Crime-Free World

[Deleted member]

Alright, I guess I'll give this a try, because it's been on my mind a fair bit recently.

I'm not going to name any names, but a popular anime has gotten me a bit hooked.
It's about a guy who finds a notebook. If you write a person's name in the notebook, they will die. If you write the time of death and cause of death, it will happen.

Anyway, he begins to use it to purge the world of evil, by creating a world without criminals, killing them off..in the attempts that people will not commit future crimes for fear of dying.

So the question remains:

Is he evil for wanting to rid the world of evil? Killing people that the world is better off without, to fulfill his goal? Imagine a world like that, after a few years of teaching lessons the hard way.

[please try not to derail into capital-punishment land TOO TOO much, as I'd like to keep the discussion relatively on topic of the anime..if you haven't seen it, then whatever.]

/the old college try

 

[The Mad Hatter]

If he does it in the name of religion, hes a saint.

 

[snex]

we can only judge the morality of an action by its outcomes, not by some intrinsic value that actions have. are the people in the world created by this scenario happier? is there less suffering overall?

of course, one could also ask whether there might be less suffering if he simply wrote everyone's name in the book, which would lead to the absurd conclusion that all humans should be dead.

is there some middle ground, where there is an optimum number of people that we should kill off to make the rest of us happy? and who gets to decide which group of people deserve happiness at the expense of the others?

greater philosophers than we have debated these issues for millenia without resolution - i doubt youll find a satisfactory answer here.

 

[Deleted member]

we can only judge the morality of an action by its outcomes, not by some intrinsic value that actions have. are the people in the world created by this scenario happier? is there less suffering overall?

That's not entirely true. If I intend to shoot someone on the street with malice on my mind and I miss and hit a guy discreetly about to suicide bomb a cafe, my original action was malicious but it turned out better in the end - I'd be seen as a hero - but it wouldn't resonate the same way had I actually intended to hit the guy. This is a little off topic, but I want replies, so whatever.

of course, one could also ask whether there might be less suffering if he simply wrote everyone's name in the book, which would lead to the absurd conclusion that all humans should be dead.

But do we know if it's absurd or not? /emo (it probably is)

is there some middle ground, where there is an optimum number of people that we should kill off to make the rest of us happy? and who gets to decide which group of people deserve happiness at the expense of the others?

Well see, that's the thing. When the guy finds the book, he takes it as becoming a god. He proceeds to act as the man who will deliver divine judgment as he sees fit. So, HE gets to decide, because he found the book. I'm not sure if it's a middle ground, but it's usually plain to see, when it comes right down to it, who deserves to live and who should be voted off the island.

greater philosophers than we have debated these issues for millenia without resolution - i doubt youll find a satisfactory answer here.

The same could be said about almost every single other debate thread in this hall.

But finally, a decent reply.

I'll try to get the ball rolling. Personally, if something like this could happen, I'd definitely be in support of the cause.

Because really..if you haven't done anything terribly bad, then you wouldn't really have to worry, would you. You'd go through a few years of headlines saying "50 more criminals dead", yes...but people would start to get the message. You'd eventually, without even realizing it, be living in a world that is simply better.

Wouldn't it be a nicer world if all the serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, large scale con artists, etc...just simply didn't exist? Or are we really that addicted to chaos?

Would not having evil disrupt the human way of life? It's kind of strange. Imagine a world of sunshine and rainbows and lollipops. It almost makes you want something terrible/large scale/chaotic to happen. Would it get..dare I say it..boring?

Wow, okay. I have a lot to think about now.

 

[DoH]

I think there's a bigger issue that you're overlooking; rights. Whenever he kills someone off, he's infringing upon someone else's natural given right to life. Just because someone laudners money or is a rapist, does that necessarily mean that they give up their right to life because they broke a law, or infringed on someone else's rights? I think not, especially from this kid, because he is not endowed with any mandate that entitles him to enforce the law. He is also taking law into his own hands, doleing out justice arbitrarily as he sees fit. By infringing on these people's rights, he becomes just as bad or worse that these murderers or rapists.

