| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Side Forums :: Philosophy |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Crime and Punishment | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| NoSkill |
|
||
Sir
Registered Member #457
Joined: Tue Oct 10 2006, 01:13PMPosts: 2628 |
By Fyodor Dostoesky is a Russian novel that I'm absolutely captivated with. I literally can't put it down. I only stopped now because I've been reading for 5 hours... and felt a need for a break. It's about a man, a student in Petersburg who has come on hard times, living in poverty like many other people. He's rather intelligent, and demonstrates repeatedly that he is a moral, religious and just man of character. He murders an old pawnbroker, a miserable old thing who makes her living by ripping off poor people. She beats her invalid sister who has a heart of gold and is leaving her fortune to a monastery so that "prayers may be perpetually said for her." She is mistrusting and a scoundrel. Although in the heat of the moment, he really botches up the murder and gets away with it (as far as I can tell so far) he doesn't steal the money he intended to and is almost caught in the act. But anyway this isn't a synopsis, I have a question of philosophy. There's many recurring themes in this book, ordinary people vs extraordinary, morals vs baseness, action vs the goal, etc. and it's the latter I'd like to touch upon. My question to you all (all opinions welcomed and appreciated): At what point does murder become justified? If ever. If the murder of a single individual will significantly improve the lives of hundreds, even thousands of people, is it right? Or even if it isn't "right" in the traditional sense of the word, should it still be done, for the greater good? Let's focus on the invidual, not on grand levels like nations and capital punishment (at least not at first). Is it right for YOU or me or another individual, to murder someone knowing that the impact will positively affect many people? What say ye? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| O_Mega |
|
||
Inconsistant Ownage Device
Registered Member #59
Joined: Sat Dec 10 2005, 06:12PMPosts: 1058 |
yes. Survival of the fittest, majority rule, mob-rule, good of the many of the good of the few, mass vote-kicking. | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Maddogme |
|
||
Registered Member #964
Joined: Sat Jan 12 2008, 07:23PMPosts: 1776 |
Sounders interesting, it's called Crime and Punishment or is that just the title of the topic? And I Sir, do believe an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, so if you beat someone till they wish to be dead, I do believe that person who was doing the act, shall and should be put under the punishment you brought apon the punisher. An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| gLiTch |
|
||
Anal Assassin
Registered Member #455
Joined: Mon Oct 09 2006, 04:58AMPosts: 3848 |
No. its not right. What if you were that person going to get wacked? Would u let it happen. Would u choose to die at the age of 20.... wait... let me rephrase that... You dont have a choice since ur being MURDERED. There is, and will always be a way around everything. Who is to say you have the choice to who lives or dies. You dont. I dont care how many people it will save... Unless of course, your killing in self defense. If someone is threatening the lives of many, then sure, kill him. But if its a normal, civilized, good hearted civilian, then who are you to choose his life or death? Doesnt he have a say in it? Would YOU want a say in it. I think the line should drawn at good vs. evil. Yet its still tough. Killing someone because they cheat many out of their money... may be a lil too far. I dont know... But there is on thing i always believed in... An eye for an eye. You kill someone cuz your harsh... you deserve the same. You steal money from someone, or many, then you shall walk the earth feeling their pain and suffering of being broke. Yet it still is hard to tell.... because what if you stealing that money from someone causes them to not be able to pay for a surgery, and they die later on... Do YOU deserve to live still? The universe has a plan, and it will unfold. Everything is universally balanced. What goes around, comes around. Karma......all these things, phrases, sayings, are very much true... So who are you to play God? You dont. Let things be, live out your life, and whatever happens, happens. This is how i live. EDIT: BAH MADDOG U BEAT ME TO IT LOL. Edited Mon Feb 18 2008, 03:58AM |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| NoSkill |
|
||
|
Sir
Registered Member #457
Joined: Tue Oct 10 2006, 01:13PM Posts: 2628 |
Yes the title of the book is Crime and Punishment. The problem with an eye for an eye in this example (and in most examples) is at what point is a value placed on a human life? In this example, if hundreds of people are living in dire squalor and the death of one, corrupt, old, miserable women could help appease this, is MURDERING her right? Furthermore, not only is this a question of right and wrong, but WHO should be the individual to carry out the act? Then is this person to go unpunished? Immune from the consequences? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kamikaze |
|
||
Registered Member #764
Joined: Sat Jun 30 2007, 01:17AMPosts: 542 |
What would he do?
