[TrashMan]

You just said you would force people like that to attend some sort of counseling/rehab/mental institution.

I'm fine with giving the option of attending counseling on their own will, but anything further than that IS discrimination. You are giving up part of their liberty because of how they think.

Yes, you have the right to divide people into any category you see fit. But not a society based on equal opportunity.

Yes. Just like I would force anyone who's Schizo or has some mental disorder. For in order to think like that, something can't be right with your brain in the first place. Bat that's hardly for you to decide. He would have to be examined by a pro first.

Liberty schliberty. Total liberty is an illusion, a myth. Just like total equality and total equal opportunity. People are not equal - neither in physical skill nor in mental faculty. But that's beside the point.

You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. 

"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."

See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.

No, he did discriminate them, because he took away their most basic rights and treated them like dirt.
I don't have to like someone or his behaviour - but that doesn't mean I want that someone dead or treated like an inferior.

If you don't' fit into the society, then it's the duty of the society to try and help you fit in.

And let's go one step further here, shall we?
"You don't discriminate criminals, you're reviled by them". You support them being thrown in jail. Ergo, you're descriminating based on their behavior.
After all, what is commiting a crime otherthan behavior/way of thought. In the end, it's just as arbitary a divisor as is race or mental faculty, put in place by hte society.

[Ghostavo]

Yes. Just like I would force anyone who's Schizo or has some mental disorder. For in order to think like that, something can't be right with your brain in the first place. Bat that's hardly for you to decide. He would have to be examined by a pro first.

Liberty schliberty. Total liberty is an illusion, a myth. Just like total equality and total equal opportunity. People are not equal - neither in physical skill nor in mental faculty. But that's beside the point.

But where do you draw the line then? Is gaming something you should root out too? Religion? Political parties? Here it's not clear it's a mental illness. And even then, depending on the illness, they may have the right NOT to be cured.

You are going to complain about my following argument, but since you've already used part of it in this thread I don't think it will be as bad. 

"Hitler didn't discriminate jews, he was just reviled by them."

See how much sense that makes? It makes about as much sense as what you just made in light of trying to force them to do things, although I'll admit, at least you are not trying to murder them.

No, he did discriminate them, because he took away their most basic rights and treated them like dirt.
I don't have to like someone or his behaviour - but that doesn't mean I want that someone dead or treated like an inferior.

If you don't' fit into the society, then it's the duty of the society to try and help you fit in.

And let's go one step further here, shall we?
"You don't discriminate criminals, you're reviled by them". You support them being thrown in jail. Ergo, you're descriminating based on their behavior.
After all, what is commiting a crime otherthan behavior/way of thought. In the end, it's just as arbitary a divisor as is race or mental faculty, put in place by hte society.

Yeah, that was the point, he discriminated but so are you trying to discriminate. You may not want someone dead, but you are trying to taking away their choices on the matter.

And again you cock it up with the jail thing for the nth time. Committing a crime not a way of thought. We have a police in society, not a thought police. Although, I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.

Tell you what, tell me what crime did the guy break by saying he defended "ends justify the means" and whatnot and maybe, just maybe, I'll agree with you.

[castor]

so where does the military fall then?

You have the right to defend yourself. You do that based on the information you have. Attack someone without a good enough reason and you suck.
At the end, everyone makes the decisions to act/not to act alone, that is your birthright and responsibility - even when wearing an uniform. Transfer that responsibility to anywhere else and a hell breaks loose. If not now, tomorrow.

[TrashMan]

It's terrible. Such people give the police a bad name.

But don't  forget these are isolated incidents. The media love bad news.

The more you restrict the police, the less effective it becomes.

[General Battuta]

I think you posted in the wrong thread, Trash.

[Scotty]

The ends DO NOT justify the means.  To say so is to say that anything is okay to do if it gets your particular job or desire.

for example:  You are out of money.  You decide to kill someone and take their money.  Problem solved, you now have money.  The ends justify the means.

he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision.

That is EXACTLY why people should fell empathy and guilt.  That is our internal check to see if something is morally right or wrong.  If it later turns out to be the wrong decision, the person who made it should be guilty.  That is the way the conscience and the 'moral compass' work.  Society universally recognizes these attributes (go ahead, show me one today that doesn't). 
to wrap this argument up: 

I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.

The society's morals abhor this type of individual

But where do you draw the line then?

I draw the line when the attribute in question could lead to the careless expenditure, waste if you will, of lives that should not have been lost, at which point the perpetrator feels no remorse and shrugs off the whole thing.

[Ghostavo]

First off, let me tell this. I don't follow the same moral guide as the guy this thread is about. I'm just defending his ideas and his right to live without someone forcing him to do things others are not forced to in the same situations.

