Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

clark · 2004-10-18 13:24:15

on Mars, someone who has been convicted of a serious crime should just "be shown the door", so to speak.

Because we all know that only the guilty are convicted, right? Our means of legal procedures are infalliable, and only those who deserve to die by the hand of the State are approripately punished. No innoencent man died as the cause of an improper conviction, or false determination in their guilt, right?

The deterrent effect is irrelevant; corpses don't commit crimes or soak up scare resources while penned up in a jail cell.

Punishment is irrelevant? Why not meet every crime then with the same punishment? As you so elqouently put it, "corpses don't commit crimes...", in fact, corpses don't jay-walk, litter, default on their loans, commit adultery, lie, slander, argue, or protest. It would seem we could do entirely away with jail cells and just expand the morgue.

If it is a matter of "scarce" resources, then we must be talking about things like shelter, water, and food- the bare minimum for human survivial. If so, if these resources are so scarce, perhaps then you may have a point. Neccessity might dictate that we simply say these people are not worth it. Yet if such basic neccessities are available? If there isn't an issue, I would imagine that you seem ready to toss them out the door, right? Then what you are declaring is that human life, to you, has a definitive value that can be quantified. You also expressley admit that you believe that an inherent right to life is nothing more than a right granted by the State, not by your creator, and can be given or takin from you at the whim of the State. That is in essence what the death penalty is- the agreement by the people that an inherent right to life is subject to the desires of the State. If you have no right to life, you have no rights, period.

It is a grotesque fallacy to believe that one is granted certain unalienable rights that may not be abridged, yet assume that the fundamental right to life may be violated by the very thing given legitmacy to protect and uphold those rights.

Which is my point, which is why i find it hard to believe that Morris would argue the point he has given some of his other posts.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 13:51:35

That is in essence what the death penalty is- the agreement by the people that an inherent right to life is subject to the desires of the State. If you have no right to life, you have no rights, period.

I am VERY impressed by this. Well said.

If the state has the right to execute, then the right to life must originate with the state. What the state gives it can take away.

Of course I have long said that a society that executes proclaims its weakness and not its strength. A strong society can safeguard itself without the death penalty while a weaker society cannot.

I used to be opposed ALWAYS to the death penalty. Now, I can accept there are circumstances where it may be necessary however those who inflict capital punishment remain guilty of sin.

It just may be the lesser of evils.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-18 14:12:20

Well stated Clark, I must echo Bill's praise of your argument.

Yet oddly I find myself immune to every avenue in it, with the partial exception of this one:

Because we all know that only the guilty are convicted, right? Our means of legal procedures are infalliable, and only those who deserve to die by the hand of the State are approripately punished.

The innocent are convicted from time to time regardless of what system of punishment we have in place. The best we can do is keep the laws clear and few while using every available means to determine determine guilt or innocence before a competent jury. We've presently struck out on all three, that's our problem. Wrongful conviction of a major crime is horrible whatever the punishment, life in prison is no more merciful than a humane death.

As for the "right to life", I don't believe the damn thing exists. Another human construct we take comfort in, but its notable absence outside the protection of society gives away the lie.

If you have no right to life, you have no rights, period.

You have one, but the odds in that fight are heavily stacked against you.

Neccessity might dictate that we simply say these people are not worth it. Yet if such basic neccessities are available?

Even with abundant resources, I'd rather not foot the bill when severe crimes are in question. If the punishment involves either food and shelter for the next 50+ years to keep a multiple rapist alive or one syringe... well, the economics speak for themselves. Clearly establish what crimes warrant that penalty, act accordingly.

As for sin, we can find plenty of godless switch-throwers, I assure you.

BWhite · 2004-10-18 14:14:09

Cobra, turn towards the light. Use not the powers of the Dark Side!

clark · 2004-10-18 14:45:07

Well thank you both for the praise.

Every once in a while a glimmering rant blooms. :laugh:

The innocent are convicted from time to time regardless of what system of punishment we have in place. The best we can do is keep the laws clear and few while using every available means to determine determine guilt or innocence before a competent jury. We've presently struck out on all three, that's our problem. Wrongful conviction of a major crime is horrible whatever the punishment, life in prison is no more merciful than a humane death.

