Do completely personal beliefs matter?

[Darth Wong]

I don't think killers are inherently bad people, though. I think that a lot of the time, they're that way because of some utter imbalance or shift in perception of reality rather than actively refusing to care about the well being of others.

Speculation about the inner character of a person who has done terrible things is nothing more than a subjective and therefore worthless exercise. We should judge actions.

[Nova Andromeda]

... we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

-It's not like this is a good idea unless you can actually show that a shrink can turn these people into citizens that provide more benefit to society than the cost of retooling them and the risk in actually letting them out.

Not at all. Prison has always been about keeping dangerous people away from others, while simultaneously punishing them for their bad choices. Since Psychopaths didn't voluntarily make any bad choices, we as a society choose to send them to a place that does not punish them, but still keeps them away from the public.

-I don't care about the reason prisons were made or how they are currently justified politically. It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

To put this in perspective, do you think we would hesitate in wiping out an alien species that didn't feel any inhibition in harming us at will? Sure we might try to keep some alive for study, etc., but it's generally wasted effort to preserve those that cause massive harm without justification.

Now who says that would be the right thing to do? Admittedly, that probably is what we as a species would end up doing, but that doesn't make it right. Why not simply destroy their space-going abilties? Simply park a few warships in orbit, and blast anything that tries to escape their atmosphere? There are dozens of less immoral actions then genocide.

-You have yet to show that such an action is immoral. Your say so doesn't count. There may be some good arguments for not killing them all, but that all depends on the circumstances and involve the cost of wiping them out, the degree of certainty they really are "out to get us", whether leaving them in some state above dead if beneficial to us, etc. However, these arguments involve a cost benefit analysis solely from the 'victims' perspective.

-I'm betting you wouldn't argue that the elimination of small pox was a good idea. Now imagine that small pox was actually intelligent, didn't actually need to harm us to survive, and yet still infected people as a conscience and intelligent act. Obviously, 'small pox mark 2' is significantly worse than the original variety precisely because it is intelligent. The response to that theat should be proportionally greater. For the sake of arguement, let us assume that a reasonable degree of effort has been made to negotiate a cessation of hostilities with 'small pox mark 2' and that like reasoning with psycopaths it bore no fruit.

[Kittie Rose]

I don't think killers are inherently bad people, though. I think that a lot of the time, they're that way because of some utter imbalance or shift in perception of reality rather than actively refusing to care about the well being of others.

Speculation about the inner character of a person who has done terrible things is nothing more than a subjective and therefore worthless exercise. We should judge actions.

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

[Surlethe]

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

Do you have any arguments for your assertions, or do you simply intend to state them as unsupported conclusions?

[Nova Andromeda]

I don't think killers are inherently bad people, though. I think that a lot of the time, they're that way because of some utter imbalance or shift in perception of reality rather than actively refusing to care about the well being of others.

Speculation about the inner character of a person who has done terrible things is nothing more than a subjective and therefore worthless exercise. We should judge actions.

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

-Determining if they "went nuts" is only potentially useful in determining if they are prone to do it again. If they aren't and it was a one time thing beyond their control then society may be more forgiving. However, a guy prone to going crazy and killing people should still be treated as a severe threat to society. A noncrazy killer is only a worse threat if that fact makes them a better killer.

[Dominus Atheos]

What the fuck does "malice" mean in your world, moron? In the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the first definition is a desire to cause pain, injury, or distress to another person.

Merriam-Webster also says "malice implies a deep-seated often unexplainable desire to see another suffer <felt no malice toward their former enemies>" Princeton's dictionary says "feeling a need to see others suffer," The American Heritage Dictionary says "The intent, without just cause or reason, to commit a wrongful act that will result in harm to another," your mobster certainly has "cause or reason" to kill the witness, and the Oxford English Dictionary describes malice as "the desire to do harm to someone; ill will." It's entirely possible for the mob boss to kill that witness without bearing him any ill will.

Don't be a sophistic asshole. If "malice" has several definitions, you cannot establish that someone has "no malice" by showing that he does not meet all of those definitions. And a mobster does not have "just cause or reason" to kill a witness.

Why the fuck are we arguing over this? We both agree killing a witness to one of your crimes is murder, who gives a fuck if he had "malice aforethought" or not?