 

[snex]

there is no such thing as a natural right to life, or to anything else. you have rights because society gives them to you.

 

[DoH]

Eh, even if there isn't a natural right to life and rights are merely a construct of society then the argument still stands; under your framework he's breaking a social contract rather than a natural one.

 

[Deleted member]

Eh, even if there isn't a natural right to life and rights are merely a construct of society then the argument still stands; under your framework he's breaking a social contract rather than a natural one.

God giveth, and He taketh away.

The guy thinks he becomes a God, and really, he has. A Death God. So he isn't really breaking social contracts or natural contracts. It's kind of like a human who doesn't care about the individual lives of ants in the colony beside his house when he steps on the ones who interrupt his picnic.

 

[Deleted member]

Eh, even if there isn't a natural right to life and rights are merely a construct of society then the argument still stands; under your framework he's breaking a social contract rather than a natural one.

God giveth, and he taketh away.

The guy thinks he becomes a God, so he isn't really breaking social contracts or natural contracts. It's kind of like a human who doesn't care about the individual lives of ants in the colony beside his house when he steps on the ones who interrupt his picnic.

Would not having evil disrupt the human way of life? It's kind of strange. Imagine a world of sunshine and rainbows and lollipops. It almost makes you want something terrible/large scale/chaotic to happen. Would it get..dare I say it..boring?

Would love to hear your guys' thoughts on that thought..

 

[DoH]

I've never seen Death Note, but spent a few minutes on wikipedia researching it.

First of all, it doesn't seem to me that he actually is a god, but merely he believes he is one; isn't he rather powerless without the Death Note (outside of his genius, of course) but he doesn't have any actual active powers. Also, the death note isn't his, but rather Ryuks - who if I'm not mistaken, still holds the power to retract the death note, right? So his powers are only as limitless as Ryuk allows, and are confined to the rules of the death note (such as he has to know his victim's face and true name) which means that he'll never be able to truly rid the world of all evil unless he can get EVERY criminal's name and picture. (Is there a page limit on the death note itself? Can you add more pages or erase names or something?)

Also, Light doesn't actually become a shinigami (since he still lacks the powers of Shinigami Eyes, he doesn't absorb his victim's lifespan, and he can't grow wings) so therefore one, he's doesn't have a mandate to carry out justice, and two, his powers are not his own. Lastly, he's still mortal; therefore he is not a god and is still confined by the rule of law.

He is killing these criminals because they break the law; however since he's still human the law still applies to him and by committing murder, he breaks the law and then become no better than them.

---

A world without evil? First off a lot of people would be out of a job, second it's outside the realm of possibility so it's really hard to debate, and I think it makes life quite one sided. If we didn't have evil would that mean we would be without conflict?

 

[Deleted member]

A world without evil? First off a lot of people would be out of a job, second it's outside the realm of possibility so it's really hard to debate, and I think it makes life quite one sided. If we didn't have evil would that mean we would be without conflict?

You took my bait.

Are you telling me that you'd rather have a few more people with jobs than having no evil at all? If evil never existed in the first place, jobs that were required for that evil wouldn't exist either.

What if the concept of evil was completely non-existant. What would life be like?

Would a life without criminals be one-sided? Did you actually just say that?

 

[DoH]

If we were able to instantly switch to no evil, then it would be really weird; also, who decides what is evil? Do George Bush, Ann Coulter, and Kim Jung Il just disappear? Some people often categorize their actions as evil, but are they? The lines that divide good from evil are often rather arbitrary it's so hard to define what is or isn't evil, as good is so personally definable.

I know this is going to sound super gay, but since we're using sources from fiction to explain our points, I will; on Charmed, the witches had to deal with two seperate situations which I find quite analagous.

First, the sisters had disrupted the balance between their 'good' world and the alternate universe where they were evil, which had the effect of making their world so good that the slightest infraction was responded with the most severe punishment. For example, Phoebe had parked her car in front of a dumpster or something and ended up getting shot by the police for it. She broke the law, so in a sense she was doing evil, so she was eliminated. Obviously, this kind of reality is incredibly extreme, but I think it proves my point about 'no crime' being one sided.

