21 Shot dead at Virginia Tech

Originally Posted by Stazy

Click to expand...

I support this message

Originally Posted by Stazy

Click to expand...

I support this message

All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

Say that to Leibniz.

Produce an actual quote from Leibniz that is germain to this discussion, and I will be more impressed.

If your instant visceral reaction is to call anyone who shoots for some vague reason or other, evil then fine

Click to expand...

My visceral reaction is to call a spade a spade, and not to indulge in non-sensical rationalizations.

I am sure there is plenty of information here that will be useful, no?

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.
Um no, I'm not going to make that leap of moral equivalence with myself or anyone on this board. A college student is not ignorant of the moral evil of killing innocent human beings. It's about as black and white as it gets.

Originally Posted by skalogre

Click to expand...

I am sure there is plenty of information here that will be useful, no?

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

All of you just don't wish to face the possible fact that this shooter was likely as normal as anyone; he fell from the precipice as easily as anyone would.

Speaking only for myself, I can face it, but I believe it is untrue. All the evidence goes the other way.

What I object to is not so much your stated desire to shock our bourgeoise complacency, but the phony ethical distinction you conjured out of thin air seemingly to support an ill considered prior statement. You would have been better off just going back and editing that old post.

No moral serious philosopher denies the importance of volition; the man who simply snaps and commits a crime is less culpable that man who thinks every step through and derives a lifetime of pleasure fom his misdeeds. But to say that mass murder is not evil if not savored and enjoyed is flatly false.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Now you're just making $hit up. Quit while you're behind.

He actually does this frequently, unfortunately, he always needs the last word so we should all ignore him as he is trying to take over this thread like many others.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Produce an actual quote from Leibniz that is germain to this discussion, and I will be more impressed.

What has Michael Jackson's brother got to do with anything?

Oh -- more damn homophones! Never mind ...

Seriously, though, if you define evil as that which is inimical to life, then this man and his actions certainly qualify.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Speaking only for myself, I can face it, but I believe it is untrue. All the evidence goes the other way. What I object to is not so much your stated desire to shock our bourgeoise complacency, but the phony ethical distinction you conjured out of thin air seemingly to support an ill considered prior statement. You would have been better off just going back and editing that old post. No moral serious philosopher denies the importance of volition; the man who simply snaps and commits a crime is less culpable that man who thinks every step through and derives a lifetime of pleasure fom his misdeeds. But to say that mass murder is not evil if not savored and enjoyed is flatly false.
Presuming that indeed, this shooter was acting out of some deranged fidelity to his girlfriend, then the moral equivalance, its neccesary compulsion, was not morally evil, given the reasoning behind the rampage was not to shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. Therein, I would not make the distinction that this was a morally evil act, only a physically evil one. I was not saying this was not an evil act. If you will read my previous statements, I first identify that I have a problem with calling people who commit certain acts Evil--with a Capital E as if evil was all there is to it. Then some people get defensive about it and so I have to explain; and thus this categorical assumption of a moral evil versus a physical evil is a tangetial flow. But I believe the issue is: All of you can't see yourself doing something irrationally violent.

This thread has been officially turdified!

Fine, I'm not going to argue anymore with you people who seem to take anything at face value and refuses to overcome some sort of a collective common-place moral obligation to deem violent acts Evil, as if Evil were some sort of a becoming color.

While this was indeed, a tragic event all your mawkish sentiments do nothing to diminish the unfortunate acts that happened however much you offer condolences.

Originally Posted by whnay.

Click to expand...

Um no, I'm not going to make that leap of moral equivalence with myself or anyone on this board. A college student is not ignorant of the moral evil of killing innocent human beings. It's about as black and white as it gets.
Haven't you all seen "Straw Dogs" or "El Ángel Exterminador"?

Good, I was just going to ask you to stay out of this thread from now on.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Click to expand...

Presuming that indeed, this shooter was acting out of some deranged fidelity to his girlfriend, then the moral equivalance, its neccesary compulsion, was not morally evil, given the reasoning behind the rampage was not to shoot simply for the pleasure of shooting. Therein, I would not make the distinction that this was a morally evil act, only a physically evil one. I was not saying this was not an evil act. If you will read my previous statements, I first identify that I have a problem with calling people who commit certain acts Evil--with a Capital E as if evil was all there is to it. Then some people get defensive about it and so I have to explain; and thus this categorical assumption of a moral evil versus a physical evil is a tangetial flow. But I believe the question is: Do you easily make statements over the insanity or evil-ness of someone?
This was clearly an initiation of force, deadly force. We could go so far as to question how innocent any of the victims were in their personal lives as well as questioning the motivations of the shooter. This is a case where Randian philosophy serves very well. Were any of the killed or wounded threatening the shooter in any way? I would say no. Definitely not in a deadly way. This is clearly not a case of the use of defensive force. Defensive force is unequivocally moral. It is the only moral use of force open to the individual. That leaves retaliatory force and initiation of force. Retaliatory force is the purview of governments. When an individual is wronged, courts decide what retaliatory force is justified and the weight of the government is behind it. Governments may also retaliate against other governments in cases when nations are wronged. The initiation of force is immoral, whether employed by an individual or a government. Evil, in the shortest definition is committing immoral acts. Whether or not the shooter felt he was retaliating or he choose to initiate force, his act was immoral and therefore evil.