Your Most Ethically Questionable View

[Eryk]

The problem I see is who gets to decide how much wealth is too much?

The majority of voters, when they start looking out for their own interests.

 

[Icewater]

The problem I see is who gets to decide how much wealth is too much? And why do they get to make that decision for everyone else?

Then, with such power, they might decide that certain people do deserve more than others, and thus raise the limit on some (like themselves) and keep it the same, or lower it, on everyone else. You can see where this is going.

Who gets to decide anything? You can generalize this problem to any kind of power, at all, ever. Seems like the best answer we've come up with so far is "checks and balances", but I think the execution could be improved.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

The US, which typically has much harsher punishments then the rest of the secular west AND which is the only western secular democracy that carries out the death penalty, has much higher crime rates then any other secular western country.

The statistics simply do not agree with what you think the outcome is of even harsher punishment and even more death penalties.

It doesn't scare off crimes, at all.
In fact, the correlation is the exact opposite: countries WITH death penalty typically have MORE crime.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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 think your thread title isn't very sensible.

I don't hold on to ethics that I find questionable.
If I were to find them questionable, I would not hold on to them.

I think what you really meant was controversial instead of questionable.

Right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Side note, the problem with "total war" is that 1st world nations want to pretend that they are honorable, that their soldiers are professionals and not barbarian hordes. We've seen plenty of total war in civil conflicts- who would want those soldiers back knowing what they did?

And yet somehow...for millennia...that hasn't been a problem. It's only a problem when you're willing to go along with the lie that your side holds some moral high ground.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think your thread title isn't very sensible.

I don't hold on to ethics that I find questionable.
If I were to find them questionable, I would not hold on to them.

I think what you really meant was controversial instead of questionable.

Right?

No. I meant ethically questionable. A view you have that comes as close to "evil" as you can get without rejecting a view. Other people took it in a bit of a different direction, and I didn't really care to correct it. What people should be posting is a position they hold that they themselves question having.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

And yet somehow...for millennia...that hasn't been a problem. It's only a problem when you're willing to go along with the lie that your side holds some moral high ground.

That is why I used the word "pretend". 1st world nations (especially the USA) need their delusions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is why I used the word "pretend". 1st world nations (especially the USA) need their delusions.

Sure...but I don't think it's a feature unique to the 1st world.

 

[Non sequitur]

(Unclear) views on abortion, that lead to difficult ethical questions.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. I meant ethically questionable. A view you have that comes as close to "evil" as you can get without rejecting a view. Other people took it in a bit of a different direction, and I didn't really care to correct it. What people should be posting is a position they hold that they themselves question having.

I don't hold such positions.

Why would I hold a view that I myself find questionable?

 

[Strathos]

I don't hold such positions.

Why would I hold a view that I myself find questionable?

So you're saying that you're 100% absolutely sure about everything?

 

[Dave RP]

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.

Interesting question, mine would be voluntary euthanasia and abortion by choice f the mother up to 12 weeks of pregnancy or later with good medical reasons.

As we are living longer and longer the whole situation of keeping people "alive" with no quality of life is becoming more and more debated. Within the next 20 years most people will have witnessed a loved one suffer a long and debilitating illness, with medical technology keeping them alive and in great pain or pointless suffering. I can see living wills becoming more prevalent and voluntary euthanasia becoming readily available.

Abortion divides opinions, but I maintain it should be a personal choice. I appreciate that will not sit well with many on here.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you're saying that you're 100% absolutely sure about everything?

The question wasn't if I am 100% "sure of everything".
The question was if I hold views which I, myself, consider ethically questionable.

And the answer to that question, is "no, I don't".

If I hold a view and then come to realise that that view isn't ethically justifiable - I'll drop that view.

Why would I be "pro" something that I consider bad?

Why would any sane person who isn't a psychopath, for that matter....

 

[super animator]

The question wasn't if I am 100% "sure of everything".
The question was if I hold views which I, myself, consider ethically questionable.

And the answer to that question, is "no, I don't".