The second scenario where something like this happened was when the witches joined forces with these beings known as the Avatars to eliminate conflict and install world peace. To do this they put everyone under a spell and basically rewired everyone so that they would be nice, good people. However, some people caused conflict (such as traffic accidents or dropping a bag of fruit) and those people were eliminated. There are two ethical issues here I believe; one, the issue of the crime fitting a punishment (because in this reality, anything that causes conflict is eliminated, so people were killed for making mistakes) and two, the issue of free will, as the Avatars were putting the globe under mind control. Both of these reasons forced the sisters to come to their senses and reverse the spell.

The bottom line is that anytime you try to eradicate all evil, you end up perpetuating it yourself, whether it be through strict authoritarianism or murder or both. Evil is such an arbitrary term, so whoever is trying to eliminate it is going to have different interpretations, so who do we go with? Mother Theresa? Jerry Fallwell? What man is fit to determine what is good or evil?

It does seem that any time someone has tried to reshape the world in their image, people tend to die; for all intents and purposes, Hitler wanted to eradicate what he saw as evil to make way for the pure good Aryan race, right?

 

[Pariah]

You took my bait.

Are you telling me that you'd rather have a few more people with jobs than having no evil at all? If evil never existed in the first place, jobs that were required for that evil wouldn't exist either.

What if the concept of evil was completely non-existant. What would life be like?

Would a life without criminals be one-sided? Did you actually just say that?

Still, who are you saying /is/ a criminal? Who is in control of this tool to get rid of evil? What is your idea of evil in the first place?

You can't get rid of evil if you /don't know/ what it is. That wouldn't make sense for say, the people who are wrongly convicted in court. What say for them?

 

[Deleted member]

Still, who are you saying /is/ a criminal? Who is in control of this tool to get rid of evil? What is your idea of evil in the first place?

You can't get rid of evil if you /don't know/ what it is. That wouldn't make sense for say, the people who are wrongly convicted in court. What say for them?

For argument's sake let's pretend that they know if the person is truely guilty or not. We are already leaving a bit of rational thought at the door of this topic, so yeah.

Criminals are easily labeled. Are you forgetting we already label people who commit crimes as criminals? I thought in this day and age it's only getting easier to point the finger, not harder.

 

[Pariah]

For argument's sake let's pretend that they know if the person is truely guilty or not. We are already leaving a bit of rational thought at the door of this topic, so yeah.

Criminals are easily labeled. Are you forgetting we already label people who commit crimes as criminals? I thought in this day and age it's only getting easier to point the finger, not harder.

All labeling aside, I have a question. In what punishment does the criminal get this Death Note thing (hah, I knew ze manga)? I see the thought for like, death row, but what's the description of evil? Does killing someone make you evil? Maybe. But that makes no sense. What sort of crime constitutes the tool? Stealing? Killing? Parking in a handicapped's parking spot? Besides, you didn't answer my question as in who's in control of this tool.

 

[Deleted member]

Asking which crimes deserve the tool is still labeling, you're going about it just a different way.

I'm not really sure what your other question is. The smartest kid in all of Japan is in control of the tool in the series. Are you asking who deserves to use it?

 

[Pariah]

Asking which crimes deserve the tool is still labeling, you're going about it just a different way.

I'm not really sure what your other question is. The smartest kid in all of Japan is in control of the tool in the series. Are you asking who deserves to use it?

Psh. I'm going to go and say apparently the justice system uses it, then.

The series and real life is different. The smartest kid in all of Japan? Does that make the smartest kid in every country able to use it?

 

[Digital Watches]

Hm... DoH brings up a point that is of some interest to me.

