Does anyone "deserve" to die.

The reason could vary, from acts they have done, to being different. This could range anywhere from capital punishment, accidents, murder or war. Have fun and be nice.

People suffering from a terminal illness or permenant injury, one which they have no hope whatsoever of recovery, and whose life consists of constant pain and agony. Not that they deserve death, per se, but they've certainly earned the right.

Beyond that it's very subjective. As much as I hate to quote popular movies, "Some who die deserve life, and some who live deserve death." Or something Gandalfish to that effect.

I would rather that certain people receive punishment than death. Death, in many ways, is a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, figuratively and literally.

Jeez, this is a huge topic! I don't can't possibly list everyone who deserves death, but I will give it a try.

Also, please, no one quote Gandalf!

Osama bin Laden Saddam Hussein Eric Rudolf (American Terrorist) All the terrorists in Camp X-Ray All child molesters All rapists All murderers

Thank you Blackhawk, you proved the point of my last sentance beautifully.

Saddam, Osama, rapists, murderers...do they deserve death really? The gut reaction of most people is "of course, ya bleedin' heart hippy!" But think about it. Let's say they die, right now. Bam - God snaps his fingers, they all drop dead. Arguably the world is a better place in their absence; I certainly wouldn't cry about it. But if you were to ask me how I felt about that, I would have to say "I'm disappointed, and ultimately unsatisfied." Why?

If they're dead, they can't be made to suffer as they've made others suffer. They can never know pain, or loss, or the agony which they truly deserve. Death to the scum of the earth is a gift to them, if a brief repreave and a fleeting sense of justice for the rest of us. I suppose this is where a strong belief in some form of Heaven of Hell comes into play. But I say why take the chance that there is neither? In death, Saddam, Osama et al certainly get the last laugh, having been truly pardoned in death for their crimes in life by avoiding any kind of meaningful punishment.

Justice. Not revenge, but justice. The reaping of what you sow. Death is a "Get-out-of-Jail-FREE" card.

I personally like the option of death by torture for some of the above mentioned people, but I am somewhat cruel and unfeeling towards those people.

I deserve to die. You deserve to die. We all deserve to die...as surely we will. None of us will escape this life alive, and there is no slow torturous death that can be applied to the truly wicked, such as will be applied in the world to come.

If Osama lives, prospers, even mocks the survivors of those he has killed in acts of violence sponsored by his hand, it will be but a flash compared to the retribution to come. It is not for us to try to judge the suitability for life of anyone, rather to aknowledge that all will be judged at some time.

Strangely, we all actually deserve to live, but we won't here, we won't now...there is hope for tomorrow...

wait...am I posting on the wrong thread...do I need to go back to that "religion" one...

EDIT: Wow, just reread my post...usually I try to be optomistic and look at things from a humorous vein...don't know what got into me (I'm still right, though :p )

Hacken Slash has beat me too it. To speak of who deserves to live and die is folly, we all deserve death, it is our birth-right, and our only birth-right.

Regardles of what awaits us upon this death this will remain so, on this, as in all else, we are all on equal footing.

To say you wish for another to die, to suffer pain, is not justice. Who are we to decree this? Do you have the understanding necessary to make such a descision? To weigh each life, it's past, it's untold future? You do not, I assure you. To gain pleasure from anothers pain is no different to inflicting that pain, which is what you have critisised these others for. Perhaps you too deserve to die.

But as I have said, everyone does.

OK...SCARY...second straight thread that Manus and I have agreed on...somebody slipped a dose of Liberal Humanist in my coffee...HELP!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

The only people that I will say I think 'deserve' to die is (as Death Rabbit said) those with no chance of recovery from terminal illness or debilitating injury. Those who (as I would be in the same situation) have not the will or courage to face life with such obstacles have certainly earned the right to die if they so wish - hence I'm a big supporter of Euthanasia, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. As for those of Osama's ilk, they can begin their suffering now for those they have caused to suffer, and then continue their torture on the other side of this existence.

I don't deserve to die. :p

I'm too brilliant, too strong, too fast and just overall too good (in an evil sense) to be killed by anyone.

Bring it on, ya' wussies!

:p :p

Regarding the topic, though, I'm not about to judge as vehemently as Blackhawk. I'll be more general instead. Who deserves to die?

Anyone that gets in my way! :evil:

Well, if your religious, then we all deserve death in the sense that if you were evil in life, your punishment will be legendary. If you were "good" in life, your reward will be legendary. The only exception would be fundementalist Islam (not real Islam). That, seems to me, is twisted the other way round.

