|
On January 02 2010 21:56 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote:On January 02 2010 08:47 TwoToneTerran wrote:Well he claimed to be ill as hell, and given only a 30 minute trial that auto executes, he may have been. I don't know the specifics because I wasn't there, though. On January 02 2010 08:36 Myrkul wrote:On January 02 2010 07:58 TwoToneTerran wrote:
That was the very first argument I tackled in this thread and I'm very tired of repeating it. If you didn't read the entire thread -- I suggest you do. If you did read the entire thread and forgot, I suggest you take a look back. It's a pain to have to rehash the same thing over and over because people want to repeat that I'm just some Western Morality Normative supporter (whereas I'm completely not -- I am personally appalled and what passes for acceptable in western culture) when that's nothing but a strawman laced with pseudo-ad hominem (in so much as I take blanket accusation of western ideals as an insult to character). I have read 90% of the thread and have reread most of your posts, and I don't think i've made myself clear enough. The concept of morality as it is widely understood i consider logicaly faulty at best. It is merely a consensus of people of a certain time that have simmilar needs and wants and agree on the way, manner, and order in which they should or should not be fulfilled, thus it is a subjective matter, not objective. Which would mean that i do not see any grounds on which you or anyone else can criticize the way in which someone else behaves, or in this example runs their country. I'll repeat the point of my previous post that you ignored: "And I completely fail to see how you can demonstrate that someone's ethical codex or worldview is flawed if it doesn't contain logical inconsistencies." In other words if you cannot somehow demonstrate that executing this man for this crime is something that is bad for China and it's people, i do not see how it could be called "wrong". The logical inconsistency that isn't a purely subjective moral value is, as it has always been, is a common theme throughout almost all cultures -- The Golden Rule. Consequences set up in light of what you'd expect to be done to yourself should you find yourself breaking the law. I could be very wrong, but I don't think it's unfair to suppose that most people -- even the chinese who support the law, would think it harsh if they found themselves in this man's position. Their own life because of drugs? Drugs are a harmful thing, but the actual snuffing out of their life over it would seem harsh. This is also why the death penalty, from a logical perspective, would never work because no crime is worth killing, as killing is the ultimate crime. Imprisonment is just stripping of freedom (of which some countries give more or less of) -- something the country fairly gives and can fairly take away. There may be people who would say "If I was found taking drugs over the border, no matter my mental state or reason, I should be killed," and to those people I have no argument that isn't entirely based in morals or based around the death penalty paradox, but that's a very tough position to take and I don't believe, if actually putting thought into it, most people would say that, as most people don't think their own life is worth less than 4KGs of heroin. I stated this exact argument earlier in the thread. It may have been in the 10% you missed, whatever, but there it is. The Golden Rule is not a moral imposing of "western" values (that I don't have, mind you), but a logical turnabout. It's a supposition. It's a basis for understanding, but by no means is it any one culture's moral/ethical codex or ideals. You may say that logic plays no part in Chinese law, and that we have no right to say that it shouldn't, but there's nothing morally ambiguous about logic -- it just progresses society and should be used frequently. I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these, and to this whole discussion actually, since it talks about what you should/should not do before the crime is commited. If i remember correctly it's one of Confucius's maxims on how people in an ideal state should act, but Confucius himself had very different ideas about what should be done when crimes are already commited. And you are interpreting it in a very interesting way, basically saying that nobody wants to be dead, therefore he should not be killed, which I find to be a very peculiar argument considering the topic. Nobody wants to be imprisoned either. And in the end this "Golden rule" as you call it is as subjective as any other rule or value based on relative definitions of good or bad, and as such cannot be called objectively better than any other. I think your main problem with this "event" comes from the fact that you posted earlier, that you're terrifyed of death, and you consider it to be the worst type of punishment. That makes your position about this understandable, but still does not give you the right to tell some else (or a whole country) how they should define good or bad. And there is nothing illogical about having a law that the majority of the population agrees with and implementing it. If the Chinese do not agree with you from the very basics: sanctity of life, your view on human rights etc, there is nothing to argue about, since all your criticism comes from some basic ideas on how human beings should act, and they do not share those ideas. You're not arguing against their laws because they are illogical, you're arguing against them because you do not like them. Illogical would mean that they are inconsistent with China's(majority of the population) position on crime and punishment, which, from what i see, they are not. No, most people can reasonably posit that if they committed a nasty crime, that it'd be nothing but fair to imprison them. Killing is, in a general sense, in an entirely different league from everything else that IS a punishment (Parole, Community Service, Fines, and, the most popular one, Imprisonment). The Golden Rule, in the context that I'm using it, it's just logical extrapolation. If you don't want me to call it the Golden Rule then that's fine -- I'll just call it by something that sounds less morally posited. It's just a logical conclusion that applies a common rationality on punishment/consequences. Any punishment that you deign support of must also be applicable to yourself or anyone close to you and still have you agree with the consequences. Aside from that, Death Penalty Paradox. If you've read the thread then you know what I'm talking about.