Criminal rights. Surely there should be some concept of rights for those who have made decisions that went against the rules of society, but that's where it gets tricky: By breaking the law, the criminal has made a decision. It's not discrimination or oppression based on an arbitrary factor, it is a clear violation of rules that were set out by the society as a whole before the person in question, of his/her own volition, decided to ignore them. We have a sense of priority among crimes, with some considered less acceptable than others. But at the "worst" end of the spectrum, at the point where the crime is considered among the least forgivable, at what point does enforcing the societal consequences for such iniquities override the rights of the individual who acted of their own accord to commit such acts?

 

[Fawriel]

Interesting subject, I wish I could have joined in much earlier.

1. Even the smartest kid in the world is still just human. What IS a criminal and how much does one have to do to die?
When I was younger, I was a really good kid and always did what was right, but there was this guy in my class who bullied me for no apparent reason, calling me gay and stuff.
Years later, it turns out the guy's actually gay himself, which in turn must mean that he was using me in order to cope with his own mental pain, WHICH is most likely partially caused by society's non-acceptance of homosexuality. Now, did the bullying make him evil? I sure as hell wanted him to die.

2. Would the world truly be a better place? You'd think that under Christianity, where those who sinned supposedly end up in hell to suffer eternally, there would be no criminals. But that's far from true, too. "Evil" just seems to lie in the nature of people.
If everybody was kept quiet and peaceful through fear, people would start getting mentally ill one by one from fear. Once someone has, maybe accidentally, done something criminal, the fear turns into panic and they might just lose their head and maybe even murder any bystanders who saw what they did. And if the penalty is death, without a certain way to see how crimes are judged, anything will seem like a major crime to a fearful one.

I'm reminded of communism. They tried to make people share and stuff. Communism is a Utopia. Problem is that they had to FORCE people to keep to the Utopian laws, which in turn made them unfree, which is rather Dystopian.
Many science-fiction novels deal with something like this. Like Brave New World. A world where everyone is happy.. is it a good world? Would a man live a good life if he spent it tied to a chair getting infused with drugs that continuously keep him in a happy state?
The thought seems scary.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Off the top of my head, the only people who "deserve" to die are those who have killed others and explicitly plan to kill more. (I don't feel like diving into the debate of "should we forgive someone who killed one other person and regrets it?") We all have a right to live and are entitled to the pursuit of happiness in this life, so those who circumvent that right by ending someone's life ought to be silenced. Beyond that, it's really hard to say who should live and who should die. For what crimes do we imprison someone? How long in prison is considered too long to where it'd be better to just kill the criminal?

EDIT -- I'm referring to premeditated murder outside of the military. I reread my post and noticed that many soldiers would deserve to die according to my words. >_<

 

[blazedaces]

Off the top of my head, the only people who "deserve" to die are those who have killed others and explicitly plan to kill more. (I don't feel like diving into the debate of "should we forgive someone who killed one other person and regrets it?") We all have a right to live and are entitled to the pursuit of happiness in this life, so those who circumvent that right by ending someone's life ought to be silenced. Beyond that, it's really hard to say who should live and who should die. For what crimes do we imprison someone? How long in prison is considered too long to where it'd be better to just kill the criminal?

EDIT -- I'm referring to premeditated murder outside of the military. I reread my post and noticed that many soldiers would deserve to die according to my words. >_<

Dude, don't mean to be nitpicky, but what about self-defense and/or degrees (first, second, third degree murder)? I'm sure you don't think people who kill when someone who is threatening the lives of them and their loved ones during obvious self-defense deserve to die?

-blazed

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Dude, don't mean to be nitpicky, but what about self-defense and/or degrees (first, second, third degree murder)? I'm sure you don't think people who kill when someone who is threatening the lives of them and their loved ones during obvious self-defense deserve to die?

-blazed

You are correct. Did I not filter those out? I was referring to those who kill and plan on killing again. Self-defense doesn't really count because you were killing someone only to stop them from killing you or your loved ones. You didn't set out the kill someone for trivial reasons.

 

[Kalypso]

Lol, death note. This will be a fun post.


RE: Crime-Free World

This can be summed up in a paragraph about Gun Control. Criminals love Gun Control. Gun Control means that no one but Criminals have guns, giving them much more power. Criminals are never going to follow the laws, they will be relentlessly innovative in getting and keeping their weapons, whereas everyone else casts their weapons away.

