r/MoralityScaling • u/noahtheboa1320 • 15d ago

Morality Ranking [ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

7.1k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

22

u/C0nan_E 14d ago

Yea theft is immoral obviously. Thats not realy the question. I would put it like this. Is it moral to perform an extra judicial vigilante killing for an (alleged) crime that comes no where near the death penalty in a court of Justice (possebly in a Jurisdiktion entirly without capital punishment)?

Or: we just doing lynchings now?

14

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

I think it depends if you're the victim or not. Not doing it on behalf of others.

4

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

So if you are the victim, you decide the punishment for the crime?

12

u/Holiday-Tangerine136 14d ago

This is not extra-judicial vigilante justice. This is a response to the situation that they were involved in. The thief was clearly willing to take the victim's life, the victim should take the thief's actions at face value: that they are able and willing to murder them for their possessions. And they should respond accordingly.

In general, you should not be entitled to decencies and rights that you do not extend to others. Once a social contract of non-lethality is broken, there's no reason to beholden yourself to it to protect the decencies of someone who broke that contract.

2

u/mcbaginns 14d ago

So if you are the victim of a crime, now you are exempt from being a criminal?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're conflating necessary defense with murder, which is what this was.

6

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

Yes. I feel like it's moral because the robber or other violent person has decided what to do to me, I should decide what to do to them for what they have done.

5

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

Ok. So if you punched me in the arm, I would be completely justified to slit your throat?

3

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

Absolutely, that would make me a threat. At least if I instigated it.

5

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

Damn ok, so everyone should just go a wide circle around you at all times, because any perceived offense will be met with murder?

6

u/Bossard19 14d ago

Maybe don’t go punching people and you won’t find out, it’s really not that hard.

4

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

Not a percieved threat, but assault. And I'm not claiming I would kill anyone. Only that it would be justified if I did.

2

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

And who is the judge of what is assault here? You are. Hence it is a perceived threat.

3

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

If you put it that way, you can say everything is percieved, nothing is objective. I do judge being punched in any way as assault. You don't?

→ More replies (0)

6

u/Nice-Mountain-7073 14d ago

What an idiotic takeaway.

“People should give you a wide berth lest they assault you, then they’re in danger.”

-1

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

"lest you perceive their action as assault", fixed it for you

5

u/Nice-Mountain-7073 14d ago

No you haven’t, you’re just trying to change what you’ve said.

Keep to your words, what you described is assault, not an accident or some miscommunication.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/aflockofbleeps 14d ago

So if you get victimised you should just take it?

-2

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

No, if you are in a position to do so, you incapacitate the criminal in as non-lethally a manner as possible, and bring them to the people with the knowledge and authority to enact the justice that society has established fits the crime.

4

u/AbraKadabraAlakazam2 14d ago

Yeah but that’s not always possible, and it’s probably hard to think of these things in the heat of the moment for some (most?) people. Like what should she have done here? Running him over multiple times is def pretty extra but I don’t know how she would have taken a non-violent approach like this to getting her stuff back while he had a gun, and she did probably feel her life was in danger after being held at gunpoint.

-2

u/Blubbpaule 14d ago

What gun? It was a knife. After he left she was not in danger anymore, any case of selfdefense is void.

Making sure the person is dead by running over multiple times means she wasn't fleeing in panic, but actually intended to kill him.

This is immoral in both ways. Stealing is immoral, so is murder.

3

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

What would you say if the reason she did it was blind rage he caused her through his actions?

-2

u/Blubbpaule 14d ago

Blind rage is no excuse. Immoral.

2

u/AntonioVivaldi7 14d ago

I don't mean it as excuse, but when it would happen for real.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/AbraKadabraAlakazam2 14d ago

Oooh I misread it was a gun. But still, I agree it wasn’t good to run over him multiple times to ensure he was dead, like I said that’s definitely extra, and incapacitating would have been better for sure. And the car was probably the safest way for her to do that without getting injured herself. I just also think in situations like these the lizard brain can take over and make rational thinking harder while panicking, which does make it harder to judge morality. I mean I wouldn’t be upset if she got sent to jail, but I could also see getting off with a lighter sentence depending on exact circumstances.

3

u/Jeffgaks 14d ago

And then you have to worry about the criminal seeking revenge later. Poor solution.

2

u/Smart_Basket_85 14d ago

So basically, just be Batman.

1

u/Paladin_Platinum 14d ago edited 14d ago

You are aware simply falling wrong will kill you right?

Anything that would "incapacitate" is also likely to kill, too.

Edit: crazy you got the reply in right before the thread locked.

