Your Most Ethically Questionable View

[PsychoSarah]

A thread to post what you think is your most ethically questionable view.

Mine: I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I think all murderers should be given the death penalty, with no last supper, and a maximum of 5 years for appeals. I think repeat rape offenders and child rapists should also be killed. Illegal slave trafficking? Kill them. I also view that willfully spreading diseases, such as herpes, without informing sexual partners or people that will be in close contact (depending on how the disease is spread) should be a fine-able offense.

I think that if there are family members of the murder victim still alive that they should get to choose how the convicted murderer dies, and that all possible methods of death should be potential options. If there are no family members or they withhold that right, then by default, the murderer should die by the same method they killed their victim/s. If there were multiple methods of killing, the default will be random among the victims.

Other offenses that qualify for the death penalty would mean death by lethal injection.

I think judges that consistently give different sentence lengths for equal crimes on people with equal criminal histories should be fined at the end of the first year of these offenses equal to half of their wages, and fired if it persists 2 years in a row. A woman that rapes a 15 year old boy shouldn't get a shorter sentence than a man that rapes a 15 year old girl, etc. Forced envelopment should be added to the legal definition of rape to better cover woman on man rape situations.

This is what I view as my most ethically questionable views, the summation of my harshness when it comes to legal matters.

 

[Eryk]

I think personal income should be taxed at 100% over, let's say, a hundred grand. No one needs or deserves to be rich. The wealthy have a hoarding disorder and they give us nothing but social inequality. Surplus income is put to better use in education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. On this point my conscience doesn't feel queasy one little bit.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Probably the idea that there's no such thing as a "war crime" and all war should be fought as "total war"...not limited in any way...

I don't think that anyone should claim a moral high ground in war...once the decision is made to invade a nation and kill it's people, there really is no moral high ground and all that matters is victory. I think concepts of "moral conflicts" and "limited engagement" simply allow for more death and destruction and longer drawn out engagements where no one wins.

I think if all war was fought as total war, there would be less of it and everyone would lend it the gravity such decisions deserve.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I think repeat rape offenders and child rapists should also be killed.

I understand the outrage against them. But death is a severe punishment. It should only be done in the most extreme cases. My concern is that perps guilty of those crimes might kill their victims since they'd be facing the death penalty either way and they stand a better chance of getting away with it if their victims aren't alive to testify against them.

I also view that willfully spreading diseases, such as herpes, without informing sexual partners or people that will be in close contact (depending on how the disease is spread) should be a fine-able offense.

I honestly don't understand why America doesn't quarantine people with serious diseases like AIDS and gunk like that. The patient's constitutional rights mean precisely nothing to me. It's a matter of public health and they need to be removed from society for the public good.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think personal income should be taxed at 100% over, let's say, a hundred grand. No one needs or deserves to be rich. The wealthy have a hoarding disorder and they give us nothing but social inequality. Surplus income is put to better use in education, infrastructure, health care, and scientific research. On this point my conscience doesn't feel queasy one little bit.

-_- taxing at 100% would leave the wealthy with no money to buy food and other necessities. How about taxation such that people that would earn 100 grand a year would have enough to maintain a middle class lifestyle just as a person that makes 50 grand a year would?

 

[Eryk]

taxing at 100% would leave the wealthy with no money to buy food and other necessities.

It's a marginal rate, above the 100 grand income threshold.

 

[evoeth]

I believe suicide is not inherently immoral, though typically regrettable.

I believe religion is the primary bulwark of bad morals. That is, religion or religious beliefs are the most common justifications for immoral behavior.

I believe that moral culpability requires understanding, and that punishing those who don't understand their actions serves no purpose, no matter how severe (think ISIS).

 

[Eryk]

Probably the idea that there's no such thing as a "war crime" and all war should be fought as "total war"...not limited in any way...

I don't think that anyone should claim a moral high ground in war...once the decision is made to invade a nation and kill it's people, there really is no moral high ground and all that matters is victory. I think concepts of "moral conflicts" and "limited engagement" simply allow for more death and destruction and longer drawn out engagements where no one wins.

I think if all war was fought as total war, there would be less of it and everyone would lend it the gravity such decisions deserve.

Reading this, I'm reminded of what it took to get the Japanese to surrender during WW2. It's horrible, but that's war.

 

[AfterThought]

A thread to post what you think is your most ethically questionable view.

Mine: I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I think all murderers should be given the death penalty, with no last supper, and a maximum of 5 years for appeals. I think repeat rape offenders and child rapists should also be killed. Illegal slave trafficking? Kill them. I also view that willfully spreading diseases, such as herpes, without informing sexual partners or people that will be in close contact (depending on how the disease is spread) should be a fine-able offense.

I think that if there are family members of the murder victim still alive that they should get to choose how the convicted murderer dies, and that all possible methods of death should be potential options. If there are no family members or they withhold that right, then by default, the murderer should die by the same method they killed their victim/s. If there were multiple methods of killing, the default will be random among the victims.