If the person intentionally kills someone, that's fucking injury, isn't it? Are you saying that there is no malice in deliberately harming someone as long as you don't personally dislike the guy?

Yes. There is no malice in what soldiers do.

Soldiers are thrust into situations where they are in a constant state of "kill or be killed". Not relevant to your argument.

If I concede, will you drop this pointless debate? Fine, I concede. Malice can mean whatever you want it to mean.

By this definition, psychopaths who treat others as mere objects and care not at all for their feelings have no malice.

Exactly. That's why we send people suffering from Psychopathy to mental institutions when they get caught, not prison.

Oh really? So when some psychopath serial killer murders 50 women and buries them in his backyard, we say "you need therapy, not jail"?

Yes, yes we do.



source

As you can see, no successful pleas of "not guilty by reason of insanity" (less then 1/4 of 1% of all felony defendants) result in jail time. 85% get sent to mental wards. 15% (who most likely suffered from temporary insanity) are released. No one goes to jail.

[Dominus Atheos]

-It's not like this is a good idea unless you can actually show that a shrink can turn these people into citizens that provide more benefit to society than the cost of retooling them and the risk in actually letting them out.

Not at all. Prison has always been about keeping dangerous people away from others, while simultaneously punishing them for their bad choices. Since Psychopaths didn't voluntarily make any bad choices, we as a society choose to send them to a place that does not punish them, but still keeps them away from the public.

-I don't care about the reason prisons were made or how they are currently justified politically. It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

NO. We absolutely do not get rid of someone just because they are a "drain on society." That line of reasoning has been used to justify far too many of humanities worst atrocities. Every single person has a right to a good life, until and unless they consciously do something to waive that right.

To put this in perspective, do you think we would hesitate in wiping out an alien species that didn't feel any inhibition in harming us at will? Sure we might try to keep some alive for study, etc., but it's generally wasted effort to preserve those that cause massive harm without justification.

Now who says that would be the right thing to do? Admittedly, that probably is what we as a species would end up doing, but that doesn't make it right. Why not simply destroy their space-going abilties? Simply park a few warships in orbit, and blast anything that tries to escape their atmosphere? There are dozens of less immoral actions then genocide.

-You have yet to show that such an action is immoral. Your say so doesn't count. There may be some good arguments for not killing them all, but that all depends on the circumstances and involve the cost of wiping them out, the degree of certainty they really are "out to get us", whether leaving them in some state above dead if beneficial to us, etc. However, these arguments involve a cost benefit analysis solely from the 'victims' perspective.

Consciously harming another sentient for anything besides self defense is immoral. All morality is based on this one fact.

-I'm betting you wouldn't argue that the elimination of small pox was a good idea. Now imagine that small pox was actually intelligent, didn't actually need to harm us to survive, and yet still infected people as a conscience and intelligent act. Obviously, 'small pox mark 2' is significantly worse than the original variety precisely because it is intelligent. The response to that theat should be proportionally greater. For the sake of arguement, let us assume that a reasonable degree of effort has been made to negotiate a cessation of hostilities with 'small pox mark 2' and that like reasoning with psycopaths it bore no fruit.

We do the same thing we did to Small Pox MKI. We develop a vaccine for it. Whenever any Small Pox MKII attacks a human body, it's immune system kills it. If they don't attack, they live.

[wolveraptor]

Having just watched Blood Diamond, I was reminded of the issue of child soldiers. These kids are abducted at a young age and trained to fight for some desperate rebel group's cause, whatever it is. Does their youth excuse them from the atrocities they may commit? What about when they grow up (assuming they survive)? I'm having a tough time labeling them as evil. Are exceptions made in cases of brainwashing?

[Nova Andromeda]

NO. We absolutely do not get rid of someone just because they are a "drain on society." That line of reasoning has been used to justify far too many of humanities worst atrocities. Every single person has a right to a good life, until and unless they consciously do something to waive that right.

-There you go again making claims based on nothing other than your say so. You do realize you actually need to justify your claim to this absolute right to life don't you? I don't care what psuedologic other people have used to justify atrocities in the past and your blatant appeal to emotion won't cut it here. I also don't appreciate you distorting my arguement from:

kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death instead of spending valuable resources to contain them

to:

kill anyone that is a "drain on society."
I'll be waiting for your official acknowledgement of this distortion and an appoligy.

