Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
Aye there’s a word for people who take pleasure from the suffering of others…
Schadenfreude would be the term for the actual pleasure derived. And I’m not going to pretend that it’s morally right or ethical to enjoy. But it is human to desire vengeance and revenge. Wishing harm to someone who murdered newborns is one of the least morally wrong instances of vengeance.
Plus, I hold that moral absolutism is an even greater evil. This is why the paradox of tolerance exists, and why the same goes for pacifism. It’s impossible to have a pacifistic society unless you are willing to use violence to dissuade violence. You would probably say that means there’s no difference between the two individuals, and I would have to vehemently disagree. Intent and context are incredibly important.
It’s called a good person who cares about the lives of innocent children. The word you’re looking for is good
Nah the word is sadist.
So torturing her is going to bring those people back to life? No? So then theres no point to it other than sadism.
Sadism would be torturing an innocent. She’s far from that. And she won’t spend her life in prison so she won’t even get the punishment inflicted by the law. They’ll kill her before long. Why all this grace reserved to an angel of death?
Because decency is for everyone or it’s not decency.
Such a being doesn’t deserve decency.
I’ve heard that phrase somewhere before…
Where, oh sun god?
The pages of Mein Kampf.
“But then we’re no better than them!”
This moral purism of theirs is hypocritical. It can only exist if there are good people who are “impure”. The threat of violence for instance is what keeps wanton violence at bay. Someone can be as pacifistic as they like, but at the end of the day, you aren’t going to solve all violence in the world with clever words.
Given that the threat of violence did absolutely nothing to keep this violence at bay I’d love for you to expound upon this point further.
I’m referring to the general theory of government where the state has a monopoly on violence. It should be fairly obvious that the threat of violence is used to keep people in line – it’s why police, security guards, and bouncers exist. Why do you think guards and soldiers are some of the world’s oldest professions?
We didn’t threaten her or any other serial killer in countries where there’s no death penalty with violence. But death is too swift a punishment.