Philosophy Now Forum

(Copy-paste XD)

Suppose there is a killer, he has been in other sites in internet, and he has proved that he is a killer.

His modus operandi is this: He moves to a city, then he looks for an "easy target", he is very carefull. When he kills someone, he takes a photo or steals something from the death body, so that he can prove that he was the killer. Then he uses fire to delete any proof.

After that, he moves to another city, there, he prepares a computer this way "in 48 hours, post a message in this forum, with the proof" (so, it doesn't matter how good are the hackers trying to capture him, when they got the computer position, he, and the computer, aren't there). And maybe fire to the computer again.

If you can see a way of catching him using that modus operandi, use your imagination to find a way that you consider very difficult or nearly impossible to fail, the point is, it seems like nobody can catch him using common ways of catching criminals, and he has been arround time enough to prove that.

What he posted in internet at the begining was "I want you to say why should I stop killing people, I will read at least 20 pages of posts every day and I'll answer to what I consider interesting, if this thread is deleted, I will kill more than now, and move to other site".

What would you do? What would you say? What do you consider authorities would do? Why?

I can be the murderer for this thread. I've been banned in a forum and I think it was because of this thread, in other one, it took nearly one month to approve this, (and so, nobody saw it, because only a few people look for ancient threads in a forum),so...

-I'm not a real murderer, take it easy.
-Yes, this is an interesting philosophic topic: how do you see or treat people who hurt other people? (ethic), Would you consider the possibility of being wrong? (philosophy of mind, and ethic), Can a murderer be like the one I'm going to play?... but I prefer to put it in a situation, maybe socratic method. It can be a start for other questions.
-If you are going to say what would you say, get in the role, and say it like if you were in that situation. (Unless it is against the rules, but really, I don't think it would be a good idea being rude).

Well, in this time I have tried to ask many people this questions, in internet and in real life, maybe 60 people have answered , it's like an experiment to me, and saying this may change the result, but I must say that in this time, only one person has tried to ask the murderer why is he doing that.
One moderator in other forum said that he would delete that thread, because he didn't want to feel controlled by the killer or responsible for the victims (even knowing that the murderer would kill more people doing that).
More than one person felt that I was talking about myself somehow, and didn't saw why would I find interesting this question, they got angry.
And it looks like many people want to answer this question, but only one has tried to "play the game" (to put himself in that situation).

TSBU wrote: -Yes, this is an interesting philosophic topic

Psychologically perhaps. But philosophically, not really. You haven't provided any philosophically interesting reason why your imaginary murderer is murdering. So all you have is a very contrived question of is, or why is, murder wrong.

What I find noticeable and interesting right away is that the clarity and quality of this post far exceeds your other writing. Why is that?

I would suggest that anyone who WANTS TO KILL, and who cannot be deterred or rehabilitated onto one of countless other harmonious paths, should START with themselves. That would be the most honorable thing to do. It is not clever to attack other unsuspecting people... and then scurry around like a rat to avoid detection. Rather, get the fuck off planet Earth and stop fucking up the experience for everyone else. That's what I would do.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: -Yes, this is an interesting philosophic topic

Psychologically perhaps. But philosophically, not really. You haven't provided any philosophically interesting reason why your imaginary murderer is murdering. So all you have is a very contrived question of is, or why is, murder wrong.

Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me. I give you the hypo, now, it's your turn to face it if you want, you don't know why is he killing, but you can ask him, for example, you can choose to don't ask or whatever. I don't like psichology... I want to know your mind, your actions, your thoughts, not your feelings, not "human beings", but... you.

Lacewing wrote:What I find noticeable and interesting right away is that the clarity and quality of this post far exceeds your other writing. Why is that?

Because of more than one thing: I've posted this thread 4 times. My English sucks, but I've got time to see better ways of writing it. This post usually get a lot of answers out of what I want ("How is the killer doing that? etc), so, with previous answers, I know better how to post it. I usually don't mind about majority answers, but this time I do , this kind of thread is usually disliked by moderators (I was banned because of my "English skills" after puting this post... I know I'm not good at English, but, ey, I think I'm not bad enough to be banned becuase of that)...

Lacewing wrote: I would suggest that anyone who WANTS TO KILL, and who cannot be deterred or rehabilitated onto one of countless other harmonious paths, should START with themselves. That would be the most honorable thing to do. It is not clever to attack other unsuspecting people... and then scurry around like a rat to avoid detection. Rather, get the fuck off planet Earth and stop fucking up the experience for everyone else. That's what I would do.

So, in this game, you say that to the killer, don't you? Well, the hypokiller answer to you:

-Haha, harmonious, 2rehabilitation" do we live in different worlds? what a joke. Well, you think that "I should kill myself",good to know it, it's a shame I don't think the same way, don't you think? You don't know who am I killing, you know nothing about me, you are not even asking to me, but you say that I should kill myself, and you call me a rat, humm, your "harmonius path" seem to work with psichologyc attacks. I just prefer to kill with my hands.

I don't see what the method has to do with this. Your basic question is, 'Is is wrong to go around murdering people for no apparent reason?' Is that a question that even needs to be asked, let alone 'answered'?

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I don't see what the method has to do with this. Your basic question is, 'Is is wrong to go around murdering people for no apparent reason?' Is that a question that even needs to be asked, let alone 'answered'?