Other offenses that qualify for the death penalty would mean death by lethal injection.

I think judges that consistently give different sentence lengths for equal crimes on people with equal criminal histories should be fined at the end of the first year of these offenses equal to half of their wages, and fired if it persists 2 years in a row. A woman that rapes a 15 year old boy shouldn't get a shorter sentence than a man that rapes a 15 year old girl, etc. Forced envelopment should be added to the legal definition of rape to better cover woman on man rape situations.

This is what I view as my most ethically questionable views, the summation of my harshness when it comes to legal matters.

I agree do that and I think crime levels would be reduced drastically

 

[Ana the Ist]

Reading this, I'm reminded of what it took to get the Japanese to surrender during WW2. It's horrible, but that's war.

War is supposed to be horrible...

I think it was Frederick Barbarossa who was notorious for his siege tactics in his times. If a city was reluctant to surrender to his forces, he would launch discouraging letters over the walls to the occupants to tell them the hopelessness of their situation. If they still held out, garbage, feces, and rats to spread disease and pestilence went next. If that failed, heads of townsfolk who didn't make it to protection in time went over next...which must've been horribly frightening to the people inside who recognized them. If they continued to hold out...live prisoners who didn't make it to safety went next, and one could imagine the psychological impact of watching your screaming neighbors sailing over siege walls to their deaths would have.

This was all before he would launch actual stones. One might imagine that these men were exceptionally cruel...but they weren't. They simply understood what it took to break a people...to take the fight out of them completely. Basil the Bulgar slayer is another. As his name would imply, he fought the Bulgars several times and when he captured a great many prisoners...he would separate them into groups of 100 and burn or cut out the eyes of 99 of them, leaving one man with sight to lead the others back home.

War is horrible, and it should never be considered lightly. I think we do consider it lightly because we believe in our moral superiority built upon our restraint...and in my mind, it's an illusion...a lie. If we were ever invaded by a capable force...I've no doubt that we would use every method available to win. It would be awful.

 

[Sketcher]

I think that if there are family members of the murder victim still alive that they should get to choose how the convicted murderer dies, and that all possible methods of death should be potential options. If there are no family members or they withhold that right, then by default, the murderer should die by the same method they killed their victim/s. If there were multiple methods of killing, the default will be random among the victims.

Other offenses that qualify for the death penalty would mean death by lethal injection.

Similar views have tempted me, but it essentially requires the state to train people to kill in truly awful ways - and what if the murderer invented new methods of killing? The goal is to not only punish the crime, but to get these people off the streets. The state would be ensuring that instead of elimination of the evil that moved the killer, we'd be making a 1-for-1 trade. It would be training sadistic torturers and killers who would go home to their families every day.

I can't get on board with that. Kill them quick, and kill them clean. It preserves more human decency on the side of law enforcement. And as a man of faith, I believe that the perpetrators will be going to Hell anyway. That's where the real payback begins.

And endorsing that may just be my most ethically questionable view. As good as it may be that some people go to Hell, redemption through Christ is much better, and being on the side of redemption is my duty.

 

[zephcom]

A thread to post what you think is your most ethically questionable view.

Mine: I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I think all murderers should be given the death penalty, with no last supper, and a maximum of 5 years for appeals. I think repeat rape offenders and child rapists should also be killed. Illegal slave trafficking? Kill them. I also view that willfully spreading diseases, such as herpes, without informing sexual partners or people that will be in close contact (depending on how the disease is spread) should be a fine-able offense.

I think that if there are family members of the murder victim still alive that they should get to choose how the convicted murderer dies, and that all possible methods of death should be potential options. If there are no family members or they withhold that right, then by default, the murderer should die by the same method they killed their victim/s. If there were multiple methods of killing, the default will be random among the victims.

Other offenses that qualify for the death penalty would mean death by lethal injection.

I think judges that consistently give different sentence lengths for equal crimes on people with equal criminal histories should be fined at the end of the first year of these offenses equal to half of their wages, and fired if it persists 2 years in a row. A woman that rapes a 15 year old boy shouldn't get a shorter sentence than a man that rapes a 15 year old girl, etc. Forced envelopment should be added to the legal definition of rape to better cover woman on man rape situations.

This is what I view as my most ethically questionable views, the summation of my harshness when it comes to legal matters.

Wow. That is an interesting thread. There are so many places one can find oneself in conflict with ethics. For instance, I think masturbation should not only be accepted in society but encourage from teen age onward. Anyone who has not explored their own body should have no right to explore someone else's body.

Or there is the ethics concerning laws. I don't think that just because a law exists that it has to be obeyed. For instance, just because a law allows a corporation to poison someone's water supply should not mean that the people who are being poisoned should have no recourse. After all, killing a corporation is not the same thing as killing a human being. Harder maybe, but not the same.