In short, if the world casts away its arms, and one ******* still has one, he how holds all the power in the world. It doesn't work, senseless idealism, period.


Now, as for death note, and the main character, Light. Judgment is ill-conceived unless passed by an almighty being who has complete knowledge of ones actions, to properly judge guilt or innocence, good or evil. No man has the ability to do this, much less Light, who just sees criminals on TV. He will, inevitably, kill many innocent people to get his 'ideal' world. He doesn't care. He projects his beliefs above everyone elses, assumes that he is almighty, and takes to killing mass numbers of people without recourse.

It's a show where the main character is Hitler.

 

[Deleted member]

But say he didn't end up killing those innocent people - is he still Hitler?

 

[Kalypso]

But say he didn't end up killing those innocent people - is he still Hitler?

Innocent people dying is simply a result of a flawed ideology. Whether or not they die doesn't change why the ideology is flawed. Yes.

 

[Deleted member]

You aren't making sense.

Innocent people aren't dying my friend, criminals are. What ideology are you talking about?

 

[Kalypso]

You aren't making sense.

Innocent people aren't dying my friend, criminals are. What ideology are you talking about?

Alright, I'll explain it.

There's a very common ideology that states "The world would be better without conflict, so if I remove everyone from the world/region/etc that disagrees with me, there will be no conflict, and I will be establishing peace." This is flawed for obvious reasons, even though it has good intentions it is an extremely destructive ideology. Why? A person, who is not all-powerful or omnipotent is assuming the role of a god, and passing judgment. They are in no position to, but they do anyway. Humans are far too flawed to assume this role. No one has the right to decide whether or not someone would live. Right?

That was the problem with Hitler. And that is the problem with Light.

Light wants a better world, and he seeks to bring about his better world by killing off everyone he sees as a threat to it. Criminals and people who oppose him, specifically. He's doing the same thing. He doesn't know whether criminals are guilty or innocent, and thus kills innocent ones, but he dismisses this, "Some innocent must die, but the ideal world is worth their death, they have to die so the other criminals can die too and we can have a perfect world." The actual innocent people dying isn't the problem, it's the assumption that Light has the authority to decide their fate. What the **** does Light know about someone who he just sees on TV? In what position is he to morally decide whether they live or die? He's not.

Innocent people dying DOES happen, but that's not the problem, its an effect, the problem is the cause, his flawed ideology, and presumption of omnipotence.

 

[Blackadder]

You aren't making sense.

Innocent people aren't dying my friend, criminals are. What ideology are you talking about?

I think he means that...well, look at it this way.
EVERYONE is a human, and everyone deserves the gift of life.
And you also have to take into hand, "Why did these people become crooks?"
When we are young everything is told to us in black and white.
A girl ahs long hair, a boy doesn’t. If something moves, it's alive.
And, if you go to jail, you're a bad guy.
But life often ISN'T black and white.
Just because these people are criminals, doesn't make them any less of a human being. "Why did they become crooks?" You don't know.
Mabye it's all they’ve ever known? Maybe awful circumstances have happened to them? Mabye they need mental help? It's far from fair to simply say;
"Innocent people aren't dying my friend, crooks are".
That’s black and white.
And the earth has so many different colours, that that can never be a fair statement.
So no, in answer to the basic question, this man is doing wrong.
One should not kill to solve a problem.

 

[Falco&Victory]

Does no one realize there are worse things in life than death?

Anyway, a crime-free world would benefit only those who lay down the boundaries of crime. If hula-hooping was made a crime, per say, would hula-hoopers be criminals? The world is not black and white, and there is no binding definition for crime that we as humans could accept. The world runs on morales, our country runs on laws.

He who kills deserves to die. He who thieves deserves to be robbed. Does that mean killers should die? If they are a danger yes, otherwise they should should be allowed to work off their debt to whoever was hurt, and they may learn. No one values empathy anymore.