No, my question is "what would you do in that situation", and so, I must give the situation. I think that some very important ethic facts can be seen in this thread, about how should you treat bad people for example. The question is not about the murderer, is about you. What is right or wrong in the way you deal with him.

TSBU wrote: Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me.

Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me.

Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

Well, if you want to catch him, you'll have to say how. in this thread, I want you to focus in doing what you clearly can do: talk to him. But that's not enough for an answer...
"What should you do in this specific situation described in one page in the middle of the dessert dying of thirst?" Your answer "drink".

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me.

Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

Where's the philosophical question then? It seems like more of a practical forensic one to me.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me.

Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

Where's the philosophical question then? It seems like more of a practical forensic one to me.

Well, I can see it, it's applied ethics, you are dealing with an unknown murderer, you can talk to him, maybe trying to make him say where is he, maybe trying to convince him to kill himself, or trying to convince him to stop (or start by asking "why are you killing the people you kill?), Call this thread something similar to "socratic method", I give you the situation, and I'll give you answers depending in what you say to the killer.
I think we can learn a lot with this, if you don't think so, well, don't answer this thread, read other people if they write and maybe then you'll see something, maybe don't...
Hell, I don't understand why are there some posts about obamas birth certificate, but you are not asking there XD.

PS: This is a common answer "Why are you asking this, what is the goal of the game?"

TSBU wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote: Well, it depends on what do you call philosophy. "how should people (I) treat murderers" is a good philosophy subject for me.

Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

Well, if you want to catch him, you'll have to say how. in this thread, I want you to focus in doing what you clearly can do: talk to him. But that's not enough for an answer...
"What should you do in this specific situation described in one page in the middle of the dessert dying of thirst?" Your answer "drink".

Tell the police about him. They catch murderers and shit. If you leave that job to philosophers the world is truly fucked.

TSBU wrote:Call this thread something similar to "socratic method"

That's a bit pretentious.

FlashDangerpants wrote: Tell the police about him. They catch murderers and shit. If you leave that job to philosophers the world is truly fucked.

So, you leave it for other people. Thanks for the answer ^^.
Anyway, he is posting in all kind of sites, not only philosophy forums. anybody can answer him (and you can't expect silence in that situation, you know how people is), of course, people with a license of guns, or policemen, can answer too.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

TSBU wrote:Call this thread something similar to "socratic method"

That's a bit pretentious.

No it isn't, I'm not saying "I know all the answers", I'm saying that questions and answers are the best way to aproach a subject. By the way, IRL I'm a teacher, and I learn sometimes from my students.

TSBU wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote: Before they are caught, the answer is catch them.
After they are caught you can have the same old capital punishment debate as always if you like, but that's outside the scope of your thought experiment.

Where's the philosophical question then? It seems like more of a practical forensic one to me.

Well, I can see it, it's applied ethics, you are dealing with an unknown murderer, you can talk to him, maybe trying to make him say where is he, maybe trying to convince him to kill himself, or trying to convince him to stop (or start by asking "why are you killing the people you kill?), Call this thread something similar to "socratic method", I give you the situation, and I'll give you answers depending in what you say to the killer.
I think we can learn a lot with this, if you don't think so, well, don't answer this thread, read other people if they write and maybe then you'll see something, maybe don't...
Hell, I don't understand why are there some posts about obamas birth certificate, but you are not asking there XD.

PS: This is a common answer "Why are you asking this, what is the goal of the game?"

It is a pretty creepy thread tbh. I don't see what the posting of photos on the internet has anything to do with it. Is your question 'If you commit murder and can't be caught, was that murder wrong?' It's a bizarre sort of question. And Bill is a resident loon. He posts nonsense all the time.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

TSBU wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Where's the philosophical question then? It seems like more of a practical forensic one to me.

Well, I can see it, it's applied ethics, you are dealing with an unknown murderer, you can talk to him, maybe trying to make him say where is he, maybe trying to convince him to kill himself, or trying to convince him to stop (or start by asking "why are you killing the people you kill?), Call this thread something similar to "socratic method", I give you the situation, and I'll give you answers depending in what you say to the killer.
I think we can learn a lot with this, if you don't think so, well, don't answer this thread, read other people if they write and maybe then you'll see something, maybe don't...
Hell, I don't understand why are there some posts about obamas birth certificate, but you are not asking there XD.

PS: This is a common answer "Why are you asking this, what is the goal of the game?"

It is a pretty creepy thread tbh. I don't see what the posting of photos on the internet has anything to do with it. Is your question 'If you commit murder and can't be caught, was that murder wrong?' It's a bizarre sort of question. And Bill is a resident loon. He posts nonsense all the time.

Hahaha, I like creepy things XD. Well, posting photos is only to demonstrate that he is the murderer (and I'm saying that I'm my post, cause if I don't say that, people start by asking "how do we know that he is a real killer?"). No, the question is not "'If you commit murder and can't be caught, was that murder wrong?', not at all... but i find curious that your first aproach is that... I would say where I want this to go, but that would be wrong for the experiment and the game, I want people to get to that question-conclusion alone, I want to see where do their arguments go with this situation.

Well, if Bill can put nosense, me too. But I don't see this like "nosense".