If I can't convince you on the other counts, then let me keep my foot in this door...

I agree, the most we can do is as you suggest, however, the economist within you doesn't rightly figure. If we are to avail ourselves of every opportunity to ensure that very few innocent men are hung on the gallows, we must continue to expand the abilities of the legal system to all possible extent. This requires resources.

To kill those who deserve to die, we must create a legal system that can provide all adquete legal consel- otherwise we send people up the river because of a failing of their State appointed defender. We must provide appeals so that the life of an individual is not decided by a biased group of peers, or one single judge. We must expand and complicate the law to explain and codify every contingency in the determination of guilt of innocence. In effect, we undermine ourselves by pursuing the death penalty and holding ourselves to a higher moral standard.

We can either kill them wholesale, cheap, like the chinese- bullet to the head one night and a bill sent to the next of kin. Or we can do away with the whole practice and say a caged man is no threat to the fabric of our society, or the saftey of our families. If by chance a mistake is made, we have options to immediately rectify the situation with the individual. We kill the man, and we all share his blod on our hands.

There is no point in killing someone other than to sate the public bloodlust. It serves no purpose in preventing or dimishing crime.

Here is another way of looking at it- would you join the Mars Society if they had a stipulation that they could kill you if they saw fit?

The death penalty is an action arbitrated by the State, whose power over us is based on consent- this is nothing about inherent god endowed rights. We consent to allowing the State have authority of our life, or our death. I ask you why do you consent to such an agreement? Why do you subject your life, and your families life, to the whims of the State? You talk on and on about individual rights, about rebellion and the natural right of self protected through firearms- yet readily consent that the State does have the authority to terminate your life if it sees fit. It makes no sense.

Trebuchet · 2004-10-18 15:05:24

Requesting reinforcements... an army of straw men is advancing on my position.

I'm saying that, on Mars, in the context of a colony that has no or few resources to spare, the option to incarcerate an individual for long periods of time is not available. The option to invest a lot of time and money into ensuring that the innocent are not executed is also not available. Thus people will be executed, and if there is any sort of sizeable violent crime rate, there will be innocent people executed. If you cannot deal with this, don't go to Mars. At least, don't go until the colony is larger and can support those sorts of things. No amount of airy argument is going to budge this reality.

As for an earlier comment of yours:

Punishment is irrelevant?

No, deterrence is irrelevant for violent crimes under the conditions of an early Mars colony. As you pointed out, criminals are motivated by fear of capture, not fear of punishment. However, a criminal that is dead (or permanently behind bars, although that isn't a realistic option for Mars at first) isn't able to commit the same crime again. Most people who speed are 'serial speeders', so to speak, most people who rob banks are likely to do it again.

I also don't advocate the death penalty on Mars for minor offenses; there are likely to be any number of unpleasant crap jobs around the dome that can be doled out to people who have engaged in petty nonsense (small time theft, fistfights, etc). In the case of murder, rape, etc, however....

clark · 2004-10-18 15:14:22

I'm saying that, on Mars, in the context of a colony that has no or few resources to spare, the option to incarcerate an individual for long periods of time is not available.

Ah, context. :laugh:

So in the context of your martian colony with few or no spare resources, there is no option to incarcerate individuals for long periods of time. Therefore, the only punishments will be those that can be doled out as forms of community service, or death. Pleasant. (I certainly hope the colony dosen't run out of chores...)

The option to invest a lot of time and money into ensuring that the innocent are not executed is also not available.

So in the context of your martian colony where there is no time or money to ensure that the innocent are not executed, innocent people are routinely put to death. Swell. ("The string of grisely murders continues within the colony. Police having already put two other presumed guilty people to death for the supposed crimes just shruged and replied, "Eventually we will kill em. Soory about them other fellows, but them's the breaks. Innocent people need to feel safe from murderin thugs on the loose.")

I hope the irony is not lost on you.

Thus people will be executed, and if there is any sort of sizeable violent crime rate, there will be innocent people executed.

