If they can do Dragon PCs..., vampires and wendigoes should be no problem !!! Options

[Critias]

Anyone that makes his moral choices based purely on legality, even only for argument's sake, has something very wrong with them.

Not all crimes are acts of "evil," not all jail terms exist to remove "evil" from our society, not all laws are "good." You are being very scary -- albeit perhaps completely on accident -- with the level of faith you're putting in the system right now.

[Cthulhudreams]

haha. I don't. As I said, I think there are lots of things about the current system that is inequitable and unethical as a result, for example sales taxes and unequal treatment of capital gains vs income. both disproportionately disadvantage the poor.

But when we are looking at inflicting violence on our fellow man, we have a system that has been thrashed out over quite some time by very smart people and is actually pretty good. Maybe you disagree, but when discussing the evils or lack there off of an assault, or whether an action constitutes self defense, or what inflicting irreparable harm on someone means and if they can consent to that, I cannot think of a better common point of reference.

Maybe you'd care to enlighten me!

[Critias]

Not really, because the amount of space, time, effort, and bandwidth it would take to get into such an argument would be something the rest of Dumpshock probably isn't too interested in -- and that I, personally, don't feel like actually arguing. You either implicitly trust authority figures to tell you what's right and wrong, or you don't. The fact you once said drunk drivers are locked up for being evil (not for being stupid and dangerous, but for being "evil") tells me a lot about you. The fact you also once said killing in defense of self is "evil" tells me something else. More than anything else, they tell me you're looking and thinking and coming from such a different direction than I am that there's just no point in wasting time trying to tell you just how very strongly I believe you to be wrong.

So instead I'll just say that I think you're incorrect, that I think having that level of belief in the system is scary, and -- like I tried to do already -- be on my merry way.

[Kremlin KOA]

haha. I don't. As I said, I think there are lots of things about the current system that is inequitable and unethical as a result, for example sales taxes and unequal treatment of capital gains vs income. both disproportionately disadvantage the poor.

But when we are looking at inflicting violence on our fellow man, we have a system that has been thrashed out over quite some time by very smart people and is actually pretty good. Maybe you disagree, but when discussing the evils or lack there off of an assault, or whether an action constitutes self defense, or what inflicting irreparable harm on someone means and if they can consent to that, I cannot think of a better common point of reference.

Maybe you'd care to enlighten me!

Fine
Go to one of the refugee detention centres
We aussies have no right to use our laws as a basis of anything resembling ethics or morality

[Cthulhudreams]

You're probably right. i will make two statements to clarify my position re: immoral actions.

If I said killing in self defense is evil, then I apologise for the misunderstanding as that was not my intent. It is clearly not immoral, and I can probably even condone it as a last resort.

As for what constitutes an evil action I defined it as an immoral action, because as was rightly pointed out by Malicant it is a societal thing.

I defined immoral actions as actions contrary to the laws of free societies that people in this discussion are members off, which society condemns and punishes people for. You may have a different definition, but under the definition I am using here, sexual assault, drink driving, tax evasion and fraud are all immoral actions, of different degrees yes, but they are all immoral.

I do not think it is possible to condone jail for drink drivers unless one also finds that the action of drink driving is immoral. Incidentally, immoral and evil are both synonyms for wicked.

Edit: Refugee centres, like sales taxes are not really the subject of discussion. Intrestingly, while I find the concept of the GST inequitable and disgusting, I also think that one should pay it and vote for people that may withdraw it.

[Fortune]

So it is evil and immoral and wicked to steal a loaf of bread when you are starving?

It is evil to smoke a cigarette in a non-smoking section of a restaurant?

It is evil to go through a stop sign without coming to a complete stop?

It is evil to park in a loading zone?

Evil is all around us! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

[Cthulhudreams]

haha, most of those things only carry civil penalties (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) But more importantly of course it is, and if you caused a serious traffic accident by negligent driving, we'd send you to jail. If you don't you gt a small fine and loose a point off your license.

