Wilde said it first and Crowley just plagiarised it. I should know I was there.
Incidentally Oscar Wilde didn’t say my signature, but using the real person’s name is considered sacrilegious in my church, kind of like using the lords real name is to Muslims or Jews. Put it this way, Oscar Wilde said a lot of things, mostly pirate related, but they were before the ID movement and after he was imprisoned for piracy although some reckon it was for lewd sexual practices, but sounds a bit far fetched to me.
The point of the Russia example is that punishment isn’t always right even though we may think it is. This assertion by itself does not contradict the theory’s point that punishment is always wrong. In fact, since the assertion does not contradict the theory’s point, it leaves open the door for it to be true, just as seeing a gay man leaves open the door that all men are gay.
The Russia example is striking because it shows that there are instances in which we as humans believe that punishment is right, but in which that belief leads to something terribly wrong, namely, our extinction as a species.
I explain why we should always feel good in my OP. To punish by definition is to make feel bad or unpleasant. Look it up yourself.
In your OP, your approach to the word “should” is based on what it seems to correspond to to you. So, since the notion of should being used in this thread is based on how should is generally used, I’d point out that moral “shoulds” are in fact not based on what a person does or doesn’t want. Most people would say that if someone wants to kill someone else, they still shouldn’t do it. So, if we’re going to base our definition of “should” on it’s normal usage and what that seems to correspond to, it immediately becomes apparent that it doesn’t correspond to doing what you want all the time.
Also, your argument for “If you should be punished, you should feel bad” was extra-weak. It was just a big ol’ nonsequitur.
So no, neither of those premises have been adequately justified.
I don’t think so. Most people would say “Killing Osama bin Laden was a big should. Killing Sadam Hussein was a big should. Killing murderers via the death penalty is a big should. Bombing Hiroshima was a big should. Defeating the Nazis was a big should.”
I think that most people, even if they are wrong, would say that there are some people that they want to kill. They would say they should kill those people.
Is not the point of putting criminals in jail to make them feel bad so that they won’t commit crimes again in the future? And so that other people will be deterred from committing crimes as well?
The fallacies are piling on in your posts one after another. Once again, one example of someone wanting to kill someone else being okay is not very good evidence that all examples of someone wanting to kill someone else is okay. I really shouldn’t have to explain this stuff. Either you know full well that you’re making these errors, in which case quit trolling, or you don’t know you’re making these obvious logical errors, in which case go pick up a logic book before making any more posts.
If you’re not aware that most people, in fact, think that most cold-blooded murders are something people shouldn’t do, whether they want to or not, then you’re not aware of how the word “should” is actually used, and your analysis of what “should seems to mean” is off. If you haven’t picked up on the fact that people use should in the way I’ve described, you don’t understand what it seems to mean.
I don’t see any fallacies. Once again, I’m not proving my point, I’m disproving yours. You said
and I’m saying you’re wrong. Reread my last post. Most people would say we wanted to kill Osama bin Laden, and that we should have killed him. That disproves your quote.
As for your talk about the notion of “should,” you keep saying there’s a flaw there. But every time, you fail to relate your reasoning to the argument I give in my OP, even though I’ve directed you there.
And similarly, you keep attacking my definition of punishment, but you fail to give any more details that relate to my argument at all. If you think it’s wrong, explain yourself please. Don’t just say “I disagree” or “I think it’s weak,” as you have been.
if you don’t understand that most people think that people shouldn’t do cold-blooded murders, then I don’t know what crazy world you’re living in, but it isn’t mine. if you don’t understand that, there’s no point talking to you. you’re in some insane fantasy world of yours where people think people should murder, so we don’t have any common ground. you’re not even on the same planet as me, or anyone else on this forum.
This argument does not depend on what “most people think.” As I’ve already demonstrated, our minds and thoughts can really fool ourselves. They shouldn’t be taken too seriously. Furthermore, I am not going to rest my case on the fallacy of appeal to the majority, like the direction you seem to be headed in.
No, I’m not. People should murder if and only if they want to murder. However, most people do not want to murder, usually because they do not want to suffer the punishment that comes along with it, such as spend the rest of their life in jail or be sentenced to death. Thus, most people believe they should not murder.
Nevertheless, the topic of this thread and this current discussion reminds me of a quote by George Washington, who said it quite well,
Yes it does, actually. You started by talking about what should “seems to mean” – ie what you’ve gathered from how it’s used by people. How it’s used, though, directly contradicts your conclusions. That’s my point. You haven’t explicitly defined should, you’ve just talked about “what it seems to mean,” and if that’s what we’re basing it on, it most certainly doesn’t seem to mean “you should murder if you want to.”
Now, if you’d like to explicitly define should for yourself without appealing to “what it seems to mean” (that approach validates my appeal to the majority, if you haven’t figured that out yet), then go for it. But as long as we’re on this “what it seems to mean” garbage, everything you’ve said contradicts what it seems to mean.
Again, I already gave my argument about the notion of “should” in my OP. Do you think the notion of “should” corresponds in some way to the notion of “good,” as I have argued? If not, what is wrong with the argument I give? I do not give an explicit definition of “should” in my argument, nor do I need to, so you haven’t really attacked my argument at all. Do you agree with my examples or not, and why?