We do the same thing we did to Small Pox MKI. We develop a vaccine for it. Whenever any Small Pox MKII attacks a human body, it's immune system kills it. If they don't attack, they live.

-Funny that small pox MKI only exists in a few labs isn't? As far as I know, that virus doesn't survive in other animals or in the general environment. Even still, you miss the point. Psychopaths DO attack! The only reason MKI exists at all is because keeping some of it around is useful to us. If MKII existed we certainly wouldn't create resource expensive facilities to let it live (unless there was some overriding benefit to us) and we aren't morally obligated to either.

[Dominus Atheos]

-I don't care about the reason prisons were made or how they are currently justified politically. It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

NO. We absolutely do not get rid of someone just because they are a "drain on society." That line of reasoning has been used to justify far too many of humanities worst atrocities. Every single person has a right to a good life, until and unless they consciously do something to waive that right.

-There you go again making claims based on nothing other than your say so. You do realize you actually need to justify your claim to this absolute right to life don't you? I don't care what psuedologic other people have used to justify atrocities in the past and your blatant appeal to emotion won't cut it here.

It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! Article 3 states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

I also don't appreciate you distorting my arguement from:

kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death instead of spending valuable resources to contain them

to:

kill anyone that is a "drain on society."
I'll be waiting for your official acknowledgement of this distortion and an appoligy.

I didn't distort your argument, that's what you said:

It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

You quite clearly said they should be killed because they "are a drain on society" and those resources would be better spent "for other things like health insurance for the poor." It's not a leap to apply that logic to a paraplegic who is on workers comp for the very injury that made him a paraplegic.

We do the same thing we did to Small Pox MKI. We develop a vaccine for it. Whenever any Small Pox MKII attacks a human body, it's immune system kills it. If they don't attack, they live.

-Funny that small pox MKI only exists in a few labs isn't? As far as I know, that virus doesn't survive in other animals or in the general environment. Even still, you miss the point. Psychopaths DO attack!

So put them someplace where they can't attack. For example, A MENTAL INSTITUTION!

The only reason MKI exists at all is because keeping some of it around is useful to us. If MKII existed we certainly wouldn't create resource expensive facilities to let it live (unless there was some overriding benefit to us) and we aren't morally obligated to either.

Of course not. We're not morally obligated to save something that chooses to die. But that doesn't make it any less immoral to actively kill something that wants to live.

[slebetman]

kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death instead of spending valuable resources to contain them

I wouldn't simply because death isn't reversible. If we make a mistake and send an innocent man to jail we can still correct that mistake by freeing him.

[petesampras]

I don't think killers are inherently bad people, though. I think that a lot of the time, they're that way because of some utter imbalance or shift in perception of reality rather than actively refusing to care about the well being of others.

Speculation about the inner character of a person who has done terrible things is nothing more than a subjective and therefore worthless exercise. We should judge actions.

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

What is this "inner person" of which you speak?

We have brains and our brains control all our behaviour. If a person kills someone else, and it's not an accident, their brain initiated their behavour. If your brain decides to do something then that is intent, makes no difference if you are sane or insane.

[Tahlan]

I was with you until then. Regardless of what he loses? So killing in self-defense (or in defense of others) is also murder?

The definition of murder is: 1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Murder

Self-defense, by definition then, is not murder. There is no unlawful killing of a person, and there is especially no malice aforethought.

But there was no malicious aforethought. He only did it because if he didn't, he would have been imprisoned. In a way, it was self defense, and therefore he is more moral (or less immoral) then someone who did it because he thought the other person actually deserved to die.

Taking any time, whatsoever, to plan or carry out a murder inherently contains, by legal definition, malice aforethought. Doing something to avoid prison, or to avoid anything else for that matter, intimates the time to think it through, hence, malice aforethought.

Don't get hung-up on the definition of malice. It is not a subjective standard based upon what the actor is feeling. It is objective based upon the act. The act of committing murder inherently contains malice.

[Nova Andromeda]

It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! Article 3 states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

-Congratulations! You've found a declaration. It's really too bad you actually need to justify that declaration rationally. It's also too bad that "right" isn't absolute and that you appear to have idea what the exceptions are.
-This is known as an appeal to authority and this isn't the first time you've used it.