The ends DO NOT justify the means.  To say so is to say that anything is okay to do if it gets your particular job or desire.

for example:  You are out of money.  You decide to kill someone and take their money.  Problem solved, you now have money.  The ends justify the means.

I hardly think that kind of strawman argument is what the guy intended. Even ignoring that, the ends justifying the means would mean that after that, he would forsee that the consequences of his actions would lead him going to jail and all, where his money wouldn't have value. Hence he wouldn't do it, because the end he wants is not going to jail. If you don't follow this precisely, yes you can get strange conclusions like the one you just reached. Following your example, the ends do not justify the means, therefore if you are out of money, there is no way to make money, since there are no means that are justified by that end! See? Just as strange and just as strawman-like.

he's saying that the ends justify the means and that you shouldn't feel empathy or guilt because of an action took on those principles, even if later it proves to be the wrong decision.

That is EXACTLY why people should fell empathy and guilt.  That is our internal check to see if something is morally right or wrong.  If it later turns out to be the wrong decision, the person who made it should be guilty.  That is the way the conscience and the 'moral compass' work.  Society universally recognizes these attributes (go ahead, show me one today that doesn't). 
to wrap this argument up: 

I agree with you that the crimes themselves are arbitrary, put in place by that society's morals.

The society's morals abhor this type of individual

But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.

But where do you draw the line then?

I draw the line when the attribute in question could lead to the careless expenditure, waste if you will, of lives that should not have been lost, at which point the perpetrator feels no remorse and shrugs off the whole thing.

Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.

[TrashMan]

I think you posted in the wrong thread, Trash.

*grumble, grumble* ... danm distraction. Had multiple windows open and my sisters kids paraded trough my room  bugging me to pass a Super Mario level on their Nintendo DS fpor them..every 5 minutes!

[TrashMan]

But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.

Because empathy and or guilt is a normal reaction in such a situations. It's a warning from one's moral compass. It pushes individuals to re-evaluate the situation, to try harder not to make the same mistake.

Because that is what makes us really human. someone without empathy or remorse is a sick, sick person. Probably brain-damaged. No sane person would want an insane person running around unchecked.

Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.

Thought are very much relevant. Thoughts define us as humans, as persons.

We talking about type of "people" that could kill your son tomorrow if he thought it was for the greater good, and feel no guilt, no remorse.

[Ghostavo]

But if the decision was only later proved to be wrong, will it do any good to feel empathy or guilt? In other words, will it change anything? From a functional perspective, either he feels empathy or guild will not change the pratical outcome, hence he is just as guilty of the action he took as someone with empathy or guilt. In the end, only actions matter. So society can only judge actions, perhaps intentions but not thoughts. The guy will function in society just as well as any other person.

Because empathy and or guilt is a normal reaction in such a situations. It's a warning from one's moral compass. It pushes individuals to re-evaluate the situation, to try harder not to make the same mistake.

Because that is what makes us really human. someone without empathy or remorse is a sick, sick person. Probably brain-damaged. No sane person would want an insane person running around unchecked.

But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.

Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?

Again, just as above, society will only judge actions. If someone murders another, they'll be judge either they have empathy and/or guilty or not. Thoughts are irrelevant on this matter.

Thought are very much relevant. Thoughts define us as humans, as persons.

We talking about type of "people" that could kill your son tomorrow if he thought it was for the greater good, and feel no guilt, no remorse.

Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.

Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.

Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules  . I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.

[vyper]

Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.

And as for institutionalising people for being assholes... TrashMan makes me lulz.

[TrashMan]

But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.

Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?

Empathy and guilt DRIVE one to re-evaluate ones positions and actions - they serve both s motivators and breaks.
Can you learn from your mistakes without them? Probably. Are you as likely to do that? no.

Also, we're talking about someone who thinks in a completey different way, who's brain works in a completely different way. What makes you think he will act predicatably? What makes you think he will show restraint?

Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.

Except by that time the damage has already been done.

Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.

So you know a lot of people like that?

Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules  . I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.

Nobody is denying them the right to live in the society.
And while you and me might disagree on a number of things, at least both of our brains work normally (at least I assume your does).

Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.

No, no it's not. And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.

[Ghostavo]

But learning from one's mistakes is not a consequence of empathy or guilt, it's a consequence of intelect. Someone will do that regardless of their morals or lack therefore. You are arguing against a person without morals or with different ones, not against someone evil.

Even assuming he's insane, if he acts with restraint and reason (the antithesis of insane), what separates him from others in society (which can only analyse actions)?

Empathy and guilt DRIVE one to re-evaluate ones positions and actions - they serve both s motivators and breaks.
Can you learn from your mistakes without them? Probably. Are you as likely to do that? no.

Also, we're talking about someone who thinks in a completey different way, who's brain works in a completely different way. What makes you think he will act predicatably? What makes you think he will show restraint?

Now you are just making this up. Empathy and guilt may serve as motivators, but they are not the only motives a person has to learn, otherwise we'd all be door knobs.

Then, if you talk about predictability, you might as well throw your argument away, since I'd wager empathy and guilt would actually lower the ability to predict that person's actions. Also, he'll show restraint because that's in he's best interests. He's supposedly without empathy and guilty, he's not stupid.

Then he would be judged accordingly, either or not he had morals.

Except by that time the damage has already been done.

So are you insinuating we arrest everyone on the basis that they may commit murder?

Most people like that follow a very strict game theory kind of situation. He would see that it would be in his best interests to not murder someone (going to jail, possible risks while doing it, etc...), unless something really really weird is about.

So you know a lot of people like that?

Not really, but again I assume people not to be idiots and follow their best interests in mind, either they have morals or not. What would be his motive to murder someone and go to jail, etc? If they are idiots, then does it really matter if they have morals or not?

Now we are going closer and closer to the extremes of the argument. Either or not someone has "morals", I think it's perfectly fine if they are allowed in society, just as long as they follow it's rules, hence being bound by that society's morals. In a bizarre situation, you might say they have the same morals as everybody who follows society's rules  . I'm sure you and I have something we disagree with society, but nethertheless follow it's rules. I think it's the same here.

Nobody is denying them the right to live in the society.
And while you and me might disagree on a number of things, at least both of our brains work normally (at least I assume your does).

But again, you are trying to force them to do something we'd have no obligation to do so too.

[vyper]

Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in.

No, no it's not. And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.

If that was supposed to be a troll, I suggest you try harder.

If it was supposed to be serious, please expand. Because right now it sounds a little pathetic.

[iamzack]

Considering we don't know exactly how the brain works, it's difficult to decide who is "broken." We know a lot, but we don't know enough to say who is going to be dangerous most of the time. The vast majority of the mentally ill are dangerous only to themselves.

And you can't lock people up just because they don't care about other people. A lack of empathy may have plenty logical thinking behind it.

And I can pretty much prove it to you, altough you wouldn't WANT me to do that. It would be very painful and embarrasing for you and would leave you scarred for life.

Please, bestow upon us a sample of your impressively massive intelligence, O Great One, even though we petty little folks have done nothing to deserve even your presence.

</sarcasm>

[TrashMan]

Now you are just making this up. Empathy and guilt may serve as motivators, but they are not the only motives a person has to learn, otherwise we'd all be door knobs.

No, not the only ones...but important ones.

Then, if you talk about predictability, you might as well throw your argument away, since I'd wager empathy and guilt would actually lower the ability to predict that person's actions. Also, he'll show restraint because that's in he's best interests. He's supposedly without empathy and guilty, he's not stupid.

You're assuming he'll do what's best for him instead what's best for "the world"..or humanity. If he decides that it's best for humanity to remove you and your family...or some group or another from the gene pool.....

Lack of guilt/remorse, a strong belief that the end justifies ANY means and that when someone does something for the greater good, that action is always good - and you're wondering how I'm NOT worried?

But again, you are trying to force them to do something we'd have no obligation to do so too.

Society frequently forces pople to do stuff. Nothing new under the sun.
As long as it doesn't hurt anyone I can live with it.

Seeing a councelor a few times - OH! What terrible torture!

Considering we don't know exactly how the brain works, it's difficult to decide who is "broken." We know a lot, but we don't know enough to say who is going to be dangerous most of the time. The vast majority of the mentally ill are dangerous only to themselves.

Oh, but lacking some pretty basic emotional response does mean the brain doesn't work right.
I don't have to be a mechanic to know that a car is broken if it's breaks don't work.




Now, let me get back to this statement:
"Anything is justifiable, morally and personally, if you win the battle/war/confrontation said action is committed in."

So let's say I kidnap you, turn you into personal slave, do all kinds of unspeakable things to you and then kill you. Now, no one discovers your body. That means I got away with it. That would also mean that everything I did to you is justifiable, because I won.
Heck I can think of some reason to kill you probably - it doesn't have to be the truth, nor does it have to be good. It can range from "removing idiots from the gene pool", "you've  killed JFK" to "you're an evil alien ghost that wants to destroy mankind".

Does that make my action personally and moraly justifiable?

[castor]

Yes, because there are no common morals shared between all the people. You can't expect anything from any one person, you can just hope..
This world isn't reasonable or just, per sē (never gonna be). If you're after those things, DIYs - that's the only deal you can count on.

[vyper]

Does that make my action personally and moraly justifiable?

Assuming you acted of your own free will, then yes it makes it justifiable to YOU and anyone who supported you.