If I hold a view and then come to realise that that view isn't ethically justifiable - I'll drop that view.

Why would I be "pro" something that I consider bad?

Why would any sane person who isn't a psychopath, for that matter....

PychoSarah is asking do you have any Moral/ethical view that many other people find it questionable irregardless of their religion. That the condition that I added btw, so we don't boring answers such as "gays married" among other things

 

[DogmaHunter]

-_- you never question your own moral compass?

Constantly. And when I conclude that one of my views isn't ethically justified - I'll drop it.
Hence, I don't hold views which I consider ethically problematic. Again, why would I?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you're absolutely sure that every position you hold is 100% justified,

Once more, the question was not if I am "100% absolute sure" about anything at all.

The question is "do you hold views that you consider ethically questionable / wrong".
The alternative to holding views you find questionable is NOT being 100% sure that the views are justified.

It's a yes/no question and my answer is simply "no".

you never think 'I believe X, but it's possible X might be wrong?'

Any belief, could be wrong.

You can still believe it if you think it is more likely to be right, yet still have doubts about it.

Well, if we are going to go down that can of worms....
I feel obliged to say here that technically, I don't "believe" (= to accept as true/correct) anything at all, in that sense.

Instead, I consider things "likely" or "unlikely". And I base those judgements on the information at my disposal, which is the best I can do.

And my threshold of "doubt" is in direct proportion to consequences.
I might take a gamble for things with little to no effect.
I might require a ridiculously convincing reason for things with massive consequences.


But to get back to the topic: no, I don't hold views which I myself think are ethically unjustified or questionable. Again, why would I? Why would anyone?

 

[Dave RP]

Once more, the question was not if I am "100% absolute sure" about anything at all.

The question is "do you hold views that you consider ethically questionable / wrong".
The alternative to holding views you find questionable is NOT being 100% sure that the views are justified.

It's a yes/no question and my answer is simply "no".



Any belief, could be wrong.



Well, if we are going to go down that can of worms....
I feel obliged to say here that technically, I don't "believe" (= to accept as true/correct) anything at all, in that sense.

Instead, I consider things "likely" or "unlikely". And I base those judgements on the information at my disposal, which is the best I can do.

And my threshold of "doubt" is in direct proportion to consequences.
I might take a gamble for things with little to no effect.
I might require a ridiculously convincing reason for things with massive consequences.


But to get back to the topic: no, I don't hold views which I myself think are ethically unjustified or questionable. Again, why would I? Why would anyone?

I wonder if the OP meant do you hold views you know others would find ethically unjustified?????

 

[PsychoSarah]

I wonder if the OP meant do you hold views you know others would find ethically unjustified?????

Nope, I clarified that this is about the views you hold that you yourself question the morality of the most.

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

I am beginning to think that willful ignorance should be a capital crime.

I am also beginning to think that voluntary segregation might be a way forward.

 

[seashale76]

Oh, boy. This is a difficult question to answer because I'm of the opinion that anything I hesitate to (and thus don't) post on facebook (where many of those I know in real life would see it) constitutes as questionable to someone. Of course, I know so many liberals and conservatives that most of my views are considered ethically questionable to someone.

Anyway, I'll bite. I would say that, even though I am actually against abortion and consider it murder, I don't believe it should be illegal. Abortion is what I consider a necessary evil. Necessary, because if it is illegal, it will still occur, it's just that then there will be more than just an embryo or fetus dying, but a desperate mother as well. I see nothing wrong with discouraging abortion whenever possible, but we must educate women on birth control and give them access to whatever will keep them from thinking they may ever need an abortion in the first place. The US has made gains in the last area (but we still have a ways to go) as studies show that when education and birth control access increases then abortions decrease (and they are down significantly).

The death penalty is something I'm not at all crazy about. It has never set well with me. There is too much of a chance of killing an innocent person. However, if we were assured that the person actually committed the crime, the crime was terrible enough, and there was no hope for rehabilitation, then I would weep no tears for such an individual if they were executed for their crimes.