You see the rage or aggression another has may be the result of factors that are beyond their own control, depend on their point of view, and given the chance to improve their condition they might make good members of society and having arrived there from a position of previous failures, they may be more effective in affecting other people in their community. So such people may be worthy of saving if the risk allowed for this to happen is not substantial. This is why some minor accident or pain or loss of 1 month or some wealth etc is not a reason to strike the other side in a vastly severe sense that is even lethal.

I mean when i fight with a person i do not try to destroy their face or break their teeth , blind them etc just because they are a$$oles. I will try to defend in other less permanently damaging ways.

I have posted before in this thread that if i knew someone was trying to permanently disable me (ie loss of leg) i would likely strike to kill them if i was confident in their intention and reasons for doing it and had no other choice to stop it. But i wont kill a person if i know i will break a bone or lose blood or be in bed for a month etc.

The problem is you do not know exactly what you will suffer as it is happening (and this is why i gave earlier in this thread a perfect example that this can be known to make my case). Since i dont know, i will try to defend myself and introduce death risk for the other side but i will not aim to kill them if i can avoid it. I will run away from them as i try to injure them with a gun not go for the kill and stand my ground. I will not stand my ground if in order to do that i will have to kill a person. If its war or a clear case that standing the ground wins a lot of important advantages then i will modify this position of course.

On another related note;

I am also against death penalty for that reason and want to have a prison system that allows convicts to reclaim their freedom even from life long sentences if they can show tremendous effort to change things. I do understand for others wanting death penalty in very severe disturbing cases as a matter of principle against very perverse forms of evil. By that i mean i can understand revenge in the most severe ugly cases and find myself conflicted in my general rejection of death penalty when presented with very disturbing crystal clear cases. My faith in humanity is questioned in the extreme cases that show substantial conviction for the side of evil. Maybe such people just shouldn't exist and its best to remove them from the system because its resources are best used elsewhere. But its hard to see all death sentences as rising to that standard and the probability of an error in a conviction introduces a serious issue for the death penalty in general. Additionally i do think in terms of other free will threads that a crime is ultimately the result of all interacting and not just the villain in the end. All of the interacting nature owns the final outcome in a way. Its a bit naive to be easily assigning responsibility to the easiest/most obvious target and ignoring how that person got there completely over a lifetime of failures by many agents and even chaos/luck itself. However our complete natural opposition to very perverse forms of evil cannot be ignored either. It seems like a motivating factor to all of us to avoid evil (until we rationally understand why at another stronger level).

We cannot ignore our emotional commitment to the rejection of evil and the betrayal it represent to what is possible with better choices. It is frustration really at some level that emerges here. At first logical level a complete punishing position on evil (when all risks are minimized or removed) is not rationally perfect because it removes the probability to reclaim a person from evil or the reality that the blame is shared by many...At the same time you do want a society that is passionate enough about preserving its most precious ideals that it can even allow itself to not be entirely rational about its own intolerance. You see it is our affection for these ideals that allows us to continue to pursue their improvement and protection even in sometimes inconsistent ways (by the law being hard or people not always forgiving). Being passionate helps there. As long as we continue to improve the system and do not remain strict but invest effort in removing evil even in little daily things that systematically create it in others, we will continue to improve our world and it will be less necessary for our emotions against evil to be tested so often. They will be given less opportunity to prove logically inconsistent. We cannot ignore the fact we are emotional. Logic doesnt remove emotions, it hopefully strengthens and reorders them. All systems eventually will be conflicted at some point because not doing that will leave them vulnerable to certain exploitation from pure evil. Until one recognizes (with permanent education and growth) at a logical level the superior choice a more ethical conduct presents, it seems to serve their own growth towards that wisdom to know that some kind of emotional intolerance for perverse evil will be always there in others. Its an imperfect system that tries to get better. You cannot treat naivete and failure with complete tolerance because our logical methods are not entirely perfect yet.

Nothing makes their lives more valuable, you're suffering from a fast-talking con. Try getting anyone who says that killing someone is morally equivalent to not saving someone to derive it from some philosophical principle and there's nothing there.

Philosophical utilitarianism simply doesn't imply that omission can be equated to commission in such a naive manner.

An exponentially expanding one with a density of submoralities.

Or some such rot.

Nice to see you.

I'm not sure I understand (the logic starts getting over my head quickly).

I'm certainly not saying that killing someone is morally equivalent to not saving someone. But I am saying that the life of a person you would be willing to kill is probably no more or less valuable than a person you don't save. Therefore, when deciding whether or not to kill someone who is about to inflict bodily harm on me, I have no moral grounds to value his life over someone I don't save. Is that inconsistent?

Tbh, this is over my head. I'm not even sure I know what utilitarianism means. I have to look research it and finish Masque's post before continuing.

It's consistent to believe the lives have equal value AND believe it's better to kill someone intent on harm than fail to save someone.

Saying the two are exactly equivalent is a very special case that doesn't seem supported by any philosophical theory. It's very easy to calculate but why should it be true?

I'm all for altruism, but I'm not sure this is the same, because...

It's the may part that tips the scales for me.

Neither would I, but I guess I'm not willing to assume my own safety when under attack. I'm more in line of a live/let live philosophy. When in a fight, there is always a non-zero chance of death, and I'm not willing to assume any risk whatsoever. Maybe it's bc I watched my buddy kill someone in a fight first hand. There were no weapons involved. He just landed a punch that caused the other dude's head to slam against the concrete and he died. So again, I wouldn't be looking to mar a guy's face or break his teeth out of any kind of viciousness or enjoyment either. If I could avoid it, I would. Again, the difference is I never assume my own safety in confrontations whereas, it appears you do. Could be you're more reasonable/logical about it and I'm being the more irrational paranoid. Nevertheless, I don't believe in objective morality, so what's right for one person doesn't have to be right for someone else.

Well, that's a tricky subject and we'd need a defense expert to settle that (for all I know you could be one and if so, let me know). I'm not sure whether it's right, but someone I respect (I think it was a cop) once me that if you ever pull out a deadly weapon then your objective should be to kill, not maim. Again, I'm not sure if this is true and I'll quickly be willing to change my stance if a police officer or defense expert disputes this.

I'm with you on this for the most part. I think our jail systems should be used for rehabilitation, not revenge or even punishment. It's sick that there are so many people in the U.S locked up for drugs!

As an atheist who doesn't believe in an after life (and also someone who's been in jail), I think the "matter of principle" is a bit ironic. Between death and putting someone in a small room where they will only see and feel cold cement and steel bars for the rest of their life, knowing they will never taste freedom again.... Death is by far the kinder choice.

That says far more about prisons than it says about the death penalty. Even so we could reasonably leave the choice up to the prisoner.

If we ever believe prisons are worse than death then we should reform prisons. That's an absolute minimum which is probably already bet for the most part.

How many cases do you know though that not saving someone instantly leads to their death? And how many cases you know that this someone is next to you and you can see their state and the outcome of saving them too and you still do not save them? Because those are the only proper comparisons actually. And even then its not entirely identical. Sometimes saving someone may introduce risk to the one doing it. If a gang is attacking a person you must want to help but they can still kill you too. It forces you to examine how you will design your help if you have time to think it or even close your eyes and just call police or do other easy things if you have family with you etc.

To make it a bit ugly but still valid if you save a child in Africa that is starving and then let it be again in the miserable system that doesnt educate, doesnt protect, use them in civil wars etc, you are only buying time not actually saving that person in a real sense. You should still want to do it of course but its not the same as if that child was in your neighborhood and you had the ability to follow the story indefinitely. It is easier to ignore distant cases because you are not the only one affecting them and you have no permanent control of the outcome. If the outcome is not properly controlled actually you may end up having more kids in trouble in the next 15-20 years because of your superficial and not well designed help now. This is why by the way scientific society can start in the poor people or countries. Your help then becomes a permanent process of growth and progress.

Either start it like you mean it or use your resources to do good in your local area because after all if all people did that the world would be instantly better. The distant people depend also on their own people and their wise or poor decisions to be saved, not just yours. A parent in a poor country can decide not to have another kid if they have a hard time helping the one they already have. They can choose to devote all attention to that kid and to improving their condition instead. And what happens instead? How is it reasonable to have starving and immersed in war countries experience still 2-3% population growths/year for decades (eg Afghanistan is that case and many African or Asian countries too)?