Such little imagination Tre! How about a compromise? You can kill to your hearts content in a bid to keep order. I shall install round the clock survallence throughout all public and private areas of the colony, and every individual will be barcoded and tracked, all in a bid to keep order.

Want to live like that? It effectively achieves the same thing you want.

And if you can't deal with that, I suggest Venus, I hear the weather is lovely... outside.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-18 15:37:17

I agree, the most we can do is as you suggest, however, the economist within you doesn't rightly figure. If we are to avail ourselves of every opportunity to ensure that very few innocent men are hung on the gallows, we must continue to expand the abilities of the legal system to all possible extent. This requires resources.
To kill those who deserve to die, we must create a legal system that can provide all adquete legal consel- otherwise we send people up the river because of a failing of their State appointed defender. We must provide appeals so that the life of an individual is not decided by a biased group of peers, or one single judge. We must expand and complicate the law to explain and codify every contingency in the determination of guilt of innocence. In effect, we undermine ourselves by pursuing the death penalty and holding ourselves to a higher moral standard.

The same should be true whether we have the death penalty or not. Are you suggesting that we can have a more flawed system of determining guilt if we merely lock the offenders in a cell, then comfort ourselves with the knowledge that if we one day find, five, ten, thirty years on that we made a mistake we can just release the unfortunate soul, no harm no foul?

Here is another way of looking at it- would you join the Mars Society if they had a stipulation that they could kill you if they saw fit?

Certainly not, nor would I voluntarily join an association that claims a "right" to imprison me should they see fit. Yet here we are. Unfortunately, in any large group of humanity you have elements that are harmful to the group as a whole and a means must be in place for dealing with them. One of those awkward social contract issues that can be argued ad infinitum as there is no clear line of demarcation, all very subjective.

You talk on and on about individual rights, about rebellion and the natural right of self protected through firearms- yet readily consent that the State does have the authority to terminate your life if it sees fit. It makes no sense.

The natural right of self defense is the only real right we have, when all the constructs of society are stripped away we are left with that, a natural "right" to fight those who would harm us. It doesn't mean we'll win, but we can always try. Even when the full might of the state comes down upon your head, you can still try. The other rights flow from that, if the majority within the society believe they should, moreso if they can be convinced that they are inherent somehow. Rights attempt to create a level field, something utterly absent outside the society that upholds them.

There are no absolutes here, a society that abhors the death penalty and one that applies it to jaywalking have only a philosphical difference, endlessly debatable in either case. Less desirable circumstances from our perspective, but no absolutes.

The Dark Side is strong this day. :hm:

clark · 2004-10-18 15:50:18

The same should be true whether we have the death penalty or not. Are you suggesting that we can have a more flawed system of determining guilt if we merely lock the offenders in a cell, then comfort ourselves with the knowledge that if we one day find, five, ten, thirty years on that we made a mistake we can just release the unfortunate soul, no harm no foul?

I'm saying when you take a life in error, you remove any possibility of making ammends. There is a foul, but it is a far fouler deed to preclude any possibility of righting a known wrong. The comfort is in the knowledge and the acceptance that we are falliable, that are systems, however well designed, are not ultimately final. That is the point. The death penalty is a form of action that removes any possibility of correction or review. It is the final act upon which their can be no counter judgement. That is why it has historically been considered the right of a King, then bequeathed to the State- the final decision with no review.

It is a profound decision to determine that one must die, and that the decision is correct, and proper given the frailty and failings of humanity. Wisdom would choose the action that allows for the correction of its own mistakes.

Certainly not, nor would I voluntarily join an association that claims a "right" to imprison me should they see fit.

Yet here you are indeed! In an invoulantary association dictated by fate, chance, and geography. Yet this association you were born into can be changed by your choice! We don't have to live with this agreement as we consent to it. We may change the terms of our association to reflect what we wish to consent to. There is nothing subjective about this.

the Dark Side is weak and lame.

Grypd · 2004-10-18 16:20:03

There is an option of simple incarceration.

