Guest Fadi Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Azat:Fadio, I have to say that I agree with you about capital punishment. Happy? Self defense is much different from capital punishment. And I can see MANY reasons to kill people in self defense cases, but none for capital punishment.I am not happy, because before even that you answer I knew you were against capital punishment Azat, you are a vegetarian, and your story about why you became one was enough for me to know that you were against capital punishment. I said to myself, Azat don't want the death of animals, and I am sure that neither the killing of lions because of their caracters of being agressives, Azat being a rational person, would of course not apply a double standart for humans. So for sure, my choice was made, even before you could answer being against capital punishment. The problem being, that I heard that Hitler was a vegetarian, I always wondered how could he have been what he was. I concluded that it must be computers, Hitler had no personal computer, and that you have one. BTW: If you do not understand the above last paragraph, it does not matter, this last paragraph is the prize to pay for making me answer when it is almost 22h00, when more then half of my neurons are asleep [ March 27, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Domino ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Domino, please note this would be principle that nobody has the right to force any human to work, just like nobody can kill another human. But lets say we do have a right to force the criminal to work and create the resources that the victim has lost because of him. This would work for theft, property damage, etc. But what if the criminal is a murderer? No work can compensate the loss. Except, maybe Sip would suggest that the criminal be forced to have sex and give birth to kids so the killed people by him would be replaced by new people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sasun:Domino, please note this would be principle that nobody has the right to force any human to work, just like nobody can kill another human. But lets say we do have a right to force the criminal to work and create the resources that the victim has lost because of him. This would work for theft, property damage, etc. But what if the criminal is a murderer? No work can compensate the loss. Except, maybe Sip would suggest that the criminal be forced to have sex and give birth to kids so the killed people by him would be replaced by new people? Dear Sasun, monetary compensation for families of victims of a death exist already, like I said, no one could return deaths, but this compensation at least could aleviate the social damage(families) of this murder. As for forcing them to work, not forcing them, just that they will be forced to work to have the right to eat, have a bed etc... Thats not forcing, is it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote: I know what is comming up now, Sasun, you will probably tell me, what if someone does not respect the rules for justice. And I will answer probably that it is 18:00 now here, and my brain is to slow to start that up. Domino jan, actually it didn't occur to me to ask this question. But it is a good idea that you answer this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Domino: As for forcing them to work, not forcing them, just that they will be forced to work to have the right to eat, have a bed etc... Thats not forcing, is it ? Well, let me say that I am confused now. So are we forcing them or not? If not, then how are they forced? Do you mean they will from now on feel forced to work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sasun: quote:Originally posted by Domino: As for forcing them to work, not forcing them, just that they will be forced to work to have the right to eat, have a bed etc... Thats not forcing, is it ? Well, let me say that I am confused now. So are we forcing them or not? If not, then how are they forced? Do you mean they will from now on feel forced to work?Sasun, it would be forcing them, when you put them in prison. Right ? But its a good thing to isolate them. Whats the difference, when you force them to do something to at least try to repair some of the dommage they have done to the collectivity ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Domino jan, I see what you mean. By the way, what else did your philosophy teacher say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sasun: quote: I know what is comming up now, Sasun, you will probably tell me, what if someone does not respect the rules for justice. And I will answer probably that it is 18:00 now here, and my brain is to slow to start that up. Domino jan, actually it didn't occur to me to ask this question. But it is a good idea that you answer this question. Ehehe... those are the kind of question I ask myself at night, just before sleeping. Thats exactly the problem with Kants philosophy, what happens when you think your causes is right, and you do an action that would be considered as wrong by Kants principle? The problem with Kants philosophy(thats the thing we learn in a philosophy classes just after having exposed Kantian philosophy, and then find when it creats a problem) is that it does not have a hierarchy of values, Kant has not achieved that part, it is not really a contradiction of his philosophy, but rather, he did not compleat it(died probably before). Imagine that your state has condemned unjustfully someone, and you know it, you know where this individual is hidding, someone from the authorities come and ask you if you know where is your friend. Do you tell them the truth, or you lie ? Now, the question would be: "What happens if everyone tells lies" the world will crumble, no order, our world would be chaotic. You are forced from this philosophy to tell the truth, and only the truth. This is where Kantian philosophy has its limit, but this problem could be "corrected" if we donwload and install a patch to Kantians philosophy program By introducing a hierarchy of values, basing it on the level of order, more order and worst it is to destroy it. Lying is bad, because it is contrary to the truth, and it is against order, truth is order, lie is not. Justice on the other hand is one of the highest level of order, because it includes the truth, and every other ellements of what justice may be. So if someone lies because he knows that for what he lied he serve justice, then what he