Who is a bad person? What makes someone bad?

[wbradley]

Criminally insane people are put in a hospital, not a prison. That is because they were proven to be unaware of the implications of their actions by acredited psychiatrists.

Being aware of the implications but taking it upon yourself in a premeditated manner to kill or harm others is criminal and therefore bad. During times of war there are rules of engagement. Breaking those rules constitutes war crimes by the world court. You can break it down as you wish.

[blackhawkdown]

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Criminally insane people are put in a hospital, not a prison. That is because they were proven to be unaware of the implications of their actions by acredited psychiatrists.

Being aware of the implications but taking it upon yourself in a premeditated manner to kill or harm others is criminal and therefore bad. During times of war there are rules of engagement. Breaking those rules constitutes war crimes by the world court. You can break it down as you wish.

Who constitutes the "world court"?
The winners do!
So gonna try this one last time.
The crimes are from the winners perspective so the losers may still feel that they are not bad their perspective.
Not saying that the crimes were right in any way but the perpetrators do not feel they are bad.
You can not take your personal/regional/cultural perspective and apply it across the board and insist it is the only point of view.
Try to look past the circumstances of the examples I put here and see the point that was trying to be made.

I am going to drop this argument by once again quoting Ammonia as he sums the whole subject up in a couple of sentences (and I truly thank him for his candidness and insight):

"I've killed at least two people"

"But I'm respected and admired (usually) in this country."

"If I go elsewhere I'd be a nationalist pig and be looked at as a murdering warmonging monster. "

[wbradley]

Tcoat, I respect what you are saying and I like the hat you put on Flanders, but...

EVERYTHING in the world is relative to a frame of reference. Some things are black and white while others are grey. If you analyze black and white they too are combinations of many shades...

Not every participant in the world court (I believe it s in The Hague, NL) earned their positions as the spoils of war. MOST countries that hold positions of influence in the world court (if not all) did not achieve the positions as a result of invading other countries and subjugating them.

In a true democracy (we try to achieve this ideal as much as humanly possible) things are determined by consensus. Humans have decided that certain acts are antisocial and "bad" for humanity. Primarily those that take away freedom and the ability for others to thrive and/or live. While we as a species have yet to reach an ideal regarding our treatment of our fellow human beings, I believe we have improved over time. Abolition of slavery, reduction in xenophobia, and a world community are examples I can think of.

Leaders of rogue nations and those that rule with tyranny and act in a highly punitive manner toward any opposition are "bad" to me. I believe most people will agree. Points of view from individuals or people influenced by "those" would likely not fit within standard deviation of the common consensus on what is fair, moral, or good.

[gramicci101]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Being aware of the implications but taking it upon yourself in a premeditated manner to kill or harm others is criminal and therefore bad. During times of war there are rules of engagement. Breaking those rules constitutes war crimes by the world court. You can break it down as you wish.

Criminal as defined by who though? What's considered criminal now is totally different than what was considered criminal 200 years ago. Morals, ethics, and the definition of crime are all very flexible and depend on society at that time.


Would you consider the Crusades around 1100 to be criminal? Christians swept into Muslim lands, captured and slaughtered people indiscriminately, and generally waged holy war with the stated purpose of restoring Christianity to Jerusalem. There were no laws against it and they believed what they were doing was right and directed by God and the catholic church. They were, in the minds of most Christians and the laws at that time, completely justified in their actions.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by gramicci101

Criminal as defined by who though? What's considered criminal now is totally different than what was considered criminal 200 years ago. Morals, ethics, and the definition of crime are all very flexible and depend on society at that time.


Would you consider the Crusades around 1100 to be criminal? Christians swept into Muslim lands, captured and slaughtered people indiscriminately, and generally waged holy war with the stated purpose of restoring Christianity to Jerusalem. There were no laws against it and they believed what they were doing was right and directed by God and the catholic church. They were, in the minds of most Christians and the laws at that time, completely justified in their actions.

Again, I believe we have improved over time. Abolition of slavery, reduction in xenophobia, and a world community are examples I can think of. I am doubtful that 900 years in the future they will look back and say the decision to abolish slavery was barbaric.

[gramicci101]

And 900 years from now, things might be criminal that we would currently be totally ok with. Control your own vehicle instead of it being auto-driven? Preposterous! A danger to everyone around him, just look at the fatality numbers! What were they thinking?


The fact is, just because you believe something is bad doesn't mean it is. Some people believe premarital sex is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, that just means it is for them.

[wbradley]

Originally Posted by gramicci101

The fact is, just because you believe something is bad doesn't mean it is. Some people believe premarital sex is bad, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is bad, that just means it is for them.

Bad, but gooood!

[gramicci101]

Originally Posted by wbradley

Bad, but gooood!

Exactly. But if you expressed that opinion in Boston in the 1600's, you'd have been ostracized and driven from the community. That doesn't mean we've improved or not, just that we've changed. In another 400 years it might be immoral again.