First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
DEXTER : TV SERIES ~ an intresting question
8865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / sydney AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 10/13/08
Dexter is a serial killer who kills other serial killers, now I'm just wondering, is it right what his doing? There are two sides to this argument, yes because if he kills the serial killers he saves hundreds of lives. The other side is no because what gives Dexter the power to decide who lives and dies, what gives him the right to play God?

so i want to know that you guys think, is it right what Dexter is doing? kill a few save a lot
16324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Bangalore,India
Offline
Posted 10/13/08

I shall think about it.

.........................


I think you will find your answer in a Yagami Light thread...
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 10/13/08

ryancl_nguyen wrote:

Dexter is a serial killer who kills other serial killers, now I'm just wondering, is it right what his doing? There are two sides to this argument, yes because if he kills the serial killers he saves hundreds of lives. The other side is no because what gives Dexter the power to decide who lives and dies, what gives him the right to play God?

so i want to know that you guys think, is it right what Dexter is doing? kill a few save a lot


It sounds like the moral dilemma of "Jim the Botanist", where the basic ideas of Utilitarianism are placed against the Kantian virtues of Duty and the Universal good. If you know the story, "Jim" is given the choice to kill one of ten African convicts accused for mutiny in a British colony in South Africa he visits as a "privileged guest of honor". If he refuses to kill one of the convicts, the officers in charge of the colony will proceed to execute all ten of the convicts.

The Utilitarian perspective will ultimately fall on the former choice, and proceed with killing one man in the place of ten, which is a similar premise in the case you brought up with the show, DEXTER. However, there is what is known as a "existential discord" between virtue and the actual act (in this case, the outcome), and in the end, we fail to throw into the equation the actual values of Jim (or Dexter) and even the other people involved (i.e. of Jim the Botanist, the other 9 captives) in assuming that killing one person will naturally benefit the other 9 in the process.

Of course, if we just stick with the latter choice, then we hold the moral burden of being somewhat responsible for the deaths of all 10 captives, or whoever is represented in the TV series, DEXTER.

It's rather difficult to say whether or not DEXTER's actions are truly "right" or not, because in the end, history tells us that the result of his actions will determine it's functional appropriateness... but morally, that's something that would have to be answered by DEXTER, himself. In terms of functional appropriateness, it can be understood in the sense that Hitler would probably be "right" in the course of history if he indeed won the war ~ but morally, we'd understand him to be cruel and unjust, despite showing himself to be historically correct.

I personally believe that DEXTER's actions are perhaps morally inappropriate, but historically acceptable if it, indeed, does bring about some form of desirable social effect (i.e. saving hundreds of lives). The problem is that it is he who will hold the motional/moral burden of actually being responsible for the deaths of the people he killed in the process of doing so. Not to say that it is just a black and white situation, but there are always alternatives, despite a seemingly "narrow" perspective in terms of actions and possibilities.

So to end, yes, he is morally culpable if he is to take a utilitarian stand in justifying his actions.
Posted 10/13/08
well, since those serial killers are playing god, too, i don't see anything wrong with his actions. someone needs to do the dirty job, if it's not you then it's going to be someone else. just pleading to be morally infallible is just simply fake. yes, it might be wrong to kill someone, but hey, who are we to say what is more wrong or more right to do? you can always point the finger at someone, and nitpick about their actions. to me his actions are profitable for the majority, and what pleases the majority shall be right.
255 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35
Offline
Posted 10/13/08
He has no right to choose who lives and who dies neither does he has the right to play god.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 10/13/08
I don't know if it's a good idea to make definite statements about this, like I'm about to do, but I think he is wrong since there are other ways to prevent serial killers from killing besides taking their lives. Serial killers deserve much worse than death anyway, they should be brutally tortured for the rest of their lives.
Posted 10/14/08
is he talking about dexter's laboratory?
8865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / sydney AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 10/14/08

shikanarukez wrote:

is he talking about dexter's laboratory?


What?
Posted 10/14/08

ryancl_nguyen wrote:


shikanarukez wrote:

is he talking about dexter's laboratory?


What?


2 words... (or one)
Cartoon Network

8865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / sydney AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 10/14/08

shikanarukez wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:


shikanarukez wrote:

is he talking about dexter's laboratory?


What?


2 words... (or one)
Cartoon Network



oh hahaha hahaha ehehehehe ur funny
Posted 10/14/08

ryancl_nguyen wrote:

oh hahaha hahaha ehehehehe ur funny


I'm serious
8865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / sydney AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 10/14/08

shikanarukez wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:

oh hahaha hahaha ehehehehe ur funny


I'm serious


i kno and im serious to i didnt think of the cartoon character dexter hehe
Posted 10/14/08 , edited 10/14/08

ryancl_nguyen wrote:


shikanarukez wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:

oh hahaha hahaha ehehehehe ur funny


I'm serious


i kno and im serious to i didnt think of the cartoon character dexter hehe


>_< So who is this "dexter" they speak of
8865 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / sydney AUSTRALIA
Offline
Posted 10/14/08

shikanarukez wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:


shikanarukez wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:

oh hahaha hahaha ehehehehe ur funny


I'm serious


i kno and im serious to i didnt think of the cartoon character dexter hehe


>_< So who is this "dexter" they speak of


yea yea the cartoon network dexter is a serial killer... this dexter is from a television series called dexter.. wiki it
8306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / s'pore
Offline
Posted 10/14/08

edsamac wrote:


ryancl_nguyen wrote:

Dexter is a serial killer who kills other serial killers, now I'm just wondering, is it right what his doing? There are two sides to this argument, yes because if he kills the serial killers he saves hundreds of lives. The other side is no because what gives Dexter the power to decide who lives and dies, what gives him the right to play God?

so i want to know that you guys think, is it right what Dexter is doing? kill a few save a lot


It sounds like the moral dilemma of "Jim the Botanist", where the basic ideas of Utilitarianism are placed against the Kantian virtues of Duty and the Universal good. If you know the story, "Jim" is given the choice to kill one of ten African convicts accused for mutiny in a British colony in South Africa he visits as a "privileged guest of honor". If he refuses to kill one of the convicts, the officers in charge of the colony will proceed to execute all ten of the convicts.

The Utilitarian perspective will ultimately fall on the former choice, and proceed with killing one man in the place of ten