did would be just, considering that he would not respect an ellement of this justice, but will serve the rest of them, to protect this concept of Justice. Some ellements of this justice are more important then others, fo example, killing is wort then lying, because humans are order, an organisation that as result has the capability to reasonate, that means to understand the order. By killing you destroy an order that is higher then the conception of truth that exist because we human exist and we can understand this concept, without our existance we could not understand it. So the preservation of life is on top of this hierarchy in the sub-world contained in the principle of Justice, while the preservation of truth, more on the bottom. But again it dependents, what if telling to truth, you die for it ? You destroyed an order(yourself) to protect an ellement more on the bottom of this hierarchy. Sometimes this truth is worth fighting for, because one consider that without it, it does not worth living for, and that this truth protect every or the majority of the ellements parts of the concept of justice. This truth become Truth* and is different then the truth that is opposit of a lie, The first Truth* with the capital "T" is here for the preservation of justice, and not preserving it would be worst then living for, but thats again an expetion. Like you see philosophy don't have all the answers, if it had, we would not run after every so-called truth and religions, sects etc... to find what this Truth* is, but philosophy is unlike science and religion, religion is dogmatic, while science bases itself on objectivity. While religion may try to answer some questions that science can't, science proves thing that religion can't. So what rationa philosophy is, it is the application of the rational methodology to metaphysical concepts, questions that in order that science try to understand, it must be based on matters, science is the understanding of matters by way of methodological(an anti-matters to that matter ) analysis, while Rational philosophy try to understand concepts that are metaphysical in nautre, by aplying the same methodology as science. In short, Philosophy, is the better of the two wordls(religion and science), and since we can't have the better of every world, we are limited with some of the limits of those two worlds. I am just starting to go out of the subject, but why I wrote that above, is to explain you that philosophy try to answer and does not answer every questions, so everytime I will try to answer a question, that will bring you to ask more questions, and more and more... and science philosophy is a human invention, you can't tuch this "T"ruth, but you can always try to approch it. Here this analogy may explain better. 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 + 1/64 ... + 1/2^n This sommation at the end, its limit will be 2. This is how Rational philosophy try to answer those questions, there is always some lacks, some problems, then a new ellement a patch is added, another is added, another is added, to a way that we become closer to the truth, but we will never achieve that limit, everytime we come closer, more it is difficult to come closer, and closer. So to answer your question after that was supposed to be the reason of my answer. No ? Some times, we can decide to not respect the Laws established that is supposed to serve the collectivity, and the only reason for, is to serve thise Truth that itself is supposed to serve justice. You will ask me then, how could we be sure that we are serving this justice... and I will answer you that the sommation above still is missing an infinit numbers of ellements, just to excuse myself for a pathetic reason that I don't know. You know, if you help me to get a new forum called "Philosophy" we could discuss all about those things, but you must first accept to not respect the law of hyeforum that is supposed to serve the collectivity, to serve Truth, that serve Justice. What that may be ? Changing the name of the forum called "Computers and Internet" for "Science and technology" [ March 28, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Domino ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 28, 2003 Report Share Posted March 28, 2003 Sasun, I was not very serious about a philosophy forum. But I was serious concerning changing the name of "Computers and Internet" forum for "Science and technology". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Domino, I was also joking a bit but why not open a new forum "science and technology" istead of replacing the computers forum (mind you, you are talking to a computer guy ). In case you were the only one wanting such a forum, you have my vote now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fadi Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Sasun:Domino, I was also joking a bit but why not open a new forum "science and technology" istead of replacing the computers forum (mind you, you are talking to a computer guy ). In case you were the only one wanting such a forum, you have my vote now That would be an option, but I want to defeat Seaphans forces, if a new forum is build, it would mean that computers are equal to the rest of the science world, and I won't let Seaphan to get away with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Domino, very interesting! (although some things I don't know what you mean). If you ask me, yes you do deserve a Philosophy forum But generally philosophers are not appreciated in the society, that's why your campaign for such a forum is not succesful. Consider opening a Philosophy thread in "Other" section or somewhere else (maybe in "Humor" section? LOL ) I will join you. quote: This is where Kantian philosophy has its limit, but this problem could be "corrected" if we donwload and install a patch to Kantians philosophy program LOL )) Why not get a whole new program? You are trying to converge to "2". But you could make "2" to converge to you! I like your idea of Justice based on the criteria of order and Truth. There is the Truth that you are looking for and ways to find it. But it is not easy to find it. More later.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted March 29, 2003 Report Share Posted March 29, 2003 Domino, I have an idea... we could revolt against the Hyeforum government and post philosophical messages in all other sections. This way they will be forced to open a new forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.