[INFP] The meaning of mercy

[lunarious]

I have a discussion with a XXFJ here about a mass murderer called Anders Behring Breivik, and he has coold bloodedly murdered many youths and set a explosion. Because he wanted to protect Norway and Europe from muslims. I am muslim. And I would have been restlessly offended and considered him an enemy (and I do) but I do feel sympathy for him. I think he should die mercifully instead of depriving him of his youth and having everyone turning their backs against him. And generally it should be lawful with death penalty, and although it is not considered human (what did he say? Not in the human rights?). Just like when you put out dogs, and that guy is a dog, a pack person whom is loyal to his cause. Like a solider, and dogs do get put out when they are beyond healing.

Is it right to keep someone in pain, so others can have the pleasure of being angry at someone? At him? Is it neccesary?

Peace

 

[Oscillation]

I guess it depends on what moral you ascribe to.
But I don't think it's morally correct to let another suffer just because he have made you suffer. There is a point of giving justice, and to give justice we sometimes have to have a penalty system. But this is not for the sake of the people that got hurt, to get revange, this is for the sake of the person who made the inmoral act. I also believe in mercy, but only if the person that recieves mercy is regretful. I think.

But I think what you're really asking about it wheather it's okey to have death penalty or not, as an act of mercy?

I remember the day when Breivik did the terror. Horrible day.

 

[Kaleidoscopic]

I do not belive in death penalty but I think he should be punished for his victims, there needs to be some justice for their family and friends. If he has murdered so many people, he's dangerous and could do it again so for the savety of the population he should be at prison isolated.
He's cause is being Islamophobic? If he's loyal to such an awful extremism another reason to put him in prison. He's violating human rights. We need law and we need to apply it. It's necesary for any society to work, if it not it would an anarchy. Complete chaos.
I would like to think that he will regret his crimes but I think that this kind of person don't change, even tho we still have to give him an oportunity to change and redeem once he serves his sentence.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Extended punishment in prison is merciful. It gives a person time to review and repent of their actions. It gives someone who is wrong, the opportunity to right themselves.

"Hitting rock bottom" is, as it alludes to a severely unpleasant thing, but it is precisely the pre-condition for many troubled people to turn their lives around. If someone doesn't take the opportunity, that is their choice. However, while there is still life, there is still choice.


Personally, I find the notion of putting anyone down like a dog un-human.

 

[lunarious]

Extended punishment in prison is merciful. It gives a person time to review and repent of their actions. Personally, I find the notion of putting anyone down like a dog un-human.

What is human? Define it for me. Life is inhuman, and to live it humanely you must live with dignity. In prison they humilate you until there is no way again to start a "riot". And when you are out, you are submissive to the law. But to whom? Law is manmade, and that man died. .... I am sorry I am just ranting.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What is human? Define it for me. Life is inhuman, and to live it humanely you must live with dignity. In prison they humilate you until there is no way again to start a "riot". And when you are out, you are submissive to the law. But to whom? Law is manmade, and that man died. .... I am sorry I am just ranting.

Human is sentient, self-determining, and recognises fellow sentient, self-determining beings.

To put someone down for killing another is either to nullify the judgement that what they did is wrong (by claiming it is right to kill), or to enter into the same type of wrong-doing (by saying it is wrong to kill and then killing). Either position is hypocritical and infringes against humans as self-determining.

Of course we are not entirely self-determining - environment plays a factor, but individuals are very distinct/individual from their environment (animate, or inanimate). Locking someone up does not change the individual, but it provides the circumstances for someone who is wrong to start being right.

 

[lunarious]

I think i agree. I do.

 

[courteouskitten]

Human is sentient, self-determining, and recognises fellow sentient, self-determining beings.

To put someone down for killing another is either to nullify the judgement that what they did is wrong (by claiming it is right to kill), or to enter into the same type of wrong-doing (by saying it is wrong to kill and then killing). Either position is hypocritical and infringes against humans as self-determining.

Of course we are not entirely self-determining - environment plays a factor, but individuals are very distinct/individual from their environment (animate, or inanimate). Locking someone up does not change the individual, but it provides the circumstances for someone who is wrong to start being right.

This is one of the best non-religious arguments I've heard against capital punishment.

Just to stimulate further discussion, though, how would you respond to the argument that intentionally ending another human's life and murder are not necessarily the same thing?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

This is one of the best non-religious arguments I've heard against capital punishment.

Just to stimulate further discussion, though, how would you respond to the argument that intentionally ending another human's life and murder are not necessarily the same thing?

They are not the same thing. Killing for the sake of killing/personal gain/etc. we call murder. But killing in self defense, or through non-negligent accident we do not. The difference is the intention to take a life. The state itself at times can execute certain criminals, if the good of the society demands it. However, in modern times, with modern prisons such a situation is unlikely to be justifiable. I think that capital punishment cannot be used without hypocrisy unless the execution is necessary to save other lives.

An example of justifiable execution/capital punishment would be a mutiny on a passenger vessel/ship. If the mutineers intended to dispose of the passengers, in order to steal the ship/cargo - then any ring-leader mutineers would justifiably be executed, lest covert crew members try to free them and continue with the mutiny. The safety of the passengers would require that the mutiny leaders be executed. The intention of the killing would not be in the first place to kill, or punish - but rather to save lives.

 

[Yva]

I guess it depends on what moral you ascribe to.
But I don't think it's morally correct to let another suffer just because he have made you suffer. There is a point of giving justice, and to give justice we sometimes have to have a penalty system. But this is not for the sake of the people that got hurt, to get revange, this is for the sake of the person who made the inmoral act. I also believe in mercy, but only if the person that recieves mercy is regretful. I think.
But I think what you're really asking about it wheather it's okey to have death penalty or not, as an act of mercy?

I remember the day when Breivik did the terror. Horrible day.

The problem with the penalty system is that it isn't Universal. For instance in America certain states punishments are much more severe than others. The only example That comes to my mind is of a young man who suffers with autism. He killed his mother and father because they were related and he stated that the bible said it was wrong to have relations with ones own family. For his crime Texas gave him the death penalty. It seems like capital punishment is based on emotion and not logic.

 

[lunarious]

I guess it depends on what moral you ascribe to.
But I don't think it's morally correct to let another suffer just because he have made you suffer. There is a point of giving justice, and to give justice we sometimes have to have a penalty system. But this is not for the sake of the people that got hurt, to get revange, this is for the sake of the person who made the inmoral act. I also believe in mercy, but only if the person that recieves mercy is regretful. I think.

But I think what you're really asking about it wheather it's okey to have death penalty or not, as an act of mercy?

I remember the day when Breivik did the terror. Horrible day.

Hello, sorry for the late reply. I see you havent lost your chastity or virtue. In Zen they call it "beginners mind" (shoshin) and they say in a beginners mind there are lots of possibilities, and in an advanced there are few. I do respect your wisdom despite your young age. As kinda Buddhist. I am Muslim.

So you are right, it is because we consentrate about the criminal, he is our subject, and others feelings (usually hurt or anger) are not relevant. I Disagree with that the families should be consentrated about and given justice. That would disrupt the equation and make the criminal suffer longer. And when we show kindess to the criminal (like turning the other cheek) dont we actually encourage him to become more "right"? Dont we? Even muslims believe that the reward for kindness is kindness, and the reward for evil is forgiveness (alternatively and not recommended revenge). Like in this verse from the Quran: