The Ontological Argument

[Neoteny]

OK, kind of jumping in here, but I was just wondering...of all the possible arguments Nappy why choose ontological? I'd say it's the most paper-thin argument you could have pulled out. It's essentially

1. OK, imagine something awesome. Like, so freaking sweet that it is the epitome of sweetness. Man.

2. Well, if it's perfect pwnage, then it has to exist. Non-existant stuff certainly isn't teh pwn.

3. God is totally cool, perfectly cool, ya know. God exists.

I know that's simplistic, but really, I nearly sputtered when I first heard that. There are several interesting philosophical arguments for a god (though I don't agree with them), but this just isn't one of them.

Honestly, I'd give the argument from design a lot more credit than the ontological argument. And that's saying a lot.

[Jenos Ridan]

My point is, most of the "all's grey" types that I've met are flakes who don't like dealing with any sort of absolute. For me, murder is always wrong, putting such people to death is justice. Life may have areas wher navigation is difficult, but there are some things that are never acceptable.

The only difference between "putting someone to death" and murder is a piece of paper with a Judge's name on it. Why does murder + paper = perfectly acceptable action? Yes, I know I'm getting offtopic (not that this topic was on topic. Where did it come from, anyways) but saying war/execution = acceptable, murder =/= acceptable, when both war and execution are merely a legalized form of murder, has always confused me.

The notion you speak of is the result of the development of society; people as a group need rules to keep people from doing whatever they feel like when it comes into conflict with the lifes of others. Therefore, murder is wrong, but a just war (think WWII, the Allied Side) is acceptable. Agruing that the difference is one of mere legality is quite naive, because the root of the matter runs far deeper than you are willing to acknowledge. It is not merely paper, it is accepted custom that developed long before the law was written. Regardless what you believe man's origins are, you have to accept that this has taken place.

[AlgyTaylor]

The only difference between "putting someone to death" and murder is a piece of paper with a Judge's name on it. Why does murder + paper = perfectly acceptable action? Yes, I know I'm getting offtopic (not that this topic was on topic. Where did it come from, anyways) but saying war/execution = acceptable, murder =/= acceptable, when both war and execution are merely a legalized form of murder, has always confused me.

The notion you speak of is the result of the development of society; people as a group need rules to keep people from doing whatever they feel like when it comes into conflict with the lifes of others. Therefore, murder is wrong, but a just war (think WWII, the Allied Side) is acceptable. Agruing that the difference is one of mere legality is quite naive, because the root of the matter runs far deeper than you are willing to acknowledge. It is not merely paper, it is accepted custom that developed long before the law was written. Regardless what you believe man's origins are, you have to accept that this has taken place.

Aye. I don't agree with the death penalty, but it's definitely not the same as murder.

Put simply, murder is an act made by an individual, whereas the death penalty is a judgment made by society as a whole (as is war) - so it's a commonly held belief/convention, as opposed to a view held by just one individual.

[MeDeFe]

The difference is, however, merely one of legality, no matter how deep the roots run and what developments might have taken place. There is no essential difference between what a murderer did and what his executioner does, only that one is sanctioned by the state while the other was not.
Feel free to argue convincingly against that, but I doubt you will be able to, laws are no more than conventions written down and with an enforcing agency behind them. It helps if they're accepted by the majority as well.
As for "just" wars, usually the winner decides who was right, if Germany and its allies had won, the war would have been no less "just" than the winning side is perceived to be now, but it would have been a war to right the wrongs done to the German people or something along those lines.

[AlgyTaylor]

The difference is, however, merely one of legality, no matter how deep the roots run and what developments might have taken place. There is no essential difference between what a murderer did and what his executioner does, only that one is sanctioned by the state while the other was not.
Feel free to argue convincingly against that, but I doubt you will be able to, laws are no more than conventions written down and with an enforcing agency behind them. It helps if they're accepted by the majority as well.

OK, I'll take you up on that

Before I start - I think the death penalty - or indeed any capital punishment - is barbaric. There's absolutely no place for it in a modern, civilized society.

BUT, and it is a big but (hence the capitals), state execution =/= murder. In short, murder is a crime and state execution is a punishment, something that isn't done without the reasoning of society.