I see that i'm not getting through, IMO most people who have commited a nasty crime do not think they did something wrong, if you think you should not do something then you do not do it. And I do not agree that most of the people who commited a crime think they deserve any kind of punishment, they just look at the laws of a state as a "force of nature" that should be avoided, like if you play with fire you get burned kind of thing, they don't think that the fire is fair. But then again we're now guessing about criminal minds and motives so no point in discussing further.
Basically not everyone agrees with the Golden rule as the prime moral basis for a country's laws and everything else, and there is absolutely no logical reason why they should. And your "logical extrapolation" is not as evident and clear-cut as you seem to think it is, because the Golden rule in it's negative and positive version has always had it's critics among prominent intellectuals, and a lot more can be said about the logical and philosophical implications of the golden rule itself, and especially this version of it that you're defending. This point has been stated in multiple posts, including all of my previous ones, you simply do not seem to understand that not everyone accepts the golden rule as a basis for laws, and there is no logical reason stating that they should I am now repeating myselfand i do not plan to do it any longer, if you do not adress the points that phlamez, HeartofTofu and I have made about the relativity of the Golden rule as a moral concept then we have nothing more to talk about.
|
On January 02 2010 22:20 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote:
I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these There is a way you can apply the golden rule, but you have to generalize it. If you were tried for any crime, small or big, would you have the punishment match your crime? Would you have the punishment be reasonable and not cruel or inhumane? Yes. Now the question remains if you would consider the death penalty for drug trafficking a cruel or inhuman punishment, and this has been some matter of debate.
Every action that I willingly do, I consider the right thing to do, otherwise I would not be doing it. If someone else or a whole country for that matter thinks that what I did was a crime and I should be punished for it I would disagree, so No i would not have the punishment meet my crime since i would not consider it a crime in the first place. I do not see any middle ground between accepting all laws that a state implements, or none. And I do not understand the concept of a "reasonable, not cruel and inhumane punishment" since there will always be a person who thinks a punishment unreasonable, because he obviously thinks that his actions/crime were a reasonable thing to do, otherwise he would not have done them.
|
United Kingdom6641 Posts
I'm pretty sure most criminals know what they're doing is wrong but just don't care. They'd call the punishment unreasonable just because they don't want it to happen to them but they know they deserve it.
|
On January 02 2010 23:52 Myrkul wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 22:20 Phrujbaz wrote:On January 02 2010 11:42 Myrkul wrote:
I consider the "Golden rule" to be non-apliccable to situations like these There is a way you can apply the golden rule, but you have to generalize it. If you were tried for any crime, small or big, would you have the punishment match your crime? Would you have the punishment be reasonable and not cruel or inhumane? Yes. Now the question remains if you would consider the death penalty for drug trafficking a cruel or inhuman punishment, and this has been some matter of debate. Every action that I willingly do, I consider the right thing to do, otherwise I would not be doing it. If someone else or a whole country for that matter thinks that what I did was a crime and I should be punished for it I would disagree, so No i would not have the punishment meet my crime since i would not consider it a crime in the first place. I do not see any middle ground between accepting all laws that a state implements, or none. And I do not understand the concept of a "reasonable, not cruel and inhumane punishment" since there will always be a person who thinks a punishment unreasonable, because he obviously thinks that his actions/crime were a reasonable thing to do, otherwise he would not have done them.
The way I understand the golden rule is that you have to put yourself in the position of the other party, and then decide what is fair. As an executioner, it's easy to say the death penalty is fair. Someone who believes he will never be tried for drug trafficking can much more easily agree to the death penalty than someone who thinks the justice system is very fallible and he might be framed. Since you will have biased opinions based on the likelihood someone believes he will be tried for the crime, the golden rule doesn't work here. That's why we have to agree on some general principle. Such as: punishments should never be cruel or inhuman and always reasonably match the crime being committed. I think this is a general principle (based on the golden rule) that we can all agree on.
How to apply that principle to the current situation is up to the lawmakers, and we can agree or disagree with their decision. I personally don't think they've applied that principle correctly in this case, since the death penalty for drug trafficking seems cruel and inhuman to me.
|
On January 02 2010 22:57 psion0011 wrote:Death penalty by lethal injection is too humane for drug trafficking shitstains. Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for 
Don't I love it when people are so eager to give up their own freedoms for revenge or stability. Any sensible human would never waive humanity's right to fair and humane punishment and fair trials.
|
The death penalty in China isn't really news. I think the primary idea of this article is how flip flopped the situation with England and China is now. Fifty years ago, Brits in China have been getting away with pretty much damn well everything in terms of crimes due to their political clout, military power and their occupation. Now China's reaction is more "LOLEngland?".
|
there are a lot of problems with subjective moral theory in philosophy... i mean if everyone in a country thinks its ok to kill innocent people to please others, then its ok? is there no room for other countries to step in and say hey, your moral compass is fucked up?
not sure if I'm understanding the posts correctly but I think some of you are advocating a subjective moral stand, which has a boat load of logical issues.
but thing is, there isn't one good moral theory I mean, considering this is an ongoing debate in philosophy itself, its just not practical to argue whether what China did is right or wrong based on one moral principle.
My take on the issue is, China did what they felt was necessary to do, its their law and they will enforce the punishment on anyone British or not. The action of drug trafficking clearly pose a direct threat especially in such large quantities. So for the most part, there really isn't much logical evidence to argue against China's decision to execute him.
|
Don't worry, Riet is just a troll or a arrogant idiot.
|
On December 31 2009 19:09 meegrean wrote:
I support China's decision to execute drug dealers. This is a good example.
DIE DRUG TRAFFICKERS!
If you want to speak of responsibility; then it lies upon the person who chooses freely to use the drug. When you outlaw drugs, then you create a situation where the price is so expensive that it fuels the development of criminal enterprises and economically crushes its users so fast they enter the point of no return 100x quicker. In addition, if the price is out of grasp, then the users resort to criminal activity to acquire it. This man shouldn't be executed, he shouldn't even be incarcerated.
Most of the consequences of drug use in society are created by the fact they are outlawed by governments, which spurs the public opinion to desire them outlawed, creating a cycle. If these drugs were legal (and untaxed) then they would cost as much as your laundry detergent. Then, you can begin to address the real problem, educating your people of the danger of addiction to a mood altering substance (and if they choose to use; how to do so properly.)
You claim to support these policies to protect would be drug users and their families; but your policies are the cause of their destruction. I assume we all know we could easily afford and obtain heroin with 99% success rate if we tried, so are your policies really factoring in to diminishing desire to use (or is something else stopping you?) If it cost 20 cents instead of 20 dollars and was 100% success would you suddenly use?
|
On January 03 2010 02:11 BabyRhino wrote:
there are a lot of problems with subjective moral theory in philosophy... i mean if everyone in a country thinks its ok to kill innocent people to please others, then its ok? is there no room for other countries to step in and say hey, your moral compass is fucked up?
not sure if I'm understanding the posts correctly but I think some of you are advocating a subjective moral stand, which has a boat load of logical issues.
but thing is, there isn't one good moral theory I mean, considering this is an ongoing debate in philosophy itself, its just not practical to argue whether what China did is right or wrong based on one moral principle.
My take on the issue is, China did what they felt was necessary to do, its their law and they will enforce the punishment on anyone British or not. The action of drug trafficking clearly pose a direct threat especially in such large quantities. So for the most part, there really isn't much logical evidence to argue against China's decision to execute him.
Hello USA!
|
United States43868 Posts
|
United States43868 Posts
On January 03 2010 02:10 KissBlade wrote:
The death penalty in China isn't really news. I think the primary idea of this article is how flip flopped the situation with England and China is now. Fifty years ago, Brits in China have been getting away with pretty much damn well everything in terms of crimes due to their political clout, military power and their occupation. Now China's reaction is more "LOLEngland?".
I think you have the 1960s confused with the 1860s. The primary idea of this article is how weird the situation is now because only 74 years ago everyone would have gone "LOL Japan!!!".
He was found guilty after a fair trial and sentenced within the law. If the trial had been rigged then this'd be a serious incident but I really can't see the issue here. Sure, if he'd been tried in England he wouldn't be dead but that's not because he's innocent, it's because our justice system has a different set of values. He committed an offence within China and that makes him fair game for them.
There's no real outcry in England beyond the foreign office requesting extradition which is what they do for every imprisoned British national.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
QQ
What ever happened to being responsible for your actions? Or certain acts have certain consequences?
Medical illness my ass, shouldn't have been trafficing drugs. Especially in China. WTF was this guy thinking?
RIP Mr Sheik
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Canada and USA needs some Chinese medicine.
We have a few million criminals here that need lethal injection.
|
On January 02 2010 23:43 Myrkul wrote:
I see that i'm not getting through, IMO most people who have commited a nasty crime do not think they did something wrong, if you think you should not do something then you do not do it. And I do not agree that most of the people who commited a crime think they deserve any kind of punishment, they just look at the laws of a state as a "force of nature" that should be avoided, like if you play with fire you get burned kind of thing, they don't think that the fire is fair. But then again we're now guessing about criminal minds and motives so no point in discussing further.
It's funny how you say I'm completely missing the point when you're completely missing my point.
The question isn't should we ask people who commit crimes what their punishment should be. The question is, if you hypothetically commit a crime yourself in the future, what do you believe should happen to you and anyone else?
Let's assume that, in the future, I kill a man. Whether it be a cold calculated murder or an anger based motive, I'm someone who found the only option available to myself was murder. Right now I can honestly say that if I did something like that, I'd understand and even want myself to be imprisoned for life. Whatever my justification was wasn't a good one, as it resulted in murder and that, by any merit, is a heinous crime.
You obviously shouldn't ask me what I want my punishment to be directly after I commit the crime -- the bias then is insurmountable. But thinking, logically, if I did commit the crime in the future, what do I think I or anyone should face as a consequence?
THAT'S why it's a logical extrapolation. It's not a moral basis. It's a universally fair way to examine what a person and, in a grander scope, a country's reflection of consequences.
Basically not everyone agrees with the Golden rule as the prime moral basis for a country's laws and everything else, and there is absolutely no logical reason why they should. And your "logical extrapolation" is not as evident and clear-cut as you seem to think it is, because the Golden rule in it's negative and positive version has always had it's critics among prominent intellectuals, and a lot more can be said about the logical and philosophical implications of the golden rule itself, and especially this version of it that you're defending. This point has been stated in multiple posts, including all of my previous ones, you simply do not seem to understand that not everyone accepts the golden rule as a basis for laws, and there is no logical reason stating that they should I am now repeating myselfand i do not plan to do it any longer, if you do not adress the points that phlamez, HeartofTofu and I have made about the relativity of the Golden rule as a moral concept then we have nothing more to talk about.
Rofl, what is this? There are "prominent intellectuals" who criticize this? Really? Cite me some. I want some honest to goodness head honchos of philosophical discussion. You make the big claim, back it up. I never claimed to have the philosophical community backing my statement, but if you want to use something so catchall in an argument, then the least you could do is cite a few sources. And I hope you don't just google "philosophical opposition to the Golden Rule," because that'd be a bit too obvious and a bit to telling that you're pulling this from nowhere.
Also, there are no implications to the Golden Rule. It works entirely on a logical and hypothetical premise that, for the most part, never comes into play, as most people aren't major criminals. It serves merely as a true purpose to show what people actually want as a consequence when they're not acting under the guise of the populous/mob, because it's a hypothetical that works on their individuality moreso than their ability to be swayed by the mob and the human condition's trend towards emotional instability affecting judgment.
|
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
|
On January 03 2010 02:00 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2010 22:57 psion0011 wrote:Death penalty by lethal injection is too humane for drug trafficking shitstains. Death penalty by starvation, that I could go for Don't I love it when people are so eager to give up their own freedoms for revenge or stability. Any sensible human would never waive humanity's right to fair and humane punishment and fair trials.
i don't really need the freedom to sell heroin but thanks anyways LOL
|
On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations.
I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule.
|
On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule.
Regardless of expectations, if you would have yourself executed for a crime, the Golden Rule dictates you should do the same to other perpetrators of the same crime. If we can believe that the Chinese government expunges its own members for such crimes, it follows that they will gladly have themselves executed.
|
On January 03 2010 08:36 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2010 08:16 StorkHwaiting wrote:
If I were to run 4 kilos of heroin into China and get caught. I would expect to die. I don't think that's an unreasonable statement to make.
On the Golden Rule:
By breaking the law and bringing 4 kilos of heroin into China, that guy initiated the process of reciprocity. He began by doing something negative. China responded with negativity. Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule.
In fact, there's a poetic justice to it all. He wanted to give people 4 kilos of drugs to inject in themselves. China gave him drugs to inject in himself. In fact,I doubt they even put 4 full kilos in his veins! Therefore, China is following the Golden Rule, AND humanizing it by not giving it back in a full and equal amount, but rather just enough to be a reasonable reciprocation. So golden, so ethical, so wonderful. Long Live China.
You miss the point. It's not what you'd "Expect" of any specific country. Countries play no part in this reasoning. While that obviously bears nothing to the real world, it's one of those "It should by any reasonable context," situations. I mean, I'd EXPECT to be shot if I walked around Compton saying the N-word, but that doesn't apply to the G-Rule.
Did you see my explanation of how the G-rule played out in this situation? Man wants to bring drugs to China. China brings drugs to man. Pretty simple reciprocation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
