Mtu Biz wrote:
@ Nanfor1.
I have read the data from the research paper you posted on left right and mid brain, it looks reasonable enough only one issue though, it is based on an assumption... not truth..let me illustrate
One imaginary elephant plus one imaginary elephant equals two imaginary elephants. This statement is correct but it is not TRUE. The sum of two imaginary things is nothing because the thing doesn't exist.
@Rahatupu and All
You said
"@Mtu Biz, don't try to upgrade this particular case to a philosophical issue, this is open and shut. CRIMINAL< HORRIBLE, ABOMINABLE< WRONG, IMMORAL irrespective of any school of thought period."
Rahatupu,what im saying is this. I agree with you that it is wrong.
But i want to challenge you to recognize that your sharp sense of right and wrong in this issue has a source a standard by which you measure right and wrong, good and evil and that standard is not your brain, otherwise the willful killing of innocent people by this man may be attributed to some brain disorder not of his own making and we would have no right or grounds to condemn him.....
I hope you see my point..
Ok emotions aside, Mtu Biz my reaction is attributed to this particular case only. Here is my take on ethics/moral sense of right and wrong:
An ethical or moral person is one who struggles with her or his decision, trying to decide if her actions will have a negative effect on others. most of us agree that causing harm is wrong, and should be avoided. Causing harm to whom or what and under what circumstances varies drastically from person to person.
Which brings me to where absolutes apply in their normative form:
1. Criminal murder,
2. Violent crime e.g rape, arson among others.
These are internationally applicable, refer to Naom Chomsky, Johnathan Haidt.