Eye for an Eye: Blinded Acid Victim to have Attacker Blinded

[Tev]

Originally Posted by Runswithnopants

What about people who do not wish to be part of that society, but do not have the means to leave?

We have those here in America too. They can't move to Canada so they just deal with it, or, like the case of the original post, go through legal steps to make their point and possibly change the society they live in.

[Marelo]

Imagine a case where a society S is inflexible, through strong tradition or the like. S has a law L which forbids citizen C's departure, and is strongly repugnant to C. C has no means of leaving, period, without S's consent. Any answer involving just being creative or finding a way does not apply.

Since S's morality is determined by consensus, and C does not consent, how do you morally justify enforcing L in C's case?

What I'm raising here is the question that, if morality is relative in the manner you describe, would it not be absolutely morally good to allow the departure of dissenters, and absolutely morally evil to deny it?

In essence, the system you are proposing implies that individual rights do not exist in any form.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Runswithnopants

Imagine a case where a society S is inflexible, through strong tradition or the like. S has a law L which forbids citizen C's departure, and is strongly repugnant to C. C has no means of leaving, period, without S's consent. Any answer involving just being creative or finding a way does not apply.

Since S's morality is determined by consensus, and C does not consent, how do you morally justify enforcing L in C's case?

What I'm raising here is the question that, if morality is relative in the manner you describe, would it not be absolutely morally good to allow the departure of dissenters, and absolutely morally evil to deny it?

In essence, the system you are proposing implies that individual rights do not exist in any form.

First off, ALL morality is relative. That's why most laws are based on social norms. Second, the only rights you have are those which your government grants you. Westerners see certain rights as "unalienable," but those rights are specifically set by the highest authority of the government as being so. In the US, the Constitution is our sovereign. In fascist states, it's the dictator. What the sovereign says goes without question, and laws fill in the blanks. Morality is determined by social norms, which is the consensus of the MAJORITY. Laws may not follow morality. They often do, but they don't have to.

To put it this way, in America, we have serial murderers. They have morals that say they can kill people whenever they want. They do NOT agree with the laws or social norms. But that doesn't excuse them for answering for their violations of them. They are in a society with which they don't agree, but the rules still apply. If they can find and move to a place they like better, they're welcome to, because we don't want them. Or in cases where they've already killed someone and are wanted for their crimes, a situation that would prevent them from escaping, they very often try to escape by any means possible. Seeing as this is also illegal, most places will catch them and send them back to be tried for their crimes out of common courtesy. And not all of them even agree on THAT. However, just because serial murderers don't agree with the morality and laws of the US doesn't mean those laws and moral values can't still be applied to them by the government and society, respectively.

[Grand Master Kickface]

Originally Posted by Terex4

And who are we to say we're right? Should we force other societies to change based on our belief of what is and is not moral? There is a very loose universal code of conduct which is why murder and theft are illegal everywhere. The primary difference is how different societies deal with people who commit crimes. We have a rather weak legal system in my opinion. Hell I've seen states that impose equal punishment to people who beat their wives and people who drive on a suspended license.

Our system needs some serious work too. Who are we to judge other systems, especially if they're effective.

There is a difference between using your own culture as the axis for judging other cultures, and putting both your own culture and other cultures through the same moral lens. You said it yourself; there is a universal code of conduct that affects all societies to some extent, and it is this objective moral law that we must use as a basis of comparison to determine the rightness or wrongness of societal systems of law, including our own.

As per your second point, I would think that being closed to other cultures while morally lifting up our own would be the pinnacle of moral pretentiousness and arrogance. No matter where in the world people are located, we are all united in our humanity.

Edit:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Aside from what Terex just said, morals are DEFINED by the society. Did you know that the Spartans, aside from valuing homosexuality as a social institution, saw an ability and willingness to steal as a necessary value of their society? One of the first tasks in the training to become a warrior involved sneaking into a room with cheese in the center in the dead of night and eitherbeing quiet enough to steal it unnoticed or strong and fast enough to get away without being beaten to death. We see this as horrible. They saw it as a necessary accomplishment.

Their society had different values from ours. But were they "wrong?" Absolutely not. Nobody is "right" or "wrong" about morality so long as they agree with the norms of their society.