If you're not religious, then nobody deserves death. People who are "good" don't deserve the long slumber. People who are "evil" don't deserve the release-without-punishment.

One thing that really bugs me is that people think Osama Bin Laden is the opitome of evil. I don't think he's particularly evil, he just beleives that by destroying innocent westerners, he somehow destroys part of the western monster.
There are other people who are more evil than he. Multinational Corporations, various Governments (from US to Congo to Indonesia), and people who put profits ahead of human life.

Death Rabit:

Thank you Blackhawk, you proved the point of my last sentance beautifully.
Now, now. :nono:

I didn't specify how I was going to execute them. I'm positive I could scare the hell out of you! :) :evil:

*stands beside Shura, although slightly further back and out of katana reach*

*nods*

The deservance of death is in the eye of the beholder.

Well, have to agree on that. Evil does depends on the eye of the beholder! We think Osama is evil, mainly because of the World trade center thing. What many fail to understand is that many terrorist aren't evil, they just fight back with the only weapons they have. They are not some evil overlords why wants to take over the world, no they just tries to retaliate against western imperialism. (Call it what you will, it remains the same.)

Ofcourse, the world trade bombing is a tragic incident, and all who have been touched by it has my sympathy, just as well as any who have starved or died because of disease in Iraq because of the western trade blockade of the country. Every where the west turns its eyes, people start to die. I don't view the people who fights back as evil. As being a soldier under Nato, they are still my enemy, no mistake there.

All the above naturally only comments about the people who fights for their religion and people, no matter how wrong it might seem with our western eyes. As for all the tyrants and dictators out there who rules through a reign of terror and oppression, there are absolutely no hope of redemption.

All humans deserve to die eventually but no one should be killed against their will. I am not religious and do not believe in good or evil I only believe in human. People do not kill because they are evil there is allways motives behind the kill, be it mental illness or greed. So what about those who are victims of this? Unfortunate and sad but killing the one responsible really doesn't help anyone.

Neither does torture, if you feel better from hurting somebody then you are a filthy animal higher on the scale of evil than they are, at least they're only causing pain to further a different objective. No person is beyond redemption and as human beings we do not have the right to dictate who "deserves" to live and die.

Osama bin Laden
Saddam Hussein
Eric Rudolf (American Terrorist)
All the terrorists in Camp X-Ray
All child molesters
All rapists
All murderers Classic knee jerk reaction, let's kill everyone. Odds are that every person on the hypothetical list can be somehow cured of their desire to hurt others, it's just that nobody is willing to make the effort.

We think Osama is evil, mainly because of the World trade center thing... Yeah, he's such a misunderstood guy. If only we were all more understanding the world would be a better place. Hitler? Well you could argue that some his policies were a little extreme, but there are worse ways to kill people than gassing them, you know. Stalin? The Soviet Union was a really big country. How else was he to impose order except by killing a tenth of the people and enslaving a further quarter. Chairman Mao? Well, China's biggest problem has always been overpopulation and, say what you like, you can't criticize Mao for not doing his best to reduce the number of Chinese.

That really is the dumbest sentiment I've read in a fair while.

I know I've spoken up about this sort of thing before, but I want everyone to consider things for a moment.

You critisize someone for doing something you don't like- you then say you will enjoy great pleasure from doing the exact same thing, or worse, to those people. Of course only they are the bad guy, you are just enacting justice. :rolleyes: How can you hate so many people you don't even know? If it is only their actions, or motivations, you hate, how can you accept the same things in yourself?

Arabwel, Grovflab, Morgoroth, and rastilin are right on the money in this, it would do us all well to heed their advice.

Right and wrong is usually different depending on your personal view, but nevertheless, there is usually a reason for such an act- to the people perpetrating it it may seem right, it may seem wrong, but they always have a reason. As such, how can we deem which particular act is right or wrong - we do not have a memory of all of history, past and present, so how could we? Are our own views more valid? Or is it a simple case of majority rules? Would you take the burden of all mankind on your shoulders, accept the consequence of every misdeed - for this is what you do when you pass judgement on another, you take responcibility for their actions. All we can do is do the right thing as we see it, and perhaps try to show others this way, make sure each moment is lived as we see best -we may be wrong in our own beliefs, but that is the best we can do. And you must apply every moral principle to yourself before any other. How can you say it is wrong to kill, or cause pain, when you are advocating such a thing yourself? That is senseless. First and foremost you are responcible for your own actions, and your own thoughts. If not you then who?