Absolutely you must help the malnourished/starving child in the famous picture with the background vulture waiting his last breath. You must first take the picture and then save the kid. But it is not enough. The picture is still more important, because that picture can change an entire generation or motivate people to do something more permanent about it. If you then leave after taking the picture and helping a bit and others dont follow up you havent changed all that much (other than what the picture will do). It is easier to control the permanent outcome when it is in your own location.

To be clear, I got locked up when I was still an unruly teenager and then, it was only 8 months of county time (bad, but not nearly as bad as being locked up in a penitentiary, or on death row, or worst imo, solitary confinement).

I can only speak for myself, bc some people thrive in that environment. In fact, some are what you call lifers and seem more comfortable in prison than out. As for me, I got sick of nothing but concrete, small pods, and heavy steal doors being slammed behind me all the time. They intentionally make the food not enjoyable and while I learned to cope, I never got used to prison life and the loss of freedom. IOW, I did NOT want to go back! lol

But it's true that the way our prison system is set up, if you weren't a hard core criminal before, you'll certainly have the tools and mentality to be one when you get out.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here our justice system seems more vindictive than rehabilitative. I remember reading about one of our maximum security prisons. It was set in Colorado (I think) against the backdrop of majestic mountains and scenery. It's set up that way so it's the last thing the prisoner sees when he enters. Once the door slams, he will never see the outside again save for a little hole glimpsing the sky in an exercise courtyard they are required to allow for a short time each day (or maybe it's week). That, in my opinion is cruel and unusual punishment. Again, I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather be put to death than endure that for the rest of my life.

@masque de Z

We agree more than disagree. Our main difference is that I appear to be more of a coward and perhaps selfish. I also would prefer diffusing or deflecting a situation, rather than killing, if I could be sure the alternative would work. However, I'm not willing incur any risk of life or even injury to myself or loved ones against someone who intends malice. Even if the results are severely disproportional (i.e., his death to my minor injury). The way I look at it is, it's his own fault. He tread on me. Not the other way around. My moral compass is fine with that.

Can you paint in your example prison cell in that Colorado supermax Prison? I would start painting the last image of the Rockies i remembered. Every time a new theme, maybe also with some symbolic meaning, even a story that requires all the images to be told. I would do that endlessly for years. Publish it even. You can imprison my eyes but not my mind. Maybe to produce change for all prisoners you need to take it upon yourself when in a long sentence to make a difference, to show them they are missing something by not investing in you while in prison. To show them that they have in prison someone better than many free ones outside...so that they have failed somehow. That has to be the goal of every prisoner other than surviving of course. This is how your sentence becomes a war against the system that you can win. This is your freedom inside the prison.

The first man to live on Mars will be in prison too!!!

This might be one of the most insightful, touching posts I've ever read on 2p2! Bravo and couldn't agree more!

Reality is a different story however, and I'm not sure my mind would be strong enough to pull it off even though I think it's a brilliant use of time. Even for our most heinous criminals, the goal should be rehabilitation, imo. Even if someone were to kill a loved one, I would in favor of rehabilitating and getting them the psychiatric help then needed (even though I would kill them beforehand, to stop a small injury if they intended malicious harm).

And one last thing on the OP, which might shine a brighter light on my inconsistent logic...

The topic was: "Deadly Force To Prevent Physical Harm" and this is exactly what my response was for. There are many people (I know a few), who would gladly shoot and kill someone even if it was to stop them from breaking into their home and stealing. I would NOT do this!

An example would be if I saw an intruder about to break into my house. I would much prefer running out the back door (assuming there was time), than shoot and kill the person. Even if it meant him stealing everything I own. Now some of this might be due to my homeowner's policy (I'm kidding, but not my much). I'd have to think about how much financial hardship someone's life was worth to me, but as it sits, I would not kill over belongings. I am not a gun owner fwiw, but I think this stance might be in the minority of those who are. My stance is only to prevent physical harm. Just want to make that clear and see if it's inconsistent with everything I've stated philosophically so far.

Unfortunately, most people in the U.S. couldn't care less about the conditions a criminal lives in. And I'm almost okay with that, except...