We've obviously decided that the outcome is important, and things can have degrees. Like speeding. 5kms over is illegal, but it's only a modest act so you get a small fine and thats the end of it. If i'm doing 5km'h over and cannot stop in time and rear end someone, no-one will mind, I just have to pay for his car. If you do 100km/h hour over the limit in a school zone and then hit a kid, you get smashed for vehicular manslaughter and go to jail for a fair while. And now you are the guy who killed a 10 year old and yes the national news media will call you 'evil'

Or are you seriously saying that shouldn't be illegal?

As for the lame bread thing. Do you think you should go to jail? I don't, and the fact is you won't! The courts don't (mostly) send people to jail when their is circumstances like that. You won;t even get a conviction, and you will get a referral to a homeless centre. Wow! the system has a series of checks and balances that examines the fine detail of edge cases in particular circumstances and isn't hugely absolutist? Society has decided that that isn't immoral? And the system that determines if that was or was not a moral action works like it is supposed to? Sheesh.

The exception is of course the retarded three strikes rule that they tried in darwin, but that got struck down as unconstitutional.

And we're not discussing loading zones or sales taxes, or stealing a loaf of bread to save your starving family. If you bring up roe vs wade you can argue both sides forever and the universe will explode. But we're not.

We are discussing whether it is okay for me to take you outside and suck your life force out resulting in you needing millions of dollars of reconstructive surgery. Are you saying thats not evil?!?! you heartless bastard!

[Fortune]

Or are you seriously saying that shouldn't be illegal?

No. I am saying none of those things are evil ... at least to me. But by your definition they all are, as they are all against the law.

As for the lame bread thing. Do you think you should go to jail? I don't, and the fact is you won't! The courts don't (mostly) send people to jail when their is circumstances like that. You won;t even get a conviction, and you will get a referral to a homeless centre. Wow! the system has a series of checks and balances that examines the fine detail of particular circumstances and isn't hugely absolutist? And that works like it is supposed to? Sheesh.

I wouldn't bet on that. I have seen that very thing happen in Canada, USA, NZ, and Australia, and heard about it in other nations as well. Hell, Oz was partially populated with people who committed just such crimes.

[Critias]

The Artful Dodger, for instance. I think.

Or did he die? I never can remember.

[Cthulhudreams]

Sure, the USA in particular is retarded. Do note that we have no such law now because the legal system said 'you want what?!?!' and had a cry. As for the rest, it clearly has degrees. So speeding a bit is not very evil and like stealing stationary off your employer no-one cares. Still a cardinal sin though if you are catholic, and sinful is another synonym for evil.

As a totally tangential note, one thing that has always puzzled me about our legal system is that it takes the same set of actions (the only thing you have control over) and punishes you differently in different circumstances. So if I get drunk and get picked up by an RBT, I'll loose my license for 6 months. If I plow into a group of school children I get front page media stories calling me evil and many years in jail. if I fail to stop and kill an old granny, I get punished differently than if I didn't hit anyone. But if outcome 1 is 'bad' how is the action any less bad if I got lucky and didn't kill someone.

As I said before though, if you speed at 100 over in a school zone we care a lot. if you are unwilling to recognise that 'degree' is part of a legal system, and thus the system of morality I am using as a benchmark, I not sure what to say.

Either way though, I don't care about that. We are discussing whether it is okay for me to take you outside and suck your life force out resulting in you needing millions of dollars of reconstructive surgery. Apparently some people think it is.

[Fuchs]

In my honest opinion, killing SINless is illegal, since the law does not care whether or not someone has a SIN to define what's human. Killing a SINless will often not result in any action taken since the system doesn't show the SINless, and LoneStar prefers to act on cases where the victim is in the system rather than waste manpower on crimes whose victims don't pay taxes, but if you gun down a SINless in front of a honest cop, you'll get arrested. A SINless is more like an illegal immigrant without any country of origin, not someone without any rights at all (at least according to the letter of the law).