Do you understand the damage you do to yourself when you wish another ill will, when you cause another to suffer? If you did you would not feel this way.

But that is irrelevant in the face of the fact that that what you yourself do is wrong - by the very verdict that you applied to those you would cause death upon, you have condemned yourself to that same misdeed.

To take pleasure in someone else's suffering is a mental ilness. I do not accuse any one here of being insane for I am sure that if you did such a thing you would regret it, you would feel ashamed.

Let go of your rage, it does not help anyone, least of all yourself. Mystra's Chosen has also brought up a good point - there are a lot of people doing a lot of worse things here than the ones you speak out against so, it seems to me that the only factor involved here is your emotions. Use your reason, your sense of morality, that impulse which directs you - all of these will be far better guides.

I hope I have not spoken harshly or condescendingly- I have tried to keep my tone neutral, it is only that I do not wish to see people believing such things. I do not think many of you even truly believe the things you have said, your wishes forsome kind of vengence whatever they be, I think that such things are written only in anger, in the surface shroud with which mankind hides itself. I sincerely hope this is true. We cannot deem what is right or wrong, good or bad, in death, death is none of these things. To wish for it is something else entirely.

I totally agree with Manus, couldn't have said it better myself. ;)

Of course, even though I understand somewhat why these people do things such as the WTC and suicide bombings, that doesn't mean that I think we are in the wrong and we should let them keep doing it. I'm angry that so many people have died. I'm also angry that the US and Canada and Britain have aided in the killing of millions of people from Cambodia to Nicaragua. What the major countries of the world have done is a hell of a lot worse than what Bin Laden or Hussein could ever do. Not even Hitler compares to the bodycount these coutries have raised. It's in the hundreds of millions . There are people who insist that the Holocaust didn't happen, but there's even more people who insist that a different Holocaust has occured. The one that our governments have created.

I deserve to die! It would solve so many problems for everyone.

And moral relativism aside, rape and murder are wrong no matter where you are observing from. Now, I believe in Capital Punishment for such crimes, but I believe it should be done quickly -- as fun as it sounds when your venting to say you'd torture them slowly, Manus is right in that it would damage the soul of the torturer.

What about the soul of the executioner?

Same as Manus, and yet maybe a little more.

Everyone deserves something different from different points of views.
As to the whole terror thing, there can only exist something right and wrong if we play by the common rules. We don't, it's as simple as that. Thus what is right and wrong is determined by the ones with the biggest guns and the most power, and the victor will thus decide who deserves what.

Bottom line: There is no universal justice (right and wrong) since we're not one community. We're many and thus the justice is to be decided locally within each community.
If two communities comes to blows, the stronger community decides what's right and wrong.

Now how to change the problem of not having common rules, well that's a damn good question.
Conquest is one.. dunno what the other might be, slow integration/emigration of cultures perhaps, make everywhere a big mish mash of various points of view.


For instance, Death Rabbit's justice is vengeance. It's an emotional desire to see some balance/satisfaction in the world from his point of view. It's personal, it's emotional, it's vengeance, AND it's justice from his point of view. I cannot possibly see how you can distinguish these two from each other? (at least that's what I get from reading your post DR, please correct me if I'm wrong ;) )

[ November 05, 2003, 23:43: Message edited by: Lokken ]

Would you be so quick to hand out revenge if your mother was watching you? I know I wouldn't.

Totally depends, dude.

right now, I don't feel like killing anybody

Some who live deserve to die. Twice. By my hand, alone. And have their heart and kidneys and livers cut out, and given to more deserving people.

Some who die deserve 72 virgins in the afterlife. Just not the ones who died while killing other people. Twice?

C'est la vie.

Hmmm, Chris Williams, did you actually read the whole of my post? I never claimed Osama to be misunderstood, I just don't consider him evil. If you then read the end of my post, you will then see that he still is my enemy, which means that if I had the chance, I would do what I could to bring him down. Justice has nothing to do with that. Mystra's Chosen is on to something about the casualties of the western imperialism, which makes the world trace center a minor incident.

Oh, and I did write about my oppinion on so called dictators and tyrants, so I really don't understand the last four or five lines of your post.

1 - Pleasure/happiness is the sole intrinsic value.
2 - Our fundamental moral obligation is to produce as much happiness as we can.