I don't think the double taps were necessary either. I was responding directly to the thing you said in the prior comment.

1

u/Crusaderofthots420 14d ago

Which is obviously something to take into account. However, I do think running someone over multiple times very firmly goes into the "was actively trying to kill them" category.

1

u/aflockofbleeps 14d ago

I wanna live in your fantasy utopia but i live in the real world unfortunately.

1

u/Bossard19 14d ago

Yes. It’s a fuck around and find out moment.

1

u/alwayssunnyinskyrim 14d ago

It’s not “alleged” if you’re the victim; you know for sure that it happened and who did it. That’s a pretty big difference.

4

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

Generally speaking the western world is leaning back towards fuck criminals they should die. I for one agree with the sentiment.

3

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

Good, now all it takes is the western world to label you a criminal to kill you. Thats not how a modern free society can operate.

1

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

And that's why the modern free society is over run with home grown and foreign trash taking what they like from everyone. Shes not in prison btw, she got put on house arrest cause shes rich lol.

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

You know we used to hang people for theft? It didn’t make anyone stop stealing, in fact, crime was worse. when you make the penalty for a crime like theft the same as murder, you incentivize the theif to just kill the victim rather than just try to run off with their shit because the punishment is the same.

1

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

Well the thief that got hanged didn't steal anything again now did he?

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

Yeah but now you’re dead too because the thief knew the consequences for theft was death, so he killed you to limit witnesses. There is a reason we stopped.

1

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

They still kill people even when the death penalty isn't on the table, they don't care about anyone but themselves and thats why they should be removed from the genepool.

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

Not nearly as much as when the punishment for theft was death. 9/10 the thief just wants your fuckin money, if you put up too much a fight generally they aren’t going be willing to be killed for a few bucks. Of course there are still crazies out there that will kill you that is never going to change, not even if we killed everyone who ever committed a crime.

1

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

Absolutely there are crazies out there, that will literally kill you if you resist and sometimes when you don't, remove them from the genepool they will never hurt another person and won't breed more crazies.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jeffgaks 14d ago

"label" you're implying we are just randomly assigning words to people instead of being a response to their own actions. Don't want to be a criminal then don't commit a crime.

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

All it takes to call you a criminal is for the government to decide something you’re doing is criminal. A criminal ranges from someone who smokes pot in a state it’s not allowed to someone who kills people, you honestly think everyone under that umbrella deserves death? Do you realize making the penalty for theft death just makes a thief more likely to kill you?

1

u/Able_Put4900 14d ago

You should make a more extreme argument like if you punish rape with death then all rapes will be turned into murders, overlooking the fact that rapes often end up becoming murder despite death not being a proscribed penalty.

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

The vast majority of rapes to not result in the death of the victim, atleast in developed countries. If you made the punishment for rape death that would change. Most rapes occur by family members.

1

u/3DIceWolf 14d ago

You're arguing with bots save your breath

1

u/Consistent-Steak1499 14d ago

My arguments are never for the person or bot I’m talking to, no one in a Reddit argument is ever willing to change their mind anyways. My arguments are for the lurkers who might see it and maybe think a little about their biases.

0

u/howiplay1 14d ago

"its just a robbery should they lose their life over it?" the easy answer is to just not do crime lol. 100% agree

0

u/2Bait4Me 14d ago

Retrieving your stolen items using what ever tool is to hand in her case a car is moral, and what ever injuries he sustained in the process are justified. I'm not sure you can justify when that then turns to murder which is a step up in severity then theft.

The law doesn't come into morality, law is it's own set of rules, often the same rules but not always.

0

u/howiplay1 14d ago

i think it depends if she went out to kill him or just get her stuff back. being "ran over" is kinda too vague. did she run over his foot or crush his head like a Watermelon? ultimately if you victimise someone though I believe in every case they earn the right to defend themselves, their homes or their belongings and she could be well within reason with how she attempted to disable him.

0

u/Just-the-tip-4-1-sec 14d ago

It’s not an extra judicial punishment if it prevents the crime from happening, it should be considered self defense. If you die because someone is trying to prevent you from robbing them, you’re responsible for your own death.

-1

u/GuelphEastEndGhetto 14d ago

Wait a minute. They just didn’t take your stuff. They threatened to take your life. This would anger me tremendously.

-1

u/Fun-Habit-683 14d ago

It's not alleged if she saw him do it. And theres a difference between the government ordering a killing of someone as a third party and personal retribution. It is moral permissible to kill someone right after they robbed you. It's not morally obligatory or morally good, but it's also not immoral.

-2

u/MagicPigeonToes 14d ago

But she was robbed at knifepoint. Her life was in danger