A subject of morality

[Sanguvixen]

Caustic said that she thought I should make a topic on this, so here it goes.

We all know about morality. Some people gain thier morals from religion, and others gain thier morals from thier own feelings. Theists often gain thier morals from what thier religion says. Sometimes they turn to religious books...such as the bible.

Athiests/Agnostics often turn to themselves for morality. They turn to what they feel is morally wrong and morally right.

So here is a question I wish to pose to the rest of you that deals with morals:

Let us say that you have Person A, Person B, and Person C. Person A causes Person B much pain and suffering for most of that person's life, and still causes that person to suffer. Person A also refuses to admit that he/she ever did anything wrong, and that he/she never made any error. Person A also brainwashes Person C into believing nothing wrong was ever done to Person B by Person A. Person A also blackmails person C emotionally to prevent Person C from attending a very important event in Person B's life.

So person B finds a non-violent, and completely legal way to cause person A to suffer. Person B does something(or does a lack of suffering) that causes Person A to feel emotional pain.

Is it morally justifiable for Person B to want Person A to suffer?

Is it morally right for person B to act upon the want of making Person A feel pain?

Basically I am asking that if a person causes another person to feel pain and suffering for a extended period of time(Over 5 years or so )...is it right for the victim to want the causer of pain and suffering to suffer as well?

 

[Yami_Ichi]

It's like the 'an eye for an eye' saying. If someone causes someone else to suffer, then that person should feel suffering in return.

I do believe it was right for Person B to cause Person A to suffer. I mean, if Person A was a b***h to Person B for most of Person B's life, I see no problem with wanting to, and making, the other person suffer.

What goes around comes around.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Person A needs to suffer somewhat, so that they knows what person B went through, and to discourage them from doing it again. If person A does not suffer, they never realise that it was wrong to make person B suffer. An eye for an eye is likely a bit too simplistic.

Say person A makes one billion a year from his compan, and person B is a lower-middle class worker who works for person A, paycheck to paycheck. Also say person A steals 10,000 dollars from person B's wages. Five years later, The police get ahold of the records on a tipom person B, and they make him "suffer" by giving 20,000 restitution to person B, causing a net loss of 10000 for person A. That means that person A loses 1/50000 of his wealth. He doesn't even feel it. Person B, on the other hand, felt it for the years he was missing a quarter of his income. Probably had his house reposesed by the bank. If you make Person A pay based on percentage stolen from person B aganst their wages instead , then, assuming 40000 average wages, person A has 750,000,000, and have to pay 250,000,000 plus what he stole. He feels it, but he'll live without any serious loss. He might learn to not steal when that little money is at stake, but likely nothing else.

Now say these roles are reversed. Person A is the poor one, and he siphons company funds into his own account. Person B loses about 10,000,000 in company funds to this. Obviously, you can't make person B pay 20,000,000 dollars. It would be more then he had. Now, Person A would have stolen 2 percent, thus having to pay back what he stole + 800 dollars. He would learn nothing if al he lost was 800 dollars. Those are better odds then the lottery.

I suppose what I'm saying is that person A needs to be punished, but this needs to be done on a case by case basis, focusing on restitution for the victims and making person A learn the error of their ways.  

[Sanguvixen]

Cherry Picker

Person A needs to suffer somewhat, so that they knows what person B went through, and to discourage them from doing it again. If person A does not suffer, they never realise that it was wrong to make person B suffer. An eye for an eye is likely a bit too simplistic.

Say person A makes one billion a year from his compan, and person B is a lower-middle class worker who works for person A, paycheck to paycheck. Also say person A steals 10,000 dollars from person B's wages. Five years later, The police get ahold of the records on a tipom person B, and they make him "suffer" by giving 20,000 restitution to person B, causing a net loss of 10000 for person A. That means that person A loses 1/50000 of his wealth. He doesn't even feel it. Person B, on the other hand, felt it for the years he was missing a quarter of his income. Probably had his house reposesed by the bank. If you make Person A pay based on percentage stolen from person B aganst their wages instead , then, assuming 40000 average wages, person A has 750,000,000, and have to pay 250,000,000 plus what he stole. He feels it, but he'll live without any serious loss. He might learn to not steal when that little money is at stake, but likely nothing else.

Now say these roles are reversed. Person A is the poor one, and he siphons company funds into his own account. Person B loses about 10,000,000 in company funds to this. Obviously, you can't make person B pay 20,000,000 dollars. It would be more then he had. Now, Person A would have stolen 2 percent, thus having to pay back what he stole + 800 dollars. He would learn nothing if al he lost was 800 dollars. Those are better odds then the lottery.

I suppose what I'm saying is that person A needs to be punished, but this needs to be done on a case by case basis, focusing on restitution for the victims and making person A learn the error of their ways.

When it is looked at that way it makes parents seem a bit funny.