1+2 = therefore we should choose to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

So, who should die? who deserve to die?
The person who when dead can produce the greatest amount of happiness in greatest amount of people.

If you have doubt about it, let me ask,
1 - how could an action that produces the most happiness possibly fail to be right?
2 - How could an action be right if another available action could have made can produce more happiness?

i don't really agree with all these. i just used them in my english class debate this morning on stem cell tech.

now what i really believed is,
treat all men as the end, not a mean to an end.
That should explain well enough itself.

[ November 06, 2003, 05:18: Message edited by: teekc ]

teekc, it sounds like you talk of a society where all humans would be reasonable. Well, I hate to burst the bubble, but they aren't.

Do you think it ok for the old free democracy to kill off Socrates? Just because majority wanted? I sure as hell don't, but that's just me.

And what is right? ;) Try to define it, then you'll see how hard it is.

Yeah well the point's been said here already. This is my problem as well. Too much thinking on what's right and what's wrong and what do I have the right to judge and what not leads to a state of complete undecidedness. No opinions, so to say.

We humans aren't meant to go that far though. We can't encompass the entire concept of evil and good from all possible angles in the entirety of the universe. That's impossible, to even theorize about it.

How about the evolution? Let's say we get another Hitler. He slaughters half of the population on this planet just for the fun of it. But in doing so, saves the planet from being destroyed by pollution and actually refines and improves the human genes so much that the next time a new threat comes, instead of our entire race being destroyed in it, we survive and expand out into the space. There, we survive by fighting and defeating other alien species... and I don't have to go any further than that.

In that simplest of stories, it's quite hard to tell wether that one person deserves to die or not. If he did (and was killed), 3 billion people would remain alive, but soon after this entire planet would be near-destroyed by pollution, and after that completely so through the other threat. But if he didn't deserve to die, well the consequences are obvious. Plus, there's the alien species to consider, his 'deserving' of death determined their lives and deaths as well. How can you ever tell the difference between right and wrong decisions on this scale?

So who *really* deserves to die then? The one you think. Or the person you asked thinks. Ultimately there is no better answer than that. Law is not one to speak for this for law is different in each nation and country. Law also serves only that one community, not the world, the universe, or the individual. As individuals are ever-different, then no one can be declared being more right than any other. So yes, when any one person feels someone deserved to die, that someone deserves to die.

I'm not much into philosophy in truth, just for this reason. But it is the truth. You can go half-way and say that the opinion of the majority of individual people would decide this, but would that make any difference to the story of the 3 billion people dying? The point here is not to go in to that state of "no opinions" again. The point is to realise that you can only do decisions from your own personal point of view, and act accordingly.

Everyone! Were all going to die.

It started as our attempt to define moral. Of course we can always say God says what is right and wrong. But that bugs a lot of people. Why does God particularly want us to behave in those ways? Are these actions good in nature? Or God just like these actions that's why they are good? Then it goes back to the start of the search of what is wright and what is rong.

Throughout our history, several people attempted to define right and wrong, moral and immoral.

“we should choose to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people"
This belongs to the consequentualist point of view, started by John Stuart Mill, aka utilitarianism, aka teleological ethics (goal, end driven). If killing Socrates can produce the greatest amount of happiness (not just happy) to the greatest amount of people (not just people of old free democracy), then, according to untilitariansim, he, Socrates, should die.
i have to stress that i don't really buying all these.

My greatest influence on moral issue comes from, the direct opposite of Mill's, Immanuel Kant's duty-based ethics, aka non-consequentualist, aka deontological (ignore goal, end).
You see, we should celebrate a good will more than a good action. An financially able person who donates just to get fame; another broke person who has a good will of donating but couldn't do so. The later, according to Kant,
Even if, by a special disfavor of fortune or by the niggardly provision of a stepmotherly nature, this will should wholly lack the capacity to carry out its purpose - if with its greatest efforts it should yet achieve nothing and only the good will were left (not, of course, as a mere wish but as the summoning of all means insofar as they are in our control)- then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself.As you can see here, for Kant, the highest good is the good will but not happiness. (i could go on and on for this, but in short), Kant has two methods to check if an action is good. Each will come to the same end. The second method, which i prefer, "treat all men as the end, not a mean to an end". Therefore, i should use Socrates' life as a mean to achieve my desire goal.