It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

You quite clearly said they should be killed because they "are a drain on society" and those resources would be better spent "for other things like health insurance for the poor." It's not a leap to apply that logic to a paraplegic who is on workers comp for the very injury that made him a paraplegic.

-It is FUCKING MASSIVE strawman distortion to take my arguement:

kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) instead of spending valuable resources to contain them

and turn it into:

kill anyone that is a "drain on society."

-In no way does my arguement logically imply that we should kill everyone that is "drain on society" regardless of circumstances.

So put them someplace where they can't attack. For example, A MENTAL INSTITUTION!

-Why? You haven't provided any justification for your position that I'm morally obligated to support the life of someone TRYING TO FUCKING KILL ME instead of helping more worthy causes!!!

Of course not. We're not morally obligated to save something that chooses to die. But that doesn't make it any less immoral to actively kill something that wants to live.

-See above...

[Kittie Rose]

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

Do you have any arguments for your assertions, or do you simply intend to state them as unsupported conclusions?

It's not "Unsupported". It's basic fucking logic. If you're blaming a PERSON you should only take into account the actual PERSON'S conscious choices, because otherwise the idea of "Blame" becomes unjustified. You can only blame someone for actions that are their fault.

[Tahlan]

Legal definition for "malice aforethought," from the Revised Fourth Edition of the Black's Law Dictionary:

"A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or excuse. In the definition of 'murder,' malice aforethought exists where the person doing the act which causes death has an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person, (whether the person is actually killed or not) or to commit any felony whatever, or has the knowledge that the act will probably cause the death of or grievous bodily harm to some person, although he does not desire it, or even wishes that it may not be caused."

So...even a person who "wishes" not to cause harm, but does commit harm, is guilty of malice aforethought. Hence, you murder someone, malice aforethought is inherent in the crime.

[Nova Andromeda]

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

Do you have any arguments for your assertions, or do you simply intend to state them as unsupported conclusions?

It's not "Unsupported". It's basic fucking logic. If you're blaming a PERSON you should only take into account the actual PERSON'S conscious choices, because otherwise the idea of "Blame" becomes unjustified. You can only blame someone for actions that are their fault.

-You should really look up the definition of blame before you dig that hole any deeper. Under your idea of blame one can't lay the blame for a half eaten sheep on the wolf currently gorging on the twiching carcus.

[Dominus Atheos]

It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! Article 3 states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

-Congratulations! You've found a declaration. It's really too bad you actually need to justify that declaration rationally.

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations, and ratified by every country in the world. It has as much authority, if not more, as any law passed. The United States signed it and said that this declaration has more authority then even our bill of rights.

It's also too bad that "right" isn't absolute and that you appear to have idea what the exceptions are.

Have you ever read the fucking thing? Can you even read? Or are you so fucking retarded that you have to have a screen reader to even browse this site? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2 says "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

I realize your mental retardation prevents you from being smart enough to count, so I will explain to you, very slowly so you can understand me, that 2 comes right before 3. Are you with me so far? So Article 2 comes right before Article 3, which means that the rights in article 3 don't have any exceptions.

-This is known as an appeal to authority and this isn't the first time you've used it.

Yes it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. It would be if it were an appeal to authority fallacy, but it's not.

It's obvious that these people are a drain on society even locked up. You have yet to give a compelling reason for not executing them them all so that we can use those resources for other things like health insurance for the poor.

You quite clearly said they should be killed because they "are a drain on society" and those resources would be better spent "for other things like health insurance for the poor." It's not a leap to apply that logic to a paraplegic who is on workers comp for the very injury that made him a paraplegic.

-It is FUCKING MASSIVE strawman distortion to take my arguement:

kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) instead of spending valuable resources to contain them

and turn it into:

kill anyone that is a "drain on society."

-In no way does my arguement logically imply that we should kill everyone that is "drain on society" regardless of circumstances.

Wow, your feet look like a blur, you're back-pedaling so fast.

Your argument was not:

"kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) instead of spending valuable resources to contain them"

It was:

"kill those proven to be causes of suffering and death (i.e., psychopaths) because they are a drain on society instead of spending valuable resources to contain them"

How else can you justify killing someone? (please note: Revenge is not a valid reason)

So put them someplace where they can't attack. For example, A MENTAL INSTITUTION!