Personally I see individual murder as being LESS of an evil than state execution, since an individual murder might be understandable, whereas I'd hope an entire society would see the act of killing someone as wrong whether it be as a crime or a punishment.

But they're not the same thing, far from it.

Killing in war is different again, I'd not attribute the same stigma to a soldier killing as a civilian murdering someone. "I was just carrying out orders" isn't sufficient defence in some circumstances, but certainly I think it gives some immunity in that it may well be a necessary evil.

[MeDeFe]

The difference is, however, merely one of legality, no matter how deep the roots run and what developments might have taken place. There is no essential difference between what a murderer did and what his executioner does, only that one is sanctioned by the state while the other was not.
Feel free to argue convincingly against that, but I doubt you will be able to, laws are no more than conventions written down and with an enforcing agency behind them. It helps if they're accepted by the majority as well.

OK, I'll take you up on that

Before I start - I think the death penalty - or indeed any capital punishment - is barbaric. There's absolutely no place for it in a modern, civilized society.

BUT, and it is a big but (hence the capitals), state execution =/= murder. In short, murder is a crime and state execution is a punishment, something that isn't done without the reasoning of society.

Personally I see individual murder as being LESS of an evil than state execution, since an individual murder might be understandable, whereas I'd hope an entire society would see the act of killing someone as wrong whether it be as a crime or a punishment.

But they're not the same thing, far from it.

Even in arguing against me you completely agree with me, the only difference you name is that of legality, which I already conceded. However, you did not point out any essential difference between the two, both murder and execution equal killing an other human being.

[Jenos Ridan]

The only difference between "putting someone to death" and murder is a piece of paper with a Judge's name on it. Why does murder + paper = perfectly acceptable action? Yes, I know I'm getting offtopic (not that this topic was on topic. Where did it come from, anyways) but saying war/execution = acceptable, murder =/= acceptable, when both war and execution are merely a legalized form of murder, has always confused me.

The notion you speak of is the result of the development of society; people as a group need rules to keep people from doing whatever they feel like when it comes into conflict with the lifes of others. Therefore, murder is wrong, but a just war (think WWII, the Allied Side) is acceptable. Agruing that the difference is one of mere legality is quite naive, because the root of the matter runs far deeper than you are willing to acknowledge. It is not merely paper, it is accepted custom that developed long before the law was written. Regardless what you believe man's origins are, you have to accept that this has taken place.

Aye. I don't agree with the death penalty, but it's definitely not the same as murder.

Put simply, murder is an act made by an individual, whereas the death penalty is a judgment made by society as a whole (as is war) - so it's a commonly held belief/convention, as opposed to a view held by just one individual.

Thank you kind sir. Thank you. I hope that others may have your maturity and intellect.

[Jenos Ridan]

The difference is, however, merely one of legality, no matter how deep the roots run and what developments might have taken place. There is no essential difference between what a murderer did and what his executioner does, only that one is sanctioned by the state while the other was not.

The executioner is acting under the principles that the society in question, the same society that the murderer was brought up in (and therefore, knowing the rules, should not have disobeyed. And will receive the appointed punishment). Therefore, it is the right decision based on tradition; laws and in fact the concept of law (heck, before the concept of the state) didn't come into play until long after the first legal codes where written. But the principle of punishment equal to crime is timeless (or at least prehistoric). It has roots deep in the human psyche, in what some might call his soul. Whatever one believes, this is universal.

Feel free to argue convincingly against that, but I doubt you will be able to, laws are no more than conventions written down and with an enforcing agency behind them. It helps if they're accepted by the majority as well.

I have, I just did and I will continue to do so. It is on you now.

As for "just" wars, usually the winner decides who was right, if Germany and its allies had won, the war would have been no less "just" than the winning side is perceived to be now, but it would have been a war to right the wrongs done to the German people or something along those lines.

So, there is no moral absolute. That means, of course, that the Holocaust could be considered a good think. I guess in all depends on your definition of "good" . Give me a break!

[Neutrino]

The executioner is acting under the principles that the society in question, the same society that the murderer was brought up in (and therefore, knowing the rules, should not have disobeyed. And will receive the appointed punishment). Therefore, it is the right decision based on tradition; laws and in fact the concept of law (heck, before the concept of the state) didn't come into play until long after the first legal codes where written. But the principle of punishment equal to crime is timeless (or at least prehistoric). It has roots deep in the human psyche, in what some might call his soul. Whatever one believes, this is universal.

Methinks there is more against murder than it's simple illegality...

Anyways: exactly. There is no fundamental difference between murderer and executioner. Yes, I agree that there are mitigating citcumstances and that the executioner shouldn't actually be punished for "just doing his job" (I have an irrational hatred for that phrase). It is, however, absurd that one form of murder is considered acceptable (heroic even, for soldiers) while society is doing it's best to stamp the other out.

And that's quite some spiritual mumbo-jumbo you've got there for your case that law is an intrinsic component of the human psyche. Too bad it is mumbo-jumbo.
Why do human societies fall so readily to anarchy because of even mild disruptions? If what you said was true, your average person would sit quietly and wait for the disruption to pass, rather than getting a head start on the looting, as seems to be the common response. Law is maintained mostly contrary to human nature, not because of it.

As for "just" wars, usually the winner decides who was right, if Germany and its allies had won, the war would have been no less "just" than the winning side is perceived to be now, but it would have been a war to right the wrongs done to the German people or something along those lines.

So, there is no moral absolute. That means, of course, that the Holocaust could be considered a good think. I guess in all depends on your definition of "good" . Give me a break![/quote]

Jenos loses.

Why is it that you think moral relitivaty equals no morals at all? Yes, the Holocaust was bad. I challenge you to find me any decent moral relitavist that says otherwise.

[Jenos Ridan]

The executioner is acting under the principles that the society in question, the same society that the murderer was brought up in (and therefore, knowing the rules, should not have disobeyed. And will receive the appointed punishment). Therefore, it is the right decision based on tradition; laws and in fact the concept of law (heck, before the concept of the state) didn't come into play until long after the first legal codes where written. But the principle of punishment equal to crime is timeless (or at least prehistoric). It has roots deep in the human psyche, in what some might call his soul. Whatever one believes, this is universal.

Methinks there is more against murder than it's simple illegality...

Anyways: exactly. There is no fundamental difference between murderer and executioner. Yes, I agree that there are mitigating citcumstances and that the executioner shouldn't actually be punished for "just doing his job" (I have an irrational hatred for that phrase). It is, however, absurd that one form of murder is considered acceptable (heroic even, for soldiers) while society is doing it's best to stamp the other out.

And that's quite some spiritual mumbo-jumbo you've got there for your case that law is an intrinsic component of the human psyche. Too bad it is mumbo-jumbo.
Why do human societies fall so readily to anarchy because of even mild disruptions? If what you said was true, your average person would sit quietly and wait for the disruption to pass, rather than getting a head start on the looting, as seems to be the common response. Law is maintained mostly contrary to human nature, not because of it.[/cit]

The one thing you learn very quick when you bother to observe, is that people are capable of being both creatures of reason and of emotion; looters are acting on emotions (panic [act]=fear[emotion] = reprecussions [action taken by society under accepted custom]. Can I make this any clearer?).

I take it that you'd rather that people not even bother to have any sort of order, that we all just light off the nukes and get it over with? If so, then be my guest.

[Neutrino]

The one thing you learn very quick when you bother to observe, is that people are capable of being both creatures of reason and of emotion; looters are acting on emotions (panic [act]=fear[emotion] = reprecussions [action taken by society under accepted custom]. Can I make this any clearer?).

Exactly (admittedly, my previous post sounded more biased towards the "anarchy" side than it was meant to be). Both law and anarchy play parts in the human psyche (well, individualism and a desire for security, slightly more accurately). How does this back up your argument that "law" is a deeply ingrained part of the human mind?

I take it that you'd rather that people not even bother to have any sort of order, that we all just light off the nukes and get it over with? If so, then be my guest.

You know Jenos, you have a great talent for massively misquoting people, without apparently realising you're doing it. Some presidential candidate should hire you: you'd make an excellent unwitting spin doctor. Please, find me one instance in any of my posts that indicates that I favor a nuclear holocaust or even unrestrained anarchy.