Of course, who can forget Aristotle. To Aristotle, eudimonia (roughly translated into happiness) is the higest good. Good is not a natural behavior or else we all will be born good. If you want to be a good archer, you learn from a good archer. If you want to be a good person, you learn from a good character. That's where we learn what is rignt and wrong. He than proceed to lay out his "doctrine of the Mean" (way far in China, Confucius had the same view). Mean is the middle range between Deficiency and Excess. To Aristotle, there are only two ways to go wrong, deficency and excess. To be good is to be in the mean.

All the above assume that we have responsiblity on others. Thomas Hobbes (and John Locke) had another view. There is no ultimate good nor wrong. It is naturally right for anyone of us to protect ourselves, maximize our benefits. However, if we act according to the Right of Nature, we will end up in the State of Nature. It is the most chaotic state, people killing people, people robbing people, no civilization, no nothing. It is the worst state possible for mankind (like what happened shortly post war Iraq then). To avoid falling into this state, we establish Social Contract between each other. Of course i can kill anyone i want to maximize my benefits but at the same time, others can do that too and that would be harmful for me. Therefore, we sign a socal contract, giving away our unrestricted freedom, so that i don't bug you, you don't mess me up. To maintain such contract, we need a 3rd party between us - Sovereign.

I am sure as anyone of you go through all these, you already form some critism. All these philosophers were not without oppositions too. This just proved how incapable we human are to define right and wrong, moral and immoral. Even if we managed to define morality, how do we ensure the enforcement?

In Woody Allen's "Crime and Misdeamors", Judah gotten aways with his crime. He then met Cliff near the end of the movie and told Cliff his "scary movie plot". He found out that we can commit crime and got away clear clean. There is no such things as "the all seeing eye". The rabbi in the movie was blind at the end of the movie! Bottom line, we still need God (or a cosmic mechanism) to ensure, enforce morality. And then this take us back to "God defines good".


-- i already knew the hardship in defining right and wrong. But there is a need, still, to define right and wrong. It's just a matter of choice. I cannot readily defend my belief, but it is still my belief and my guidelines.

). If killing Socrates can produce the greatest amount of happiness (not just happy) to the greatest amount of people (not just people of old free democracy), then, according to untilitariansim, he, Socrates, should die.
No. You paint with too broad a brush. Utilitarianism has moved on since J.S. Mill. Also, J.S. Mill would reject the above position as well I believe. Perhaps Jeremy Bentham (who is more likely 'the' founder of utilitarinaism than JS Mill if just one had to be picked) would be forced to agree with the above but certainly not Mill. That was the entire point of Mill attempting to determine a qualitative approach to the utilitarian calculus in the first place - he was attempting to avoid having to say that killing Socrates was good.

Modern analytic philosophers who ascribe to utilitarianism have moved well on.

With regards to Kant:

Therefore, i should use Socrates' life as a mean to achieve my desire goal.
Kant would never arrive at this conclusion in my opinion - it contradicts the sentence you used right before it as well.

However, if we act according to the Right of Nature, we will end up in the State of Nature. It is the most chaotic state, people killing people, people robbing people, no civilization, no nothing. It is the worst state possible for mankind You lump Hobbes in with Locke. Hobbes may believe something approaching this (though not really because Hobbes didn't think the state of nature was bad per se. he thought it was nasty, brutish, and short but it is the subsequent contract from which morality such as good and bad are derived - the state of nature is prior to these moral templates). Locke however thought man was fundamentally pretty good, but not perfect, and an all around cherrier fellow.

Bottom line, we still need God (or a cosmic mechanism) to ensure, enforce morality. And then this take us back to "God defines good".
Why do we need anyone to enforce morality? (or rephrased, why do we need the enforce morality?)

People look outside themselves for God because they cannot yet see within themselves.

Kant is a very smart fellow. There are a lot of others out there as well (Leinbiz, Berkley, Plato, Socrates, Kung Fus Tse, and many many more who I cannot remember by name at this point.

I do regret Utilitarianism's influence upon telology, for it is a twisted view, and has caused most people's view of telology to also be such. Telology is not so much the worship of the final effect, but the belief that all things happen solely for that final effect.

If you understand morality it does require an outside source, for all sources are within and without - they are the same.

Not just Utilitarianism, many other approaches moved on. But between brief sentences and detailed info, i always look for an easy way out.

About Socrates death, i think i have put the conditions specific enough. People would of course reject putting Socrates to death. Shouldn't that itself proved that Socrates living produce more happiness than Socrates die?

