What is this man?

[TeddyKGB]

I'd call him a man who died a good death. He avenged his wife at the cost of his own life.

Avenged to whom? There is no cosmic score-board that I know of.

See I think "forgive and forget" is a good policy for small things, small blights. But if someone has deliberately taken the life of someone you love, I think it would be an insult to forgive and forget.

Insult to whom?

 

[quatona]

I'd call him a man who died a good death.

Amost makes me regret that I never seem to have an opportunity to die such a good death.

He avenged his wife at the cost of his own life.

You make that sound like a good thing.

I disagree. To actually take life and to give up one's regard for their own life is extremely difficult. Killing someone isnt like they show it in the movies. To be willing to forgo one's life and to be actually ABLE to do it is probably one of the few great ends a person can closeout their lives with.

I fail to see how it is of any advantage to whomever. A death that causes a lot of people a lot of harm and doesn´t benefit anyone but simply satisfies my revenge feelings can hardly be called a good death in my view. Well, maybe it can, but it simply ignores the majority of aspects the whole thing has.
I´m not exactly a great fan of suicide bombing, either.

See I think "forgive and forget" is a good policy for small things, small blights. But if someone has deliberately taken the life of someone you love, I think it would be an insult to forgive and forget.

Insult?
And how exactly is the better alternative to "forgive and forget" mass murder?

 

[quatona]

Nontheistic martyr fantasies seem to be even less convincing than theistic ones.

 

[Steezie]

Avenged to whom? There is no cosmic score-board that I know of.

His wife

Insult to whom?

The person who was lost. If I were to die un-justly and know that my family or loved ones did not avenge my death, I would be greatly insulted. That would say to me that my life was not worth fighting for.

Amost makes me regret that I never seem to have an opportunity to die such a good death.

But you can. Be a good man, defend those who cannot or will not defend themselves, care for your family, love your partner, and strive always to speak the truth. When you die, you will die a good death. Death in battle is not the only good death there is to be had.

You make that sound like a good thing.

And the way I see it, it is. He was willing to place the memory of the life of another above his own.

I fail to see how it is of any advantage to whomever. A death that causes a lot of people a lot of harm and doesn´t benefit anyone but simply satisfies my revenge feelings can hardly be called a good death in my view. Well, maybe it can, but it simply ignores the majority of aspects the whole thing has.

You assume that his death benefits no one. He has caused the death of those who would go out and kill more people, and I am fully aware of the unjust nature of punishing someone for a crime they MAY yet commit. But it can also be looked at as punishment and justice being served.

I´m not exactly a great fan of suicide bombing, either.

Nor am I

And how exactly is the better alternative to "forgive and forget" mass murder?

To forgive and forget, I feel, is to condone. A feeling of "its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" may arise

 

[quatona]

His wife

His wife was dead already.

The person who was lost. If I were to die un-justly and know that my family or loved ones did not avenge my death, I would be greatly insulted. That would say to me that my life was not worth fighting for.

I hear the family and friends of those five of your victims who hadn´t even killed your wife saying this, and I understand what the term "spirale of violence" means.

But you can. Be a good man, defend those who cannot or will not defend themselves, care for your family, love your partner, and strive always to speak the truth. When you die, you will die a good death.

I prefer to distribute my compassion more evenly.

Death in battle is not the only good death there is to be had.

There is no battle in your example. There is one murder and then there are six murder and a suicide.

And the way I see it, it is. He was willing to place the memory of the life of another above his own.

I can´t seem to say how his actions benefitted the memroy of the life of his wife, in the first place.
Besides, you forgot the part where he does not only put the memory of his wife (whatever that might mean) above his own life, but above the life of others. You simply pick a very narrow perspective when determining the result of an action.

You assume that his death benefits no one.

Yes, and I would need to be shown how it benefits anyone (and how it benefits more than it harms) in order to change my opinion. All I can get from your description of what happened is devastation and destruction.

He has caused the death of those who would go out and kill more people,

Are you hypothetically assuming that he is a fortune teller, or are you hypothetically assuming the you and I are?

and I am fully aware of the unjust nature of punishing someone for a crime they MAY yet commit. But it can also be looked at as punishment and justice being served.

Yes, if you simply ignore the unjust parts you can make everything appear as just.

Nor am I

Yet, they follow the same paradigms you are outlining here.

To forgive and forget, I feel, is to condone.

No. To forget is to forget, to forgive is to forgive, and to condone is to condone.

A feeling of "its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" may arise

With whom?

 

[Steezie]

His wife was dead already.

Her death was an in-justice and requires that the guilty party be brought to justice. Her husband did that at the cost of his own life.

I hear the family and friends of those five of your victims who hadn´t even killed your wife saying this, and I understand what the term "spirale of violence" means.