We create a quonset hut far away from the main base with a supply of oxygen and supplies of water and the ability to create its own food(greenhouse). The offender could be taken there and interned minus his spacesuit, so there he will stay. It will still reduce your compliment on the mars mission or early colony but it may be the only option. And he can work for his maintnenance and if he behaves he gets some luxuries....soft toilet paper for example

PeterJ · 2004-10-18 16:56:41

I think religion should be allowed but it should be seperate from the controlling or government of the society as religious beliefs are dangerous to the overall good of the society and will eventually lead to its downfall into mars becomes like earth.

i got no problem if they leave it to themself and believe in private

clark · 2004-10-18 18:06:54

In a moment of singular clarity, and upon further reflection, I wish to address a remark by Cobra.

The natural right of self defense is the only real right we have, when all the constructs of society are stripped away we are left with that, a natural "right" to fight those who would harm us.

We can argue back and forth the matter of inherent right, or granted right, I will gladly admit. There exsists no fine line, no delination from which rights are granted, but a natural right to self defense is self evident. We have the ultimate liberty by which to defend our person. It is self evident and inherent by our own exsistence. We have the right to act within our own defense to perseve our continued exsistence.

It is precisely because we have this inherent right that the State should not seek to execute its citizens. The reason being that applying a system of laws and rules whereby the punishment inflicted upon the individual is the extinguishing of their life, the State creates the conditions by which individuals are empowered to act in any manner they can to preserve their life.

In explanation, if I commit a crime that is punishiable by death, I am at liberty to do whatever is within my power to prevent others from enacting such punishment. In other words, if I commit such a crime, then I am at liberty to not give myself up to what i know will be my death, and I am at liberty to defend myself against those who come to impose my death.

If we accept that I have a natural right to self defense, and we additionaly accept that the State has the right to execute me, I may kill whomever tries to bring me to justice. I can kill cops, judges, jurors- whomever ( I in NO way advocate this, I merely point out the end conclusion of what we accept here by a natural right to defense).

There is no point in subjecting myself to the application of law by the State since it will act againt my natural right. The death penalty makes criminals beyond the law and absolves them from the law since all actions after their intital crime become moot. Once you have commited a crime where death is the penalty, all actions taken to preserve your life is justified by a natural right to self defense.

It is within the interest of society not to place individuals beyond the bounds of law where they must act upon their natural right of self defense. Otherwise we all descend back the law of the jungle, kill or be killed.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 03:41:34

There is no point in subjecting myself to the application of law by the State since it will act againt my natural right. The death penalty makes criminals beyond the law and absolves them from the law since all actions after their intital crime become moot. Once you have commited a crime where death is the penalty, all actions taken to preserve your life is justified by a natural right to self defense.

Indeed, and this is true for lesser punishments as well. Life in prison for example, if I'm faced with that for one murder, why not commit more if it helps to prolong my own liberty? The punishments imposed by society are by nature in direct contradiction to whatever rights that society recognizes, natural or otherwise. Every social order has rules that its members are aware of and implicitly agree to (by remaining there) and when one violates them, in a sense they forfeit the "artificial" rights and must rely solely on that one natural right of self preservation. So what can we do about this?

We can either make punishments so minor that those facing them aren't driven to desperation to escape, or we accept that a condemned man, whether facing prison or death, will always try to escape that fate and therefore apply either only to the most serious crimes.

For example, here in Michigan the state legislature a few years back enacted a law designed to protect road workers, if you hit one, accidentally we must assume, there's a hefty fine and 15 years in prison attached. With that in place... I'd run, fight, whatever is necessary. We've assigned a murder penalty to a accident waiting to happen to people (workers and drivers) in a high risk situation. It's skewed.

I certainly do not believe we should execute people for petty theft, but neither do I suppose that sending a serial murderer to prison is somehow more just than killing him, nor do I see much distinction in the level of desperation either fate induces in the recipient. Were I facing either, I'd fight with every means at my disposal. The only way to stop it is to make the punishment minor enough, say house arrest or exile to... Canada. <shudders>

Wrist-slap penalties just won't cut it, anything more and you have people exercising that "natural right".