Interesting topic.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I'm in favor of euthanasia in certain cases. I watched my mother suffer past the point where I would have taken a pet to be put down. What's the difference? Intolerable suffering is intolerable suffering. The yelps of pain from my mother even though she was comatose, as her limbs contracted and spasmed will haunt me the rest of my life.

 

[zephcom]

I believe suicide is not inherently immoral, though typically regrettable.

I believe religion is the primary bulwark of bad morals. That is, religion or religious beliefs are the most common justifications for immoral behavior.

I believe that moral culpability requires understanding, and that punishing those who don't understand their actions serves no purpose, no matter how severe (think ISIS).

I never understood the idea that suicide is a crime. Who is going to be arrested?

Nor do I understand the reasoning of those who would not allow someone facing a painful death of a disease from the release that suicide allows. It is simply cruel to force someone to undergo that pain just so they can die anyway.

 

[zephcom]

I'm in favor of euthanasia in certain cases. I watched my mother suffer past the point where I would have taken a pet to be put down. What's the difference? Intolerable suffering is intolerable suffering. The yelps of pain from my mother even though she was comatose, as her limbs contracted and spasmed will haunt me the rest of my life.

Euthanasia is a slippery slope. But it is a slippery slope we, as a society, should be willing to explore.

I talked with a widower once who cared for his wife through terminal cancer. It brought me nearly to tears when he confessed that if he had known that no one would do an autopsy after a cancer patient dies, that he would have never let her suffer like that.

In some respects we are, indeed, a cruel nation.

 

[zephcom]

War is supposed to be horrible...

I think it was Frederick Barbarossa who was notorious for his siege tactics in his times. If a city was reluctant to surrender to his forces, he would launch discouraging letters over the walls to the occupants to tell them the hopelessness of their situation. If they still held out, garbage, feces, and rats to spread disease and pestilence went next. If that failed, heads of townsfolk who didn't make it to protection in time went over next...which must've been horribly frightening to the people inside who recognized them. If they continued to hold out...live prisoners who didn't make it to safety went next, and one could imagine the psychological impact of watching your screaming neighbors sailing over siege walls to their deaths would have.

This was all before he would launch actual stones. One might imagine that these men were exceptionally cruel...but they weren't. They simply understood what it took to break a people...to take the fight out of them completely. Basil the Bulgar slayer is another. As his name would imply, he fought the Bulgars several times and when he captured a great many prisoners...he would separate them into groups of 100 and burn or cut out the eyes of 99 of them, leaving one man with sight to lead the others back home.

War is horrible, and it should never be considered lightly. I think we do consider it lightly because we believe in our moral superiority built upon our restraint...and in my mind, it's an illusion...a lie. If we were ever invaded by a capable force...I've no doubt that we would use every method available to win. It would be awful.

I agree that war is horrible and it should never be considered lightly. I disagree that we consider it lightly because we believe in our moral superiority. -I- think we consider it lightly because those people who order war don't have a personal stake in that war.

Long ago, I decided I would never again support any war in which the leaders of my nation would not send their own children to fight. If the war is not serious enough for them to risk their own children, NO ONE should be expected to risk either themselves or their children for it.

Back in the Old Days, the king would lead the charge across the field. Today, our 'king' gets escorted into a mountain hide-out to protect him/her from being killed.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

If I had known there would have been no autopsy on my mother (there wasn't)...I might have been able to put her out of her suffering. The last 10 days of her "life" were horrific. I STILL have nightmares and flashbacks over 5 years later. She died in my home...we had hospice but most of the care fell to me. It messed me up emotionally in a HUGE way.

 

[ananda]

A thread to post what you think is your most ethically questionable view..

Mine is the belief that everyone should be as free as possible to live as they in whatever and whichever way they deem best for themselves, as long as they don't directly & measurably harm anyone else by their personal actions.

 

[Strathos]

I think abortion is sometimes necessary - not a good option, but the least bad one available.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree that war is horrible and it should never be considered lightly. I disagree that we consider it lightly because we believe in our moral superiority. -I- think we consider it lightly because those people who order war don't have a personal stake in that war.

Long ago, I decided I would never again support any war in which the leaders of my nation would not send their own children to fight. If the war is not serious enough for them to risk their own children, NO ONE should be expected to risk either themselves or their children for it.

Back in the Old Days, the king would lead the charge across the field. Today, our 'king' gets escorted into a mountain hide-out to protect him/her from being killed.

I see where you're coming from, but I think politicians do have a personal stake in the fight. Getting re-elected, promises made to political donors, allies abroad...these things matter to them.

However, when it comes to military recruits...parents proud of their hero children...how many would volunteer/be proud if we told them "we're sending your kids off to kill everyone, military, insurgent, and any civilians who get in the way."?