The present vs. the past.

[2 ton hoss]

Which is more just?

1) A man whose deceased father was a murderer, is killed by the victim's family.

2) A man is killed.

State your reasoning.

 

[Warik]

Well, if we lived on the Klingon homeworld, 1) would be more just, in fact, it would probably be considered honorable.

Since, we do not, however, then I must respond with: "insufficient information."

1) Assuming that the son of the murderer had absolutely NOTHING to do with the murder of the victim, and he was not responsible in ANY way for any obstruction of justice that may have taken place in order to protect his father, then his killing by the victim's family is not a mere killing - it is a murder. An unjust murder.

2) A man is killed. Ok... men are killed every day. Who is this man? What did he do in the last few months of his life? Who killed him? Why? Without this information, I'd consider the life of this mystery man to be just as valuable as that of the son murdered out of vengeance.

-Warik

 

[2 ton hoss]

I'm glad someone replied!! My posts tend to get fucking ignored!

Well, if we lived on the Klingon homeworld, 1) would be more just, in fact, it would probably be considered honorable.

I submit that justness is not a function of society, that is, there are things that are just regardless of what a society believes, and things that are unjust in the same manner.

1) Assuming that the son of the murderer had absolutely NOTHING to do with the murder of the victim, and he was not responsible in ANY way for any obstruction of justice that may have taken place in order to protect his father, then his killing by the victim's family is not a mere killing - it is a murder. An unjust murder.

Nope. He had nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing.

2) A man is killed. Ok... men are killed every day. Who is this man? What did he do in the last few months of his life? Who killed him? Why? Without this information, I'd consider the life of this mystery man to be just as valuable as that of the son murdered out of vengeance.

Just a random guy. Never killed anyone. Joe Average.


What I'm getting at is, through their actions if not their words, many people worldwide seem to believe that punishing peoples' descendants for their ancestors' actions is just and right. I was wondering if anyone here believed that. But, my question may have been ill conceived - as I said, people seem to believe this through their actions, but when challenged in a logical manner most if not all will probably say one should not be punished for one's ancestors' actions.

This has far reaching implications. From slavery reparations, to ethnic disputes, to land wards...a people punishing another people because their ancestors fought and killed eachother permeates history.

 

[Crazier]

I'm glad someone replied!! My posts tend to get fucking ignored!

You think there may be a reason behind that by chance???


--

 

[2 ton hoss]

You think there may be a reason behind that by chance???


--

I bore you all?

 

[2 ton hoss]

top heh

 

[rudedawg]

I bore you all?

No they are too profound for the majority.

Post stuff like the tit test to see which are real and which are fake or that talking keyboard thingy.

 

[aurelius]

I submit that justness is not a function of society, that is, there are things that are just regardless of what a society believes, and things that are unjust in the same manner.

What is justice?