How would you stop knife crime?

[Steve Maskery]

Each to their own I guess - who are we to judge?

Ah yes but doesn't this lead to another question? If we accept that other socoetal system are just as valid as our own, even if they appear abhorrent to us, then where does that leave the victims of such a societal system? Does there come a point at which strong, developed societies step in and say Enough? Or do we turn a blind eye and say that it is fine for this individual to suffer in this way because that's what everyone else around them thinks? Female mutilation would be such an example. Abhorrent to us, but accepted by some societies as not only acceptable but desirable, and that is violence carried out on women (well, girls and babies usually) BY women.

No easy answers eh?
S

 

[Jake]

In fact, from that perspective maybe the thread title is a bit judgmental - who are we to judge these youths? Why have a criminal justice system at all? Why have laws? All shackles on our rights to exercise our our own personal relativist mores as we wish.

 

[Steve Maskery]

But I would argue that it is NOT the case that all societal systems are equally valid. At not unless you abandon the notion of right and wrong, and say that murder is not wrong it's just alternatively morally valid.
S

 

[Jake]

Umm, me too, Steve.

I'm playing a little game of reductio ad absurdum with Roy (as I think he knows very well!)

 

[Digit]

Quite Jake, but for one minor point. Nowhere have I suggested that one moral code is superior to another, that one is wrong, that one is right.
I have instead attempted to demonstrate that 'right and wrong' are not absolutes. They have varied with time and culture.
As you said, not judgemental.
I think Saint made it very clear here,

[/quote]In the same place where it always is Roy, a place where people believe that their systems for judgment are superior to others and correct, almost beyond question, whether it be burning widows or judging other peoples right to have children.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Quite Jake, but for one minor point. Nowhere have I suggested that one moral code is superior to another, that one is wrong, that one is right.

I'm well aware that your position appears to be the polar opposite - i.e. relativism.

I have instead attempted to demonstrate that 'right and wrong' are not absolutes. They have varied with time and culture.
As you said, not judgemental.

Clearly, what is perceived as right and wrong vary with time and culture - otherwise the Holocaust and myriad other atrocities (which I hope we all can agree were 'wrong') would not have been perceived as the right thing to do by the participants.

Does that mean that the Nazi's perception of right and wrong are to be regarded as being as good a perception of right and wrong as any? Not shared by us in our time, but perfectly valid and above criticism for them in theirs?

 

[Smudger]

 

[skipdiver]

They're ginger,kill them.

 

[brianhabby]

Beautiful picture Dick.

regards

Brian

 

[Digit]

Does that mean that the Nazi's perception of right and wrong are to be regarded as being as good a perception of right and wrong as any? Not shared by us in our time, but perfectly valid and above criticism for them in theirs?

In my view, no, neither would I personally condone human sacrifice etc.
So you answer me a question, is abortion on demand right or wrong?
And how would you justify which either side of the debate you choose?

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Abortion on whim with no restrictions, up to the age of birth, is moral.

Abortion is immoral, and should be denied under all circumstances, even if the foetus is the deeply handicapped progeny of a rapist and the birth is going to kill the mother.

I'd argue that both of the above statements are incorrect, in an absolute sense.

There's obviously a big grey area in between, because of the competing moral imperatives at stake, where inevitably judgments will differ from person to person. That's the arena in which people have to make their own calculations.

That doesn't mean there are no rights and wrongs except in a relative sense. Back to the top.

 

[Digit]

That doesn't mean there are no rights and wrongs except in a relative sense.

Well quote me absolute right, one that could be applied to all circumstances.


[/quote]I'd argue that both of the above statements are incorrect, in an absolute sense.

I'd say that was ducking myself.

Roy.

 

[Jake]

Well quote me absolute right, one that could be applied to all circumstances.

The right not to be subjected to random extermination by the state.

I'd say that was ducking myself.

The question was overly simplistic and therefore had no answer.

 

[Digit]

The word random puzzles me. It infers that a non random extermination would be ok.
That simplistic question is one that is faced daily by doctors, I doubt they find it simplistic.
Often the choice between right and wrong is that simplistic.
To steal or not to steal, to kill or not to kill. The choices couldn't come much more simplistic than that surely?

Roy.

 

[Jake]

The word random puzzles me. It infers that a non random extermination would be ok.

You did not ask for the one single all-encompassing absolute wrong. There are others. I narrowed it to randomness, because it is more clear.

Non-random extermination would lead to many more variables and exceptions (terrorist with his finger on the trigger of a bomb which will kill hundreds, etc), none of which are relevant to establishing whether there is at least one example of an absolute right.

 

[Jake]

That simplistic question is one that is faced daily by doctors, I doubt they find it simplistic.

They do not face that question - they face a much more complex one, with nuances, context and specificity.

Back to the two extremes again - both of those could be encompassed within your overly-simplified question - so there cannot be a single answer to your question - it is too vague to be answerable.

 

[Smudger]

Beautiful picture Dick.

regards

Brian

I tried...

(not my pic, btw)

 

[Jake]

This isn't heated - it's just a discussion - I think.

 

[Digit]

Who suggested it was heated Jake? Personally I love the cut and thrust of debate, if you were to agree with me I'd be bloody disappointed. I'd feel robbed of the entertainment.
But as someone seems to think one of us is getting snotty I'll now withdraw and return to cutting those sodding hinge recesses.
Bye Jake, I've enjoyed it.

Roy.

 

[newt]

I assume knife crime is an urban problem (I could be wrong) when I was a teenager, my apprenticship, sport and opposite sex were in that order of priority. I never carried a knife and neither did any of my mates. I did however live in a small village in Wiltshire.