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Zero |
|
||
I want to fuck your hand.
Registered Member #571
Joined: Thu Feb 15 2007, 09:59PMPosts: 2809 |
I disagree. I'm sort of a hippie Buddhist monk on this sort of thing, lol. Although half of me doesn't believe in God fully, I feel that the right to kill is not a right to a mere human individual. Suicide and Murder end the life of individuals before their time is up. You know how people say "Breast reduction is like slapping God in the face for giving you something special", well in this aspect its the same premise. and for the "eye for an eye" thing, I dont agree with that because I've always been taught "Have love in your heart", no matter what. I've had a lot of shitty things happen to me, but I dont see how the situations would have been better with anger and force. Things resolved in a calm and gentle fashion normally hold the same results. Especially in this case, I found it hard to decide on what is what. In the Boondock Saints, they justify their killings by saying that its under God. They are protected by him, and do his bidding. And the man in your book, is also religious. So I dont know how they see that they can still be "just", after these murders. Its against all they know but yet they still find loopholes to believe that they are still under God? I cant Fathom it, but it maybe there somewhere... lol. Love the idea of it, and I believe in fate so I believe that a higher power can bestow these ideas into certain chosen people. Just very complicated. Why the liddle rotten old lady? Who knows. Doesnt sound very necessary to me, but id guess you'd have to read the book to know the conflict there. sounds like a cool book, since this is a pretty cool topic |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| BeaN |
|
||
Damnit Bean.
Registered Member #666
Joined: Fri Apr 13 2007, 02:58AMPosts: 62 |
in response to what zero said about Boondcok Saints Did you ever notice how in the Bible, when ever God needed to punish someone, or make an example, or whenever God needed a killing, he sent an angel? Did you ever wonder what a creature like that must be like? A whole existence spent praising your God, but always with one wing dipped in blood. Would you ever really want to see an angel? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| peacebypeice |
|
||
peacebypeice
Registered Member #925
Joined: Mon Nov 26 2007, 05:23AMPosts: 1452 |
well well very good topic..i think i'd like to read this book personally. as for the question, i think that personally if someone killed someone that i loved, as much as i hate to say it but i would probably kill them. i know this doesn't seem like the most just thing as far as peoples standards go but idk it just seems so fucked up that they can get away with sitting in a cell for the rest of their life. some say this is more punishment than killing them? i think what the hell, then they have all this time to prepare for death and what can really be worse than death? nothing in my eyes. as for the boondock saints thing, i agree that they were doing it for the better(fictional) but if it had happened i would side with them. Yes who are they to decide who lives and dies and such but should these "bad men" really be aloud to continue? i think not. bad people deserve whats coming to them no matter how it happens. i like to think that bad people always get what they deserve but i guess i haven't really had real life experiences with this, or not many if so. so i think if you are a just and good person and you think the decision needs to be made to react, then by all means react self defense is always aloud, i'll kill anyone that is going to hurt any of my loved ones, at any cost because really what else do we have in this life but love and friends? very good topic NoSkill 
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| The Caller of Ktulu |
|
||
Registered Member #310
Joined: Fri Jun 23 2006, 07:01AMPosts: 564 |
Interestingly enough... this actually is mentioned many a time in the game "Assassin's Creed". It repeats the idea of one murder being considered just as long as it saves many. It's a very well thought out game. I would recommend it. Anyways, let me ask you this: If Hitler were murdered, would it have been just? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|