Still trying to find that clear line, it just isn't there.

clark · 2004-10-20 06:52:12

Is it wrong to kill someone when you don't need to?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 07:01:01

Is it wrong to kill someone when you don't need to?

Usually, but not always. And some lives are worth more than others. It's a philosphical position, not really subject to any sort of empirical measurement.

clark · 2004-10-20 07:01:47

When is it okay to kill someone you don't need to?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 07:37:19

When is it okay to kill someone you don't need to?

When I say so.

Okay, real answer. If one accepts the premise that Rights are an aspect of society rather than some (provably false) universal constant, then it is reasonable to order society in such a manner that rights are subject to certain qualifiers, as they are in our own society. You have an implied right to privacy, except in cases where there are grounds to suspect you of a specific crime in which case your privacy can be violated in a search for specific evidence. You have a right to free speech, but you can't yell fire in a theater or threaten to kill the President without action against you. Right to bear arms, but not brandish them willy-nilly in public places, which you lose entirely if convicted of violent crimes. So why should the utterly imaginary "Right to Life" be above these? I find it reasonable to allow abridgement of it as well, based on willful actions of the person in question.

But what actions? While it's largely a function of what is socially acceptable and devoid of any absolutes, one can easily take the position that crimes which do permanent damage are appropriate reasons. Petty theft is easily rectified by returning or replacing the property, no need for execution. Murder can easily justify execution from the perspective I've outlined above. Further, disfiguring (intentionally) a victim, rape, torture are all severe violations of the victim's recognized rights as well a violation of socially acceptable behavior and can be justified on the grounds not only that they leave lasting damage to the victim, whether physical or otherwise, but that the offender has demonstrated a willful disregard for the very concept of "Rights" as they pertain to their fellow citizens, and therefore forefeits their own, included that to life.

clark · 2004-10-20 08:00:39

This has nothing to do with rights or where they come from.

It is a simple question which you expound on in trying to reach a justification for a neccessity of an action.

You are trying to establish a criteria by which neccessity may be justified to establish the act of murder.

We can both rightly agree that sometimes, we are justified by neccessity to kill. Self defense, right? There is a clear and present danger which justifies the action. I grant you that, and make no bones about it.

Which is why I have tried to reduce this down to the bare element, since you don't see the fine line.

Is it wrong to kill another person when there is no neccessity to do so? That in a nutshell, is the basis by which everyone extrapolates from in defending the position of the death penalty. They look for the justification which creates the neccessity by which the action of murder may be sanctified.

I can agree that if we can't support the criminal- cage him, then we have a neccessity to kill him. I alluded to as much earlier in this thread.

If we accept that it is okay to kill someone when there is no neccessity, then we accept that killing is appropriate. There was no neccessity, other than entertainment, for the gladiator fights of old Roman time.

You introduce the subjective lines of argument by trying to justify a neccessity when it dosen't exsist. People who are harmed, violated, how are they threatened by a man who is in chains? If we can make the argument that people in chains are still a menance, then what of people who commit white collar crimes- embezzle trustfunds and retirement accounts and leave the victims penniless in the streets to starve? Are these victims in any less harmed than someone who is physically attacked? Should we kill them to?

A man who commits petty theft violates another, how are we to suppose that stealing a cheap plastic bauble, worthless to us, but priceless to the victim, is any less harmful to the victim than a rape victim?

We draw subjective lines in the sand to delineate when we employ the neccessity of justifing murder. But the simple fact of the matter is that it is wrong to kill another when you have no need to.

That's why murder itself is wrong- taking the life of another when there is no need. That is what murder is.

We don't need to kill criminals if they are in prison. The only need is to avenge the blood lust of the victim, be it society or an individual. And the law is not about vengence, it is about protection.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 08:27:52

You are trying to establish a criteria by which neccessity may be justified to establish the act of murder.