As far as evil goes, evil is a question of morality. The distinction between legal and illegal is a question of the law. I'd say that there's something very wrong with someone who tries to take the law into their own hands, but that's me - I live in a country where we vote on most laws (we can force a vote on just about every law), so our laws usually are backed by the population. Coupled with the checks and balances inherent in the judicial system in my country, I'd say it's a good moral compass as well - much better than personal convictions about evil.
I can't speak for the judicial system of other countries though.

[Fuchs]

As a totally tangential note, one thing that has always puzzled me about our legal system is that it takes the same set of actions (the only thing you have control over) and punishes you differently in different circumstances. So if I get drunk and get picked up by an RBT, I'll loose my license for 6 months. If I plow into a group of school children I get front page media stories calling me evil and many years in jail. if I fail to stop and kill an old granny, I get punished differently than if I didn't hit anyone. But if outcome 1 is 'bad' how is the action any less bad if I got lucky and didn't kill someone.

As I said before though, if you speed at 100 over in a school zone we care a lot. if you are unwilling to recognise that 'degree' is part of a legal system, and thus the system of morality I am using as a benchmark, I not sure what to say.

Either way though, I don't care about that. We are discussing whether it is okay for me to take you outside and suck your life force out resulting in you needing millions of dollars of reconstructive surgery. Apparently some people think it is.

That's because the law in this case is based upon an "result" POV. If put someone in danger it's less serious than if you hurt them. It's at odds with the POV that focuses on the intent of the accused, and there are crimes where the result does not matter, the crime is completed when the intent has been transformed into action. Over all, it works out decently though - the "gut feeling" check covers most cases well.

[Fortune]

In my honest opinion, killing SINless is illegal, since the law does not care whether or not someone has a SIN to define what's human. Killing a SINless will often not result in any action taken since the system doesn't show the SINless, and LoneStar prefers to act on cases where the victim is in the system rather than waste manpower on crimes whose victims don't pay taxes, but if you gun down a SINless in front of a honest cop, you'll get arrested.

Yep. I agree with this.

[hermit]

A SIN makes you a citizen of the UCAS and gives you access to all the privileges that come with that. Essentially, SINless are tolerated illegal immigrants. However, that doesn't mean killing them (or foreigners) isn't illegal, by far. Just that the executive service provider(s) in the UCAS propably won't put their murder on any high piority list. However, holders of a corp SIN or foreign SIN of a country with reasonable clout might also find the investigation into their murders on UCAS soil on a high priority list, if their respective embassy pressures executive service provider and/or their political backers. Shooting a Pakistani SIN holder propably would hold the same degree of danger of an actual investigation that shooting an ork SINles goganger would have, I imagine.

So speeding a bit is not very evil and like stealing stationary off your employer no-one cares. Still a cardinal sin though if you are catholic, and sinful is another synonym for evil.

Please enlighten me how speeding is a cardinal sin in catholic belief. I'd be unaware the Pope has gone that far already, fundamentalist as he may be.

However, the against the law = evil in a moralistic sense doesn't balance out. For instanfce, abortion is legal in many US states (or was it the entirety o the US? I can never remember) up to the ninth month. Does that stop many people there from considering it Evil with capital E? No. Laws are guidelines (strict guidelines) for human behavior. Evil in a moral sense is based on religious or philosophical grounds. Those two don't mix too well.

[Apathy]

Whether you buy it or not, in many cases it's easy to make rationalizations how unlawful often/usually equates to immorality. Laws are created ostensibly to benifit society as a whole, and choosing to ignore a law and detract from the benifit it provides to society for your own happiness or convenience could be easily argued to be immoral or relatively evil.

In the case of speeding, those restrictions are usually put in place in order to enhance public safety and conserve natural resources (gas mileage). While you might suggest that you can drive safely going 60 in a 55mph zone, safety is a relative thing, and it's hard to argue that going faster doesn't give you less reaction time, longer breaking distance, and greater potential kinetic energy and damage if a crash does occur. It also wastes more gas and produces more pollution per mile driven. It's not evil on the same scale as torturing babies with blowtorches, but it is putting your own desires and convenience ahead of that of the rest of the community.