You can never be 100% sure of guilt. So for the same reason I'm against the death penalty, I have to be against poor living conditions for prisoners. That, and I do think society has a moral obligation to be more concerned with rehabilitation, rather than punishment.

So while I don't care what the repercussions are for someone who commits a violent criminal act (if I'm willing to include death at my own hands, I can't be concerned about their living conditions in jail, can I?). Yet, I think that society should attempt to rehabilitate criminals and produce productive citizens out of them. So obviously my philosophy is inconsistent somewhere!

I'm absolutely appalled by the stuff that goes on in prisons, at least if the horrible things in movies can be believed. Unfortunately I think the only way to fix most of it would be to basically put everyone in solitary confinement.

I'm guessing that would save you from betting bent over or shivved, but your existence would still be miserable.

True, but my existence is pretty miserable already (see avatar).
Throw in a computer with internet and books by mail from library, and I would easily choose solitary confinement over prison "companionship".

I've never been to the pen, but I doubt you have computer and internet in your pod, although you might have some daily allotted access. And I do think you can request books and even supplies to paint per Masque's suggestion, but I'm not 100% sure.

I'm a loner myself, but I'm telling ya, life with nothing but cement and steel gets to you after a while. Some get comfortable with it, but I never did. Just "locked up" 24/7 and the loss of my own freedom makes me think life isn't worth living. I can't explain it, but it made me feel like I was just a living organism wasting away without purpose. And I guess that's how they want you to feel. This is why I liked Masque's suggestion so much. But I don't think I could pull it off.

I've done a 23/1 stint. Couple weeks I think, didn't really keep track of time.

Something about others not wanting me to lose my temper.

It's bleak, especially at night. You start to think you're locked in forever and suddenly that bleakness has solidity and meaning.

I don't suggest this as a general rule. Here's why:


There's an ethics to leaving catatonics alone. You just do.

I think if the govt guaranteed that, a lot of people would be committing crimes just to get a free prison stint. Some people spend tens, or hundreds, of thousands to become pseudo-hermits. Rent-free, free food, free internet, and nobody bugs you or yacks in your ear? What could be better??!?

Situation 1
Let us take the same situation as described by OP and add to it, that you also know that you will die in 10 seconds anyways. What now?
So the situation is the following: You know if you don't kill him, he will hurt you in 5 seconds and you also know that in 10 seconds you are going to die no matter if you kill him or not.
Situation 2
You know after he breaks your nose, someone else who would have killed you for sure, will not kill you anymore! What now?
Situation 3
You know after he breaks your nose, you become a happy person for the rest of your life! What now?
Situation 4
You know after he breaks your nose, he will become a happy person for the rest of his life and never hurt anyone anymore because he will find out that you could have killed him but you didn't. What now?

If the answer to situation 1 is: No, I wouldn't kill him anymore, than you shouldn't kill him, even if you had another 200k years to live, because when the death comes 200k years that's a blink of an eye.
And the other situations just imply: When we don't know if something is good or bad for us, than we should rather stay calm. This is a human ability. An animal would reflexively kill.
Another point to consider is: Lots of persons get killed all around the world, although there were apparently no threat of physical harm. But somehow the victim was perceived as a threat and did cause aggression. When we don't control our aggression and anger, where can we draw the line? She is in love with another man and her husband doesn't let her go. What is more harmful: a broken nose or a broken heart?
Last but not least:
If we take it for natural to kill someone when we know he is going to harm us, what about a child killing his mom, because he knows she is going to hurt him, or how about so many wives who are beaten by their husbands? Would you kill a police officer if you knew he is going to beat you up with a bat? I mean you have the gun and you can kill him. Or would you only kill the attacker, if you knew there will be no consequences?

To who? There's quite a big difference between 10 seconds and 200k years to me.

I'm definitely all for wives killing husbands who physically abuse them. Of course, I think they should leave and never come back first it that's possible.

Yes.

"when the death comes 200k years that's a blink of an eye" before we face death it of course appears to be a long time.



I was talking about where to draw the line. Please don't use any example out of context.



This is again out of context. The context is if you had to fear worse consequences than what would happen to you when you wouldn't kill.

You asked a yes or no question. Got a yes. Then complain the answer was out of context?!

This might be the worst fail to make a point in the history of 2p2.