Perhaps, but I wonder what violence will ensue if a criminal knows he will be forgiven for his crimes. And also perhaps a violent offender might think more carefully on his actions if he knew that vengeance might come knocking on his door. Im not advocating that all society be run this way, by the way.

I prefer to distribute my compassion more evenly.

Compassion is an important virtue, but compassion must be distributed wisely. Give too much to too many and you may find that there are those who take advantage of it. In the vast majority of cases and situations, compassion is called for and appropriate. But there are those rare, select few instances where a strong arm and an un-flinching eye is more suited.

There is no battle in your example. There is one murder and then there are six murder and a suicide.

The man died in a gun-battle with the gang members. He did not shoot himself. He did not execute un-armed people, but fought with people who possessed weapons and the ability to fire back.

I can´t seem to say how his actions benefitted the memroy of the life of his wife, in the first place.

Her un-just death was avenged and the person that ended it was punished.

Besides, you forgot the part where he does not only put the memory of his wife (whatever that might mean) above his own life, but above the life of others. You simply pick a very narrow perspective when determining the result of an action.

Im not sure what you mean here

Yes, and I would need to be shown how it benefits anyone (and how it benefits more than it harms) in order to change my opinion. All I can get from your description of what happened is devastation and destruction.

Crimes were paid for by the people that committed them and a man knowingly sacrificed himself to make them pay for these crimes. I see a heroic death in that.

Are you hypothetically assuming that he is a fortune teller, or are you hypothetically assuming the you and I are?

I say again that it is un-fair to punish people for crimes that they MIGHT commit, but to punish for crimes that have already taken place is not out of bounds.

Yes, if you simply ignore the unjust parts you can make everything appear as just.

What is un-just? Six people were attacked, lost their lives in battle, and died fighting. Their deaths were not dishonorable, they died fighting. They died fighting for the wrong reasons (to defend themselves from a punishment they deserved for a crime they committed) but they still died fighting which is, in and of itself, worthy of some degree of honor.

Yet, they follow the same paradigms you are outlining here.

Suicide bombers kill indiscriminately and have no thought to innocent lives they might destroy. This man picked his target, entered the known hang-out of the gang members that killed his wife and engaged them in battle. He did not kill any innocent people, all the people who died by his hand were people who had committed (or helped to commit) violent acts.

No. To forget is to forget, to forgive is to forgive, and to condone is to condone.

To forgive and forget constantly is to condone.

With whom?

With people who wish to commit violent acts

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No, what he did was awesome. My only hope is that should something like this happen to me, I would have the cajones to follow suit.

I would disagree.

It probably requires less cajones, guts, thought, effort or even maturity when responding with common self-interest or giving into destructive desires.

It takes superior qualities to do good or to carry on with a charitable reaction.

While negative consequences for a wrong is generally considered just or fair, there are fruits that are above 'even'. And then there is the ol' adage of two wrongs doesn't make a right.

A contrast can be seen when two different natures are demonstrated side by side. One evokes shame while the other is admirable.

Gal 5:19-24

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.


It might be said that the hypothetical where the victim chose revenge demonstrates that he was enslaved by an act committed by another in contrast to being truly free despite what others might do around him.

 

[Steezie]

It probably requires less cajones, guts, thought, effort or even maturity when responding with common self-interest or giving into destructive desires.

It takes superior qualities to do good or to carry on with a charitable reaction.

To stare death in the face and draw your sword I think requires as much strength and courage as to stare death in the face and walk onward. I have great respect for people who can turn the other cheek, many Buddhist monks have endured harsh treatment but never lashed out. And that does require strength and courage. But to say that to draw your sword and march out to meet certain death with your head held high requires no courage or is weak, I think you have a very odd view of life and death.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

To stare death in the face and draw your sword I think requires as much strength and courage as to stare death in the face and walk onward.

I would say it depends.

I have great respect for people who can turn the other cheek, many Buddhist monks have endured harsh treatment but never lashed out. And that does require strength and courage.

I would agree.

But to say that to draw your sword and march out to meet certain death with your head held high requires no courage or is weak, I think you have a very odd view of life and death.

Hmm... seems you quoted my post, but the above portion isn't found anywhwere in my post.

BTW and just the observation - the moral issues of risking or giving one's life wrongly, pointlessly, because there are no other options or in selfless sacrifice for others is blatantly abscent from the consideration above - the above being your words, not mine.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Who feeds you these lies?

The vast majority of Christians, and my own reading of the Bible.

Please point to me the scripture ordering Christians to take vengeance against those kinds of people.

Homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13
Pagans: Exodus 34:11
Idolaters: Ezekiel 20:7, 44:10; 1 Corinthians 5:11
Murderers: 1 Peter 4:15
Blasphemers: Leveticus 24:10-23; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10

Then perhaps I'll be convinced of what you say "Christianity" teaches, then question what the heck I've been learning.