Remember how parents would tell you that "Two wrongs don't make a right?" Yet the Justice System(at least in America) exists to punish those who do wrong.

So in a way the Justice system rights a wrong by commiting a wrong if you think about it. Normally the Gov't couldn't take away rights and stuff. To do so would be considered an offense..but if a person does a wrong/offense that is against that law, it sort of allows the gov't to commit a wrong to make the original offense even.

Yet even then in most cases what is awarded to the victims is not equal to thier suffering when you think of purportionally terms.

When you look at the bible it says something that basically supports the idea that "Two wrongs don't make a right." Yet at the same time you read about how god punishes people for doing wrong. Thus he commits a wrong to right a wrong. The contradict eachother making it very interesting.

 

[Maryhl]

Probably in most cases, B would be justified in causing suffering to A after many years of A making B suffer. If A can learn from that experience and realize it was harming B, then perhaps good will come of it.

The chance for problem I see is that A might not even think they're causing B to suffer. So when B causes A to suffer, A won't make the connection. If A can't understand what B is trying to do, A may just make B's suffering even worse... then B will amp it up.. the A, then B, etc, etc. It creates a vicious cycle, in short.

We know this happens in real life. It's not unheard of for people whom get out of prison to go straight for the person that put them in there for confrontation.

How do we keep what is supposed to make people repent from turning into a cycle?  

[Sanguvixen]

Kagerou Osajima

Probably in most cases, B would be justified in causing suffering to A after many years of A making B suffer. If A can learn from that experience and realize it was harming B, then perhaps good will come of it.

The chance for problem I see is that A might not even think they're causing B to suffer. So when B causes A to suffer, A won't make the connection. If A can't understand what B is trying to do, A may just make B's suffering even worse... then B will amp it up.. the A, then B, etc, etc. It creates a vicious cycle, in short.

We know this happens in real life. It's not unheard of for people whom get out of prison to go straight for the person that put them in there for confrontation.

How do we keep what is supposed to make people repent from turning into a cycle?

I don't know. Unfortuanely it seems that being imprisoned doesn't always teach a wronger to not do what they did again. I think it is because it gives them time to brood upon why they got locked up....and that brooding can come to deep resentment of the variables that were involved which got him or her caught.

Thus when they get out of jail they tend to go back to doing the same thing, only they learn from what got them caught, and try to not get caught doing the same thing.

It is the same as grounding a kid to thier room. It doesn't correct the problem. It only pushes the kid to try even harder to not get caught at what it is they want to do that their parents forbid.

 

[Maryhl]

We're clever critters.. so it's natural that our brains would purposely have us think whatever we do is justified. Particularly for teenagers. Just, most people can at least mature to a point that they know how to avoid cycles (sometimes).

What I worry most for are those said brooders. The ones that just can't seem to have their shells cracked so they can see the light... so to speak. For them, it's not for repenting, rather punishing who they are. Better that than them causing harm to the masses, to be sure... though I'm sure most people can at least appreciate the dilemma.  

[Cherry Picker]

Personally, I feel the entire concept of prison is a bit messed up. Why are you throwing someone in a box for seven years when they commit a crime? What do you think that's going to accomplish, besides pissing them off? If you commit a serious crime, there's probably a reason for it, either a serious mental imbalance, pent-up emotions, or a lack of empathy. Tjese could all be treated, and we;d have the money to, too, if we wern't spending half our prison buget to keep chronic pain patients using medical marrijuana locked up.  

[Sanguvixen]

Cherry Picker

Personally, I feel the entire concept of prison is a bit messed up. Why are you throwing someone in a box for seven years when they commit a crime? What do you think that's going to accomplish, besides pissing them off? If you commit a serious crime, there's probably a reason for it, either a serious mental imbalance, pent-up emotions, or a lack of empathy. Tjese could all be treated, and we;d have the money to, too, if we wern't spending half our prison buget to keep chronic pain patients using medical marrijuana locked up.

You know...that is one thing I never understood about my countries legal system. With murders running rampent at every corner, the last thing they need to worry about is a couple of people getting high within the saftey of thier own home on a drug that has yet to be proven to be lethal, or as dangerous as they say.

Marijuana is not as bad as they say it is. If you do the research, and delve into it's real past you'll find out the real reasons behind it getting banned. Those reason have nothing to do with it beind a danger to anyone. Besides that...if they are going to ban Marijuana...than they should at least ban Cigerettes and Booze....since both are worse than Marijuana, and cause more deaths.

Ever go into a hostipal and ask how many people have died from smoking Marijuana? From actually smoking it over a long period of time? If they are being truthful they will tell you "None."

Cannibus is the one source of biomass that could cure forever our dependacy on corroding and corrupting fossil fuels...and they still have it banned based on an entire enterprise of lies, misinformation, cover-ups, and black-mail.