It's a typo. i mean, "The second method, which i prefer, "treat all men as the end, not a mean to an end". Therefore, i should use Socrates' life as a mean to achieve my desire goal." Shouldn't that be obvious enough that i made a typo because the previous is inconsistent with the later?

You lump Hobbes in with Locke i knew, but if i to seperate the two, then i will have to force myself to look into my notes and text. too much trouble. Few brief sentences to twist their similiar point of view serves my purpose better which is "a few brief looks at human's futile attempts to draw morality but at the end, there is still a need in God".

why do we need the enforce morality?Of couse, i really wish we don't need morality to be enforced. That way i can cunningly commit a crime, kill lots of people in dark, and you know what, without the "all seeing eye" i have no problem taking my conscience and feed it to wild dogs. If i can escape human eyes, i escaped everything. Why should i behave good altogether anyway?

Of couse, i really wish we don't need morality to be enforced. That way i can cunningly commit a crime, kill lots of people in dark, and you know what, without the "all seeing eye" i have no problem taking my conscience and feed it to wild dogs. If i can escape human eyes, i escaped everything. Why should i behave good altogether anyway? And why would you want to kill people?

Have you ever tried solitude for an extended amount of time?

Killing someone without being feared is often pointless.

1 - Why would i not kill? i had an affair with someone. she threaten to expose our affair. This might ruin my family, job and fame. Why would i not kill her? Why would i not kill? Someone laughed at me in school. Why would i not kill? Someone is competing a job with me. i have tons of reason to kill, i am not killing pointlessly. Killing is just one form of crime. Why would i not rob, theif, cheat...

Morality was built upon God as the enforcer and judge. Where is my conscience guilt if there is no all seeying eye?

2 - Solitude for an extended amount of time? yeah i did that, about 2 years, i never stepped out of my room. But i still don't get your point?

"Morality" exists because it from an sociological point of view makes sense from a society. A society agrees on that murder is bad because it benefits everyone. Each person gives up their power to murder whomever they wish to gain not needing to fear to be murdered by anyone for anything. That is the basis of all morality. It makes sense in human interaction and benefits the group as a whole, if such "morals" didnt exist humans wouldnt be able to work together at all and we would all be worse off each person trying to scrounge a living from the earth alone.

Well, obviously I can't speak for teekc, but my morality, my conscience, does not spring from fear of retribution or thoughts of personal or societal gain.

It comes from within, our innate sense of what is right, our leading impulses, and our empathy for anyone, or anything else, as the case may be.

Some may disagree, but this is where my ethics spring from, phisolophy cements them in choice, but they are always, and ever will be, present within me.

If this is not the case then I truly pity you, you do not know what it is you have lost.

I meant mental isolation, not physical.


What goes around, comes around.

If you dish out disaster, you can be rather sure it'll return to you. You're thinking on a miniature scale leaving an insane number of factors that could twist your idea of killing and the aftermath.
It has nothing to do with killing being wrong, it has something to do with the emotional response from those that cares for the one who dies.

And if you find those reasons you mentioned enough to kill if there wasn't a law, I'd say such an egoistic behavior would get you thrown out of society before long.

Ok, let me start this all over again, from Woody Allen's "Crime and Misdeamors".

Judah was a successful person with an innocent family. But he had an affair with another women. This women wanted Judah to divorce with his wife. Obviously Judah cannot do that. He had a reputation to live. He cannot simply throw away his family and his well being just to be with this women. He was going to put an end to his affair.

He tried 'civilized' method but the women wan't buying any of that. He asked his brother who had other 'ties' to help him. He 'pushed the botton' and this women was dead. Judah had several flashbacks. Most of them are his father talking about the all seeing eye. Judah at this point had guilt inside. At this point, he was also treat a rabbi who was gradually blind.

Several months later, in this rabbi's daughter's wedding, we see this blind rabbi dancing with his daughter. Judah met Cliff (Woody Allen). Knowing that Cliff was a was involved in documentary making, Judah told Cliff his 'scary story' (his own story). Cliff was not satisfy with the ending of this story, he suggested that 'this person' should be punished. So we have it, Judah said "That's the scary part." Judah then was a free person. As time passed, he felt no guilt at all. He escaped human eyes and he escaped all seeing eye, he escaped everything. His reputation was saved, his innocent family was saved, his 'well being' was saved.