You mean you don't question it already?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Avenged to whom? There is no cosmic score-board that I know of.

To himself, I'd imagine.

Insult to whom?

The memory of his wife.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The vast majority of Christians, and my own reading of the Bible.


Homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13
Pagans: Exodus 34:11
Idolaters: Ezekiel 20:7, 44:10; 1 Corinthians 5:11
Murderers: 1 Peter 4:15
Blasphemers: Leveticus 24:10-23; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10


You mean you don't question it already?

The above is probably a good argument against why when there is no indication that the particular religion is understood or even subscribed to, one should presume to try teaching about it.

 

[JGG]

The above is probably a good argument against why when there is no indication that the particular religion is understood or even subscribed to, one should presume to try teaching about it.

Perhaps you could retort to the specific points, rather than blanket condemning them all. I'm curious as to the specific refutation of each one as there are sects of Christianity which are still very keen on at least 3 of them.

 

[.Sabre.]

To the OP:
I'd call the man driven insane with grief.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Perhaps you could retort to the specific points, rather than blanket condemning them all. I'm curious as to the specific refutation of each one as there are sects of Christianity which are still very keen on at least 3 of them.

Perhaps if the off topic and unsubstantiated claims interested anyone much, someone could start a thread about various personal perceptions over in GA and hope someone with substantial spare time and knowledge about the subject could help straighten out where errors are, if any (i.e. the use of the word vengeance and who and how there was offense, etc.).

 

[quatona]

Her death was an in-justice and requires that the guilty party be brought to justice.

I seem to be missing several things here.
1. I must have missed the memo in which they officially released this notion.
2. I must have missed the memo in which they officially declared that avenge is a necessary part of justice.
3. I am missing the official declaration that justice is a value in its own right and a greater good, no matter what the effects are.
Bottomline: What you are appealing to here is your personal idea of justice - a creed which of course you are entitled to, but which I have no reason to adopt or give any special treatment over other personal ideas of justice.


I´ll give you two personal creeds in return:
1.I don´t like the idea that everyone goes out and enforces their personal ideas of justice.
2. I don´t like the idea that people slaughter each other for their ideologies, ideas of justice, feelings of honour or other such stuff.Now, you may or may not disagree with these creeds (they are mere creeds, after all). However, I would expect you to be consistent.
If you like these ideas it would be consistent to allow them to everyone. If you don´t like them, there is no consistent intelligible reason why to exempt you of all (or the protagonist of your fantasy, for that matter) from it. The mere fact that it is your idea of justice and your ideology isn´t sufficient reason to grant you an exception. Unless you can show how you are so very special.

Her husband did that at the cost of his own life.

This is not the issue. I have no problem with people committing suicide, and if they want they can do it like drama queens all the like.
The issue I am concerned with is the fact that he murdered a group of persons.

Perhaps, but I wonder what violence will ensue if a criminal knows he will be forgiven for his crimes.

That´s an interesting question, but it leads too far off the issue at hand.
Let´s keep in mind that we haven´t yet established that „justice“ is the same as „your, Steezie´s, idea of justice“, and that by using the passive tense you pretend to make a statement about general forgiveness, whilst actually you are only speaking of your personal forgiveness (or that of your protagonist, for that matter).
We also haven´t established that forgiveness vs. avenge is a tertium non datur.
The fact that the murderer of his wife hasn´t been caught and brought to the justice that is established in your society does in no way suggest that he „has been forgiven“.

And also perhaps a violent offender might think more carefully on his actions if he knew that vengeance might come knocking on his door.

So we slaughter people in order to establish that slaughter is wrong. Doesn´t make much sense to me.

Im not advocating that all society be run this way, by the way.

Yes, I have noticed that already. You just advocate it when it is about your personal idea of justice.

Compassion is an important virtue, but compassion must be distributed wisely. Give too much to too many and you may find that there are those who take advantage of it. In the vast majority of cases and situations, compassion is called for and appropriate. But there are those rare, select few instances where a strong arm and an un-flinching eye is more suited.

That depends greatly on the goals one has.

The man died in a gun-battle with the gang members. He did not shoot himself.

What?? You were a bit unprecise in your OP (I notice a preference for the passive tense in your descriptions, for some reason): „were shot in a fire-fight“. Does that mean that the loud music caused them to shoot each other?
Was the „gun-battle with the gang-members“ actually a „gun battle among the gang members“?

He did not execute un-armed people, but fought with people who possessed weapons and the ability to fire back.

I am not sure I understand how the fact that I own a gun entitles anyone to shoot at me.

Her un-just death was avenged and the person that ended it was punished.

