Debate Mansion

   

The Boondock Saints: Debate (Page 2)

Post Reply New Post

Page 2 of 3

Page 1
Page   of 3
Page 3 Page 3

Star_on_earth

IF-Rockerz

Star_on_earth

Joined: 27 December 2006

Posts: 8590

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 12:15am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Summer3

Originally posted by Star_on_earth

atleast their intention was good...
 
i m not sure if what they did was right...but atleast they did something..right or wrong they tried on their part to end crime.
 
 
Well said Starry ji.Smile
 
thank u Smile

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "The Boondock Saints: Debate (Page 2)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Beyond_the_Veil

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008

Posts: 11596

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 2:08am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

casper2return_to_hades

debayon

IF-Sizzlerz

debayon

Joined: 01 October 2008

Posts: 20191

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 8:30am | IP Logged
Originally posted by PhoeniXof_Hades



Some more foods for thoughts: What matters, the intention, the action, or the outcome of the action a person does/commits? When a person kills another person in cold-blood, and we take the killer as a criminal, do we look at the intention he had in his mind while killing, or the action he committed, or the impact of the action in the world - when labeling him as a criminal? Take the case of a police, a freedom fighter, and terrorist - for all the three, we take into account their intention (and to some extent, the outcome/impact of their action), when labeling them as Saint or Devil, yet how do we draw the line into a noble intention, and a wicked one? For all we know, for a terrorist, his intention is 'noble' - but so is the intention of a freedom fighter; do then, ones intention have to be universally noble, and if one objective truth exists, and furthermore, if morality is objective to begin with. How about utilitarianism - where the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. There is a whole lot  of discussion that can stem from the concept, utilization and criticisms of utilitarianism morality.

Well, not really related with the topic at hand, but can come in handy, when answering the questions you raised. I was actually thinking of post a topic on the nature of crime and justice for the longest time I can remember, but then I saw this, and posted it here.
You're too smart for me, POH ji. But I can answer your question about which is more important: the intention, the action or the outcome. I believe the action is more important because the outcome depends on what you have done. Beside, if we're talking about crimes, then the action is very essential becuase the accused will be sentenced based on the severity of the crime. Also, many lives can change based on the crime committed, especially of the criminal and the people around him and the victim and the people around him. I'm still learning so can't produce a wittier response. Forgive me if I'm wrong or my reasoning is flawed.

debayon

IF-Sizzlerz

debayon

Joined: 01 October 2008

Posts: 20191

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 8:33am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Summer3

Originally posted by debayon

No, what they did was evil. You can't kill people in the name of 'God', why did 'God' come and whisper in your ear that all criminals are to be killed? Bloody hell. Superman and Batman are certainly vigilantes, but they work with humankind by destroying evils of society, not by killing man himself. Besides, even if they did so, remember they were only made to suit the mentality of a kid.
 
What you are saying is that if you are not a MOD do not issue warnings.LOL
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the MOD has the right warn the person who has written harsh and caustic remarks but he can't immediately ban him or take any extreme measures.

_Angie_

IF-Rockerz

_Angie_

Joined: 21 February 2008

Posts: 9888

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 9:10am | IP Logged
Nice topic sarina. Nice to C Labib back in action after long , hope all's fine at ur end Smile
One can never really B sure of a person's intent,  action by itself is meaningless. So I think its outcome by which we normally judge an action or a person... need to think some more on this  though ...

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Beyond_the_Veil

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20255

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 9:59am | IP Logged
Originally posted by debayon

No, what they did was evil. You can't kill people in the name of 'God', why did 'God' come and whisper in your ear that all criminals are to be killed? Bloody hell. Superman and Batman are certainly vigilantes, but they work with humankind by destroying evils of society, not by killing man himself. Besides, even if they did so, remember they were only made to suit the mentality of a kid.


Forget the question of God. What if a person by their own morality and rationality decides that crime is evil, criminals are evil, and chooses to exterminate criminals. How do we evaluate the morality of their judgment. Have they served society by getting rid of evil or have they added to evil in society by committing evil. In this hypothesis they kill only evil people, no innocents are killed even as collateral damage.