 

[Cherry Picker]

Sanguvixen

Marijuana is not as bad as they say it is. If you do the research, and delve into it's real past you'll find out the real reasons behind it getting banned. Those reason have nothing to do with it beind a danger to anyone.

True.

Sanguvixen

Cannibus is the one source of biomass that could cure forever our dependacy on corroding and corrupting fossil fuels...and they still have it banned based on an entire enterprise of lies, misinformation, cover-ups, and black-mail.

This I'm a bit confused about. Hemp could help alive our dependency on oil-based fabrics like polyester, but I don't see any way it could alliveate our need for oil based plastics. Indeed, our need for oil based plastics is one of the reasons I'm opposed to overcomsumption of gasoline. I'm also... wary of using anything... that involves burning Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC for people who don't like hand cramps) for fuel and putting it in the air. This means that people, random people on the street and those driving with their windows down, are passively inhaling THC. Somehow, that doesn't seem particularly wise to me. But hey, I could be wrong.  

[Sanguvixen]

Cherry Picker

Sanguvixen

Marijuana is not as bad as they say it is. If you do the research, and delve into it's real past you'll find out the real reasons behind it getting banned. Those reason have nothing to do with it beind a danger to anyone.

True.

Sanguvixen

Cannibus is the one source of biomass that could cure forever our dependacy on corroding and corrupting fossil fuels...and they still have it banned based on an entire enterprise of lies, misinformation, cover-ups, and black-mail.

This I'm a bit confused about. Hemp could help alive our dependency on oil-based fabrics like polyester, but I don't see any way it could alliveate our need for oil based plastics. Indeed, our need for oil based plastics is one of the reasons I'm opposed to overcomsumption of gasoline. I'm also... wary of using anything... that involves burning Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC for people who don't like hand cramps) for fuel and putting it in the air. This means that people, random people on the street and those driving with their windows down, are passively inhaling THC. Somehow, that doesn't seem particularly wise to me. But hey, I could be wrong.

Let me explain something to you.

There are three parts of the Cannibus Plant.
The only part of the plant that creates the effect of being high when burned is the leaf.

There are three parts of the plant that have potential uses. The leaf is one, and I'd have to drag out a book to look up the other two. Basically however the other two cannot be burned to get the effects of the leaf. It doesn't work that way.

Anyway...there is a more fibery part of the plant(Part of the stalk) that can be used as a source of biomass when put through a certain process. It is late and I have to head to bed(I have to get up for work tomorrow)...so I'll cut it as short as I can.

By burning the two other parts of the plant(not the leaf) you do not release that chemical that you are concerned with above. A lot of people do not understand that each part of the plant has a different use...and only the leave can give you the drugged effect. That is why the fear of making paper out of hemp..and people burning it to get high is completely BS. The parts that are used to make clothing, paper, plastic-like material...ect...does not involve using the leaf...thus people cannot get high!

Anyway...I don't have the time to go into great detail, but like I said..it still amazes me. It is illegal to grow and smoke Cannibus....but perfectly legal to cell cancer sticks and booze(which combined have caused way more damage that Cannibus ever will).

I don't understand...why is both Booze and Cancer Sticks legal...and cannibus not...when the former are much more dangerous than the latter?

Don't get me wrong...I've never done drugs in my life, but I've done a lot of research.

Basically though, the chemical Tetrahydrocannabinol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol

is only released through burning the leaves. The chemical cannot be created by burning, or processing the other two parts. Thus...the use of the other two parts as a biomass will not introduce any THC into the air.

 

[Cherry Picker]

THC is produced in the leaves, the flowers, and trichomes (Little hair-like things) of Cannabis sativa. The buds/flowers have the highest concentration of THC, but the trichomes have more overall. Trichomes cover the stem and roots of cannabis. The trichomes are usualy removed to make hashish or other concentrated products, but at a commercial level, I'm not sure how well it would work.

Source. (There are no athorative sources for cannabis preparation.)

EDIT - Gah!! Topic hijack! gonk I'm a topic theif!  

[Dathu]

As far as the ABC's go, I don't agree with vengence.

As far as morals go, I prefer for my morals to stem from logic and the "Golden Rule."  

[maybebaby888888888]

It kind depends on what person A did to cause harm to begin with.  

[Sanguvixen]

Dathu

As far as the ABC's go, I don't agree with vengence.

As far as morals go, I prefer for my morals to stem from logic and the "Golden Rule."

Is there not a diffrence between vengance and punishment? Or is there?

People are imprisoned for doing wrong. In a way that can be considered vengance when the person victimized pursues the case so that the wrongdoer is punished...do you agree with that?

If a person murders...they should be locked up shouldn't they?

If a person steals...they should be punished shouldn't they?

So how is doing those things in the same concept any different than Person B wanting and making Person A suffer for thier wrongdoing?