-Why? You haven't provided any justification for your position that I'm morally obligated to support the life of someone TRYING TO FUCKING KILL ME instead of helping more worthy causes!!!

THERE IS NO MORE WORTHY CAUSE YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE!

This person suffers from an affliction, that causes among other things him not to be able to support himself. He deserves your support just as much as anyone else that fits that description.

Of course not. We're not morally obligated to save something that chooses to die. But that doesn't make it any less immoral to actively kill something that wants to live.

-See above...

See what? You didn't address anything like that, dumbshit.

[Surlethe]

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

Do you have any arguments for your assertions, or do you simply intend to state them as unsupported conclusions?

It's not "Unsupported". It's basic fucking logic. If you're blaming a PERSON you should only take into account the actual PERSON'S conscious choices, because otherwise the idea of "Blame" becomes unjustified. You can only blame someone for actions that are their fault.

Leaving aside the fact that this entire tangent is a red herring to what was originally posted, you're full of horseshit. Not only does this logic not establish why you can only blame someone for his "true intentions" (whatever those are; I'd certainly like to see you come up with an objective method of determining someone's intentions), it also begs the question: how does the idea of "blame" become unjustified? The only cases I can think of where a person's actions are not conscious choices are sleepwalking, hypnosis, and someone else physically forcing the person to do something; how does even partially taking the results of his actions into account undercut assigning responsibility?

[Justforfun000]

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations, and ratified by every country in the world. It has as much authority, if not more, as any law passed. The United States signed it and said that this declaration has more authority then even our bill of rights.

I do have to agree with this much of the post. I don't think we need to justify the universal idea of everyone's right to life. I DO think we would need to justify the right to END someone's life.

[Rye]

It's in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights! Article 3 states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

-Congratulations! You've found a declaration. It's really too bad you actually need to justify that declaration rationally.

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

It is usually one of those things that's just assumed because it's easier and it generally has a better outcome for all involved. The outcome being "better" is generally all the justification required under utilitarianism for anything, including human rights.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was issued by the United Nations, and ratified by every country in the world. It has as much authority, if not more, as any law passed. The United States signed it and said that this declaration has more authority then even our bill of rights.

So what? If they'd signed the exact opposite, that wouldn't make it right, would it?

Yes it is, and there's nothing wrong with that. It would be if it were an appeal to authority fallacy, but it's not.

Yes it is, because it's saying it's "logically justfied" because x said so, not because of a logical argument.

[Darth Wong]

What a whole load of bullshit. Judging actions only serves to determine whether or not the actions themselves are appropriate, which should be much more obvious to stable individuals. When judging a PERSON as a GOOD or BAD person, of course you take into account their "inner person". You can only blame someone for their true intentions. If they go nuts and end up killing a guy, that's not a conscious choice anymore than if they were to kill them completely by accident.

Do you have any arguments for your assertions, or do you simply intend to state them as unsupported conclusions?

It's not "Unsupported". It's basic fucking logic. If you're blaming a PERSON you should only take into account the actual PERSON'S conscious choices, because otherwise the idea of "Blame" becomes unjustified. You can only blame someone for actions that are their fault.

Hey dumb-fuck, the person's conscious choices manifest themselves in the person's actions. This "inner person" nonsense of yours is worthless jibberish. Define this "inner person". Explain how it is distinguished from the "outer person" and why we should value the former over the latter, when the latter is the entity that is interacting with society.

[Darth Wong]

Are you fucking stupid? You need justification that human beings have an inherent right to live? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Clearly, you are fucking stupid. If something is as obvious as you say, then it should be easy to justify it. The fact that you're stumbling for a justification means that your concept of ethics is not as well thought-out as you think it is. I can justify the right to life within the context of my ethical framework, but it's pretty clear that your ethical framework is so poorly thought-out (if at all) that you cannot do this other than appealing to authority. In other words, you have a childish slapdash version of ethics and that's what you're basing your arguments on.

[Justforfun000]

Actually this entire line of argument reminds me of that quote from Batman returns that I thought was one of the greatest movie lines ever:

Deep down you may still be that same great kid you used to be. But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you.

[Spoonist]

If you know that what you are doing is evil but you still do it because of peer pressure, then not only are you evil but a coward as well. If those who believe themselves to be good do nothing then evil always triumphs.