So, that's it, are you more willing to believe that this is the world that you are living in? If i can escape my crime from police, i escape it clean. We all know how ineffective police are for getting all crimes under the sun to pay it's due.

If morality comes from society, should Socrates die if all the people of his society during his time thinks he should die? So, morality is just a relative concept but not absolute? Should it change according to time, location, population compostition and so on? If people living within a society think Americans should die by their suicide bombers, should Americans die?

Innate. Ancient Chineses (somewhere around Confucius' time) were debating about innately should human be good or bad? 'Innately bad' had an upper hand. There were no written laws at that time. Laws were written because the thought of human are innately bad. At the end, the 'laws' dominated Chin conquered all kingdoms and built a united China (China and Chin, see the link?). Far in Greece, Aristotle suggested, if we are innately good, then why should we learn morality at all? Why should we be told what is moral and not at all? On top of all these, i don't quite believe that human have anything innate at all. That's why we need culture (education and such). We need knowledge (such as what is good and what is bad) passed from one generation to another.

What goes around, comes around.
Isn't that a cosmic mechanism that keeps everything in order itself? Not God, but godly enough. Besides, who said i want to perform these 'crimes' in open and let people know? In Judah's case, the women's death sloved his problem. Nobody knew what actually happened to this women. Police investigations were futile. Judah got away, clean. Did he commited a crime? Should he be punished at all?

If you do not feel those things which I claim are innate, then I do not doubt that you also have little value for others, as you have indeed claimed. If you have no respect for anything else, then it too is little wonder to me that you refuse to accept the wisdom, or the knowledge, of anyone else on these matters.

I am aware of these things, and I respect the wisdom of those more experienced than I. No amount of nihilistic rhetoric will convince me otherwise.

Has the man done wrong? Of course. Even if he was fully 'justified' in his actions it would still be wrong. Each thing is right or wrong in itself. Each thing is purposeful in what is caused by it. Should he go unpunished? That is not for me to decide, only time will tell. I base my own actions in the only thing I can presently know- the righness or wrongness of the instant, and in this, no death is right.

Nothing is wrong in time either, as what happened has happened, and has happened for a reason, and could not have been different- else that would have happened instead.

So I leave it to you, teekc, and anyone else, not to ask what should or should not happen, but what you should do, yourself. Do not deny this aspect of yourself, do not attempt to try and run from it or hide. You cannot. You only deny yourself-which only strengthens its existence all the more.

I pity you, but I know you will not feel this way forever. That is my belief for you, take it as you will, but my mind will not be changed.

I wish death upon.. No one :)

I wish though that there were some way of teaching some persons a lesson or perhaps something like that :)
Dunno, Me bloody mind is empty

Suggesting that we are governed by innate is very dangerous.

Let me sum up this real quick.
My major moral guideline is "treating man as the end not a mean to an end" as i presented in my previous post.
By saying that there should be a cosmic mechanism to enforce morality, i do not advocate that we should obey morality in fear of its punishments. As you can see my moral guideline in the first place is not about this.
However, i do not feel comfortable knowing that there is a possibility for bad to remained unpunished forever. Therefore, a cosmic mechanism must exist to ensure that, hence, God.

As i was saying, innate is a very dangerous thought. If we are governed innately, then how can any person hold morally resposible for his/her action? We punish those did wrong because they could have done it otherwise. If any could not do it otherwise (like pushing the shortest straw off a over crowded life saving boat), then the (supposely) "crime" (in normal situation) is justified. i am more incline to think that we are given a choice. i can make decision.

If i commited a crime, it is because a bad decision i decided, so i should be responsible for the crime i comitted, thus i should be punished. If i was governed innately, i wasn't present a choice. If i commit a crime, i cannot be held responsible because i could not do it otherwise.
Putting "neutral innate" aside, if we are innately good, then why should we be taught the way of good anyway? Where is bad coming from?

Those who commited bad, are they innately bad? The situation of innate A saying innate B is wrong is just the same as racism, sexism, Nazism... Moreover, how can we say those innately bad people are responsible for their action if we are governed by good innate?

Lastly, i can of course act according to my innate, my guideline or whatever i choose to be the defination of right. However, i do not want to believe that at the same time while i paid extra caution to do good, a cunning bad went even more prosper and remained unpunished forever

I say that anyone who has an illness that cannot be cured and has said they would rather die then live, any pedefiles, rapists, murderers, and people loike that in general