I'm doing no such thing, yet you seem intent on following a course of argument the very premise of which I reject from the outset. What I'm saying is simpler and perhaps more sinister than merely trying to rationalize a need where none exists, I'm suggesting that when an individual commits a heinous crime, one which willfully violates the rights society recognizes of all, that offender rejects not only the rights of the victim but their own claim to those rights as well. As far as I'm concerned a convicted serial killer or rapist is no longer a human being deserving of protections, but defective property jointly owned by the society of which they are a part.

We can use this "property" for cheap labor, but that creates an economic incentive to generate more laborers from undeserving citizens. We can house them at public expense if the public desires, or if not simply dispose of them. Defective, dangerous garbage. We don't need to execute them, we just don't have any compelling reason not to, sentimental concerns aside. Executing a mass-murderer or killing a roach, it's all the same to me. Only I have more pity for the roach as it can't begin to understand why.

This is where I'm coming from, so when we execute such a criminal we cannot be violating their rights as they have surrendered them, we are disposing of a dangerous, defective human-animal, a person who has voluntarily chosen to relinquish the laws, obligations and protections of civilized society in favor of natural laws, which subjects them to the whims of any stronger than they. The necessity of executing them is irrelevant, what requires justification is the need to maintain them.

clark · 2004-10-20 08:39:43

Subjectivity is the slippery slope.

What is a "heinous" crime? Is it the same in all times, places, and cultures? Is it defined by the time and place and people?

If the latter, we shouldn't rightly complain when some fundi Muslims stone women to death for adultery. Your position simply defends all barbaric practices which choose to define their "heinous" crime however they see fit.

The West is accused of "heinous" crimes against Allah and the Muslim people. The terrorist trash who behead others on a regular basis now are justified in their actions precisely because they believe as you.

When you are capable of diminishing a human life you can diminish the value of any human life.

Perhaps some claim it's different because we dress up the act with robes and boxes and monkey's who banter back and forth, but it isn't. They have their judges, we ours. We have our executioners, they their own. We have our violated law which dissolves all rights of the human being to life, and they have their own law violated which dissolves their criminals of the right to life.

I choose not to be like them.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 08:58:06

If the latter, we shouldn't rightly complain when some fundi muslims stone women to death for adultery. Your position simply defends all barbaric practices which choose to define their "heinous" crime however they see fit.

All societies define their own barbarism, their own values. There are no absolutes, but when two societies collide only one set of values can come out intact. When fundie Muslims behead our people or stone their women I have no qualms about imposing our set of values on them, not because I think that that some moral absolute condemns them but merely because I think our way is better. That's all any value judgment is, our legal system is a case of imposing what we think is right on people who don't agree regardless of whether we kill them or merely lock them in a room. Where you're going astray is to imply that somehow because what justifies death varies between societies that all those variations are equal and deserving of equal respect. I'm sure the fundie-Muslims feel perfectly justified stoning a woman to death, but I'd have no qualms killing them for it. I'd do the same to a non-Muslim anywhere in America for the same act. We all impose our ideas of what is right and wrong on others, even you clark. If you want to equate me with the terrorists for disagreeing with you go right ahead, it's not a death penalty offense. Not by my estimation anyway.

clark · 2004-10-20 09:17:32

I am not equating you with the terroists for diasagreeing with me. If that were the case, everyone, everywhere would be a terroist.

I am pointing out, simply, that where you are coming from, the very basis of it, is the same place people who you so readily oppose are coming from.

You and the terroists think it's okay to kill people who violate certain laws. Believe what you want, but know who you surround yourself with.

You are in agreement with the fundamental rationale that drives terroists to commit the crimes that they commit. It is precisely because you are in agreement that the rest of our culture ends up in such stark opposition. Because you believe it to be acceptable to kill others who violate certain laws, you are willing to impose all of your laws on another so they match, and there is agreement in definition of when the neccessity is employed.

In your own words, "I'm suggesting that when an individual commits a heinous crime, one which willfully violates the rights society recognizes of all, that offender rejects not only the rights of the victim but their own claim to those rights as well."

The subjectivity is what the society considers to be a heinous crime. We have our critera, others have their own. All the critera is bullsh*t, which I am pointing out, because the criteria is merely window dressing to create an artifical neccessity for sanctifying murder.