And this helps her memory exactly how?
On another note you would have to explain how the protagonist achieved the position of an instance entitled to distribute „punishment“.

Im not sure what you mean here.

You have been reducing the issue to very few selected aspects and ignored a lot of others in your rationalizations.

Crimes were paid for by the people that committed them and a man knowingly sacrificed himself to make them pay for these crimes. I see a heroic death in that.

That was not my question. My question was „How does it benefit anyone?“
I don´t seem to understand how „crimes being payed for“ help with anything. I don´t understand where your underlying creed „Crimes have to be paid for“ comes from, and in particular I don´t understand how adding a few more crimes pays for previous crimes.
I don´t see any value in heroism if it doesn´t serve a practical purpose.
If substracting all your personal abstract concepts you have designed to justify this action, I simply see this:
I don´t like people slaughtering each other. Previously to his actions one person had been slaughered – which is terrible enough. After his actions six others were slaughtered, too, and this was his very intention. In addition, a few wives had lost their husband, a few kids had lost their fathers. This is the practical resume, and it doesn´t look good to me.
To me, the significance of foggy ideas like „the memory of his wife has benefitted“ fades completely in view of this.

I say again that it is un-fair to punish people for crimes that they MIGHT commit, but to punish for crimes that have already taken place is not out of bounds.

Well, why did you bring it up then? The guy killed a couple of guys who hadn´t killed his wife along with the guy who did. You handwaved that away with the „they were likely to kill others, and his action prevented that“ argument. So, if this is not really your argument, how exactly do you justify killing an entire group for the action of a person (even within your avenge based concept)?

What is un-just? Six people were attacked, lost their lives in battle, and died fighting. Their deaths were not dishonorable, they died fighting.

I´m afraid I can´t follow. An attack gains a posteriori justification if the attacked person fought back? IOW if a couple of criminals shoot a policeman this isn´t a problem anymore if the policeman had the opportunity to shoot back? What is the logic behind this?

They died fighting for the wrong reasons (to defend themselves from a punishment they deserved for a crime they committed) but they still died fighting which is, in and of itself, worthy of some degree of honor.

The majority of them hadn´t killed the woman. So, even in your avenge based justice concept, they didn´t deserve this „punishment“ for the crime that they hadn´t committed.

Suicide bombers kill indiscriminately and have no thought to innocent lives they might destroy.

Just like the guy in your scenario. He provocated a fight with the intention to kill a group indiscrimate of their individual actions.
But the main communality: They as well as your guy consider themselves the impersonificated arbiters of justice and legitimate deliverers of punishment and allow themselves the right to kill others in order to enforce their personal ideas of juctice.

To forgive and forget constantly is to condone.

Other than merely claiming a modal equivocation, you would have to substantiate it.
I am wondering the following:
You are advocating killing for the purpose of avenge, and you clearly declare that you are willing to do it. I do not want to condone this. Following your reasoning – would that mean that I have to try to find you and kill you in order to not be misunderstood as condoning it?

With people who wish to commit violent acts

Like, the protagonist in your scenario?

 

[TeddyKGB]

To himself, I'd imagine.

That seems like a personal problem. Not a good justification for murder, in any case.

The memory of his wife.

How can something that exists only in his head be insulted?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That seems like a personal problem. Not a good justification for murder, in any case.

Apparently, it was justification enough for the widower. What else matters?

How can something that exists only in his head be insulted?

Because it feels whatever the man's psyche wants it to feel. We have evolved to keep special records on our kith and kin, because our biased behaviour towards them benefits our collective genome overall. However, just as religion is a by-product of various evolved mechanisms, so too is grief a by-product of these records. Upon the death of a loved one, we find it hard to reconcile the nonexistance of the person to whom we have a very intimate record of: our eyes say they are dead, but our minds scream that they are not.

Now, I'm not sure if this is true for everyone, but before I say or do something to a person, I run a quick simulation in my mind to see how they would react. To the grief-stricken, then, basically runs these checks before they do something involving the dead person (disposing of their clothes, for instance). Often, this is very hard to do, since in our primal minds, they're sitll alive, and they would be insulted by someone throwing away their clothes (I know I would be if I came back from uni to find my dad burning my stuff ).

Anyway, I think I've ranted long enough. Basically, our primal minds assume they're still alive, and living people are vengeful creatures. If I were gunned down, I'd sure as hell want the gunner to pay! So perhaps that's what's going on in the widower's mind: by killing those who killed his wife, he is appeasing the mental record of her.

 

[Domenico]

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The above is probably a good argument against why when there is no indication that the particular religion is understood or even subscribed to, one should presume to try teaching about it.

Since you have simply asserted that I have misunderstood Christianity, and have made no effort to justify your claim, I'm going to relegate this as (yet another) ad hominem.