Speaking of superheroes, they have fictionally created supervillains to fight and the supervillains are curbed not killed. However, when you delve into a superhero like Batman, its all a shade of gray. The psyche of Batman is more vengeful than heroic. He does not act with the intent of grace and good, but with the intent of vengeance. Similarly the villains in this series themselves are good people like Harry Two face who turn circumstantially evil. The intent on both sides is vengeance, the only difference is that Batman's vengeance does not negatively impact civilization but theirs does. Hypothetically, if the villains were still good and acted in goodness and grace, but circumstantially the outcome was negative. Who would be the better person, the one who acted in vengeance or the one who acted in goodness and grace.

debayon

IF-Sizzlerz

debayon

Joined: 01 October 2008

Posts: 20191

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 10:47am | IP Logged
Originally posted by return_to_hades

Originally posted by debayon

No, what they did was evil. You can't kill people in the name of 'God', why did 'God' come and whisper in your ear that all criminals are to be killed? Bloody hell. Superman and Batman are certainly vigilantes, but they work with humankind by destroying evils of society, not by killing man himself. Besides, even if they did so, remember they were only made to suit the mentality of a kid.


Forget the question of God. What if a person by their own morality and rationality decides that crime is evil, criminals are evil, and chooses to exterminate criminals. How do we evaluate the morality of their judgment. Have they served society by getting rid of evil or have they added to evil in society by committing evil. In this hypothesis they kill only evil people, no innocents are killed even as collateral damage. His cause is certainly good but he's taking the law in his own hand, which makes him a vigilante, which in turn is not good. Therefore, his judgement is twisted and he's in need of a therapist. But I can see his POV, his argument would be that law is not acting properly, which is a very good rationale.

Speaking of superheroes, they have fictionally created supervillains to fight and the supervillains are curbed not killed. However, when you delve into a superhero like Batman, its all a shade of gray. The psyche of Batman is more vengeful than heroic. He does not act with the intent of grace and good, but with the intent of vengeance. Similarly the villains in this series themselves are good people like Harry Two face who turn circumstantially evil. The intent on both sides is vengeance, the only difference is that Batman's vengeance does not negatively impact civilization but theirs does. Hypothetically, if the villains were still good and acted in goodness and grace, but circumstantially the outcome was negative. Who would be the better person, the one who acted in vengeance or the one who acted in goodness and grace. Yes, I agree. But then these comics portray a very strong message: That the law and order system needs to be strengthened, or people will take the law in their own hands. 

Sherraz

Senior Member

Sherraz

Joined: 24 January 2010

Posts: 715

Posted: 25 January 2010 at 11:02am | IP Logged
Any crime of self-defense is pardonable. If someone attacks you or your surroundings, you have full right to defend yourself in whichever way you feel appropriate.
 
When the purpose of the crime is other than self-defense, then generally people do the "cost benefit" analysis. They judge the action based on the outcome\impact primarily, without bothering much on the intent or the action. There are not many ways for criminals to disclose their intent to the society unless they are tried in the courtroom. As an example, someone may kill a crimal by accident and people may immediately grant him a hero status without bothering about his intent.
 
Everyone is concerned about the impact, impact to them or to the society. The broader the impact, more concrete is the perception. So if an act of crime benefits the society, criminal will be regarded as a hero. In my opinion, every crime should be tried in the courtroom, crime with good intent or bad intent. It is too dangerous to function on mere perceptions. If someone is labeled as an anti-social element, you can't go on to punish him unless you have evidences against him. The level of punishment depends on the negative impacts of the crimes commited by the criminal.
 
So in short, each action which interferes with the rights of another human being, should be tried in the courtroom. Now if the law is not functioning as it should be then we have a bigger problem at our hands to solve but no two wrongs can make a right, it only brings anarchy.     
 
 

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
^DEBATE MANSION SLAM BOOK^

2 3 4 5 6

BilliCat. 46 6764 23 December 2011 at 7:23am
By .DontKnow.
The Spirit of Debate Mansion

2

return_to_hades 14 9069 01 January 2010 at 3:09pm
By Jess.
The place to debate?

2 3 4

-Sneha 28 1928 07 December 2009 at 6:44am
By -Sneha
Mythology and Scriptures Debate Thread

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 43 44

..RamKiJanaki.. 344 13820 19 November 2009 at 10:24am
By _Angie_
internet debate tactics?

2 3 4

jettythegod 24 4266 27 September 2009 at 7:50pm
By return_to_hades

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.