Okay, let's say that morality is completely subjective, and that no one person is more right or wrong than another. Does that not in itself establish an objective law applying to all people? In effect, if morality is completely subjective, then acting on any belief you hold becomes an offense against subjective morality, because someone, somewhere, will disagree with you, no matter how trifling the matter. For example, you decide oxygen is good to breathe, and so you breathe it in. But Joe Blow Weirdo from across the street thinks oxygen is poison, for no other reason than he wants to disagree with you. If you were to breathe oxygen, you would be placing your beliefs in a position superior to his, and thus breaching the concept of subjective morality. Subjective morality is a complete impossibility.

Okay, I think I've exhausted my patience. I'm'a go play some videogames.

[bluestarultor]

You will also notice my rebuttal. As for the things most cultures hold in common, they're not as universal as you might think. People treat even theft very differently between societies. The only real constant is that people tend not to like members of their society killing each other. How they DEAL with the people that violate that social more is up to vast negotiation.

[Marelo]

I concede. I'm not committed enough to my position on this to continue debate, and it's probably over my head as a whole.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by Tev

We've been there and done fire. We used to burn people at the stake because they may or may not have danced naked in the woods at night, or made our crops grow funny, or made our cow give bad milk, or....becuase we didn't think they were quite Christian enough.

This is kinda offtopic, but I feel the need to point out that very few if any people were ever burned at the stake in the US. Hanged, certainly, but the Eastern North American coast is altogether too damp to waste kindling on witches. the idea of witches being burned in North America is just one of those hollywood history things that really gets at me, sorry.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Grand Master Kickface

Okay, let's say that morality is completely subjective, and that no one person is more right or wrong than another. Does that not in itself establish an objective law applying to all people? In effect, if morality is completely subjective, then acting on any belief you hold becomes an offense against subjective morality, because someone, somewhere, will disagree with you, no matter how trifling the matter. For example, you decide oxygen is good to breathe, and so you breathe it in. But Joe Blow Weirdo from across the street thinks oxygen is poison, for no other reason than he wants to disagree with you. If you were to breathe oxygen, you would be placing your beliefs in a position superior to his, and thus breaching the concept of subjective morality. Subjective morality is a complete impossibility.

Okay, I think I've exhausted my patience. I'm'a go play some videogames.

After this, I'll let it drop, but you actually pretty much nailed it right there with conflicts of opinion. Fahrenheit 451 is based on this premise. Ignoring your choice of example (because breathing has no moral applications and it's scientific fact we need oxygen to live), no, there's not a DAMN thing you can do without pissing someone off. I probably piss off people somewhere by making it no secret I'm a man of both faith and science. Frankly, with that stance, I just plain can't win, because it puts me smack dab in the middle of two often-warring factions.

See, what you need to consider is that there's a difference between personal morality and the morals of a society as a whole. Nobody in a society is going to agree with ALL the morals the overall mass holds as a mean average. However, as a society, there are certain things that you can safely assume apply to any given person living in it you may come across. For instance, St. Louis is predominantly Catholic, so you can safely assume that people won't freak if you ask them how to get to a Catholic church. Most people won't be offended by your asking because most people share in that part of your moral code. However, St. Louis also has a large black population, so if you're openly racist, people are probably going to take notice.

This is why we live in a society that's becoming, in my opinion, too politically correct. People are so afraid of offending someone that they often forget who their immediate audience is and in turn often lash out at people who take it into consideration and let loose with something that might be inappropriate in a different situation. I happen to be of the latter category and I'll fully admit it, but I'm also a rarity in that I'm open to civil discussion on pretty much any topic, including politics, religion, and societal concerns. On the other hand, I'd LOVE to see a guy simply refuse to breathe oxygen and try to hold onto his beliefs as his face turns blue. XD

[Toast]

First of all, this has to be placed in context. In Iran it is apparently acceptable for the victim to request this form of justice. In the United States, it isn't. What I gather from the article is that the only people speaking out against her decision are people removed from that context and haven't had the experience of having acid thrown into their faces.

That being said, any application of this form of justice should be carried out on a carefully considered case by case basis. I personally don't have a problem with this form of justice being used as a sentence for acts of significant violence. Considering how difficult it is to protect victims from repeat offenders of domestic violence, rape, and similar violent crimes, meting out this kind of justice at most impacts rates of recidivism and at least gives the impression that the justice system is doing what it can to protect people from confirmed violent perpetrators. On the other hand, your favourite form of capital punishment might work just as well instead.

[Magus]

I'd say based on the fact that he turned himself in and confessed to the crime he shouldn't receive such a harsh punishment because he did do that at least. Life in prison is more than enough, or heck, just kill the guy. When you start surgically burning out people's eyes with acid your punishments are getting far too complex.