I'm not equating you with the terroists Cobra, and thank you for your mercy, but pointing out that you share a similar belief with them.

I think people like the terroists are wrong for believing as they do, just as I believe you wrong for believing as you do.

It is wrong to kill when there is no neccessity to do so. A man in chains provides no neccessity. Which is why beheading's are as wrong as stoning women as is our own forms of the death penalty.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 09:57:32

I think people like the terroists are wrong for believing as they do, just as I believe you wrong for believing as you do.

I can respect that position, though I persist in disagreeing.

I am pointing out, simply, that where you are coming from, the very basis of it, is the same place people who you so readily oppose are coming from.

That's where everyone is coming from. I decide it's okay to kill people for certain crimes, you decide it's better to lock them in cages. We're both in effect saying "what we think is right trumps what you think is acceptable and we take it upon ourselves to punish you." Subjectivity applies across the board, what punishment fits what crime and what is considered a crime at all.

clark · 2004-10-20 10:12:40

No, the difference Cobra is that you believe it legitimate to murder. I believe it illigitmate to murder.

We can both agree that crime deserves punishment. We can argue over what kind, or what length of punishment is appropriate for the crime.

There is a fundamental breakdown though because you accept, and I refuse, that murder can be justified when there is no neccessity.

Murder is killing when there is no neccessity. This is a black and white absolute. One of the very few I have ever come to realize.

It is wrong to murder. In all times, in all places, among all people, it is wrong. It is a violation of life itself.

This isn't faith, this isn't intellectual disection of rights, it simply is the truth.

We hold in combat that we may kill the enemy. Why? Neccessity dictates that we defend ourselves. We hold that if an enemy lays down his arms, we may not kill him? Why? Because there is no neccessity to do so.

We revile the beheading and slaughter of innocent people, unarmed and unaware, killed by criminals and thugs. Why? Because there is no neccessity for terroists to kill innocent people who posed no threat to them.

Because you are willing to accept that murder may be justified, you are willing to accept it may be used as a form of punishment. I refuse entirely to accept that murder can be used as a form of rationale punishment. That is the difference.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 10:50:00

Is it wrong to lock someone up in your basement for thirty years? Always?

If yes, prison is just as unjust and abhorrent as execution. In both cases you're taking a life in a sense. A truly vile crime.

If no, why? When? As punishment for crimes? So we can commit an action that we know to be wrong, but it's justified under the right circumstances? Necessity, perhaps? Okay, then is it necessary to send a violent criminal to prison, a rapist let's say.

Well, no. You could castrate him, tatoo a big red "R" on his forehead and let him go, he can't do it again. Unless of course we're worried that he might then commit other crimes, but then we're imprisoning people pre-emptively, surely you'd rather not go down that road?

You can choose to believe that the line is drawn at killing, that some wrong acts become acceptable under certain conditions but not others, fine. I make the same judgments, but I don't delude myself into thinking there is some absolute, some line beyond which you cannot pass under any circumstances defined by something other than our own self-imposed limits.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-18 13:24:15

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#27 2004-10-18 13:51:35

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#28 2004-10-18 14:12:20

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#29 2004-10-18 14:14:09

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#30 2004-10-18 14:45:07

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#31 2004-10-18 15:05:24

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#32 2004-10-18 15:14:22

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#33 2004-10-18 15:37:17

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#34 2004-10-18 15:50:18

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#35 2004-10-18 16:20:03

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#36 2004-10-18 16:56:41

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#37 2004-10-18 18:06:54

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#38 2004-10-19 03:41:34

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#39 2004-10-20 06:52:12

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#40 2004-10-20 07:01:01

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#41 2004-10-20 07:01:47

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#42 2004-10-20 07:37:19

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#43 2004-10-20 08:00:39

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#44 2004-10-20 08:27:52

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#45 2004-10-20 08:39:43

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#46 2004-10-20 08:58:06

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#47 2004-10-20 09:17:32

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#48 2004-10-20 09:57:32

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#49 2004-10-20 10:12:40

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

#50 2004-10-20 10:50:00

Re: Role of Religion in the Martian frontier

Board footer