It’s frankly weird that over half the world’s population belong to one of these Jewish sects (and also a bit funny that there are only a handful of million who follow the OG Jewish religion).
And yes it’s frustrating that so many people are so stupid as to base their lives around something that collapses under the slightest objective scrutiny, and probably not surprising that a not-insignificant number of them want to literally kill followers of all the other offshoots.
Though I do wonder if things would be even worse if those people didn’t have religion claiming there’s external punishment or reward if they control themselves a bit.
Though when Christianity tried to resolve the “if I cross the line into eternal damnation then I might as well do whatever I want after that” problem by saying they can repent, it opened up a “do whatever you want and then repent” loophole, so it could do as much to make people think they can get away with shit, especially when combined with a strong belief that the afterlife will be better.
Also, I think the shitiness is ingrained deep in our species, hell in most species. The reality is that strategic betrayal has always been the optimal solution to the prisoner dilemma, and while real world versions of it continue after that betrayal, I’d bet a high portion of historic animal ones involved the one intending to be nice or trusting not surviving, so I’d guess that survival of the fittest has a bias towards opportunistic assholes.
The problem is, there is inherent human need not to think. Some need it more, some need it less.
If tonight some magical device removes religion from all of history, we will simply find out whet other idea will those people latch unto. Would it be nationalism? Would it be cult of personality? Perhaps trusting only single media group, or discarding any research paper not done by “racially pure” group? Would they claim “how can we trust foreigners? if they do not follow our leader, they cannot be moral, right?”
I’ve thought about this a lot actually, but I figured it out. So when you’re presented with a good choice and a bad choice, you go for the good one. Works every time.
just follow the golden rule :)
The irony is that empathy is such a foreign concept, yet “love thy brother” is kind of a big highlight to that whole Bible thing.
As an atheist, I’m mad at how accurate this is
That the point : we are choosing
Actually, applying a dogma is not being a good jew/christian/muslim. Theologists justify almost everything in “God let us choose between Good and Evil”. Ironically, their is many learning in the thora/bible/quran that underline the need to not being dogmatic
