Nineveh
Merely Christian
Freedomcry said:My basic assertion here is that my actions are not based on external moral judgment. When I said "I would put a rapist to death," I say so not because of some external moral standard, but because I simply don't want to live in a society where rapists are present. I should also point out here that I do not want to live in a society with thieves either. However, I wouldn't support capital punishment in their case. Crime and punishment are another issue that we can start in a different thread if you like.
But as I asked before, who cares what you think? Just because you would put a person to death, by what standing other than "your feelings" justifies their death? Nothing. "Morals are completely subjective". It appears you feel your moral standard is better than someone else's, how can that be? By what measure do you judge this?
When it comes to atrocities like rape, it's easy to let one's emotions take hold. And I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Emotions definitely have their place. However, when discussing the philosophical nature of morality, I attempt to use logic and critical thinking rather than pure emotion.
This doesn't justify vigilantism.
I would be interested to know if you see this view as anarchy. If so, I'll explain further.
You are lucky to live in a society that does not believe (or historically didn't believe) "morals are completely subjective". If you happened to find yourself in the place of the founders, your ideas could only lead to that form of (non) government. People would be the law unto themselves. So while you may or may not find rape to be worthy of death, you would have no stand at all to make that call one way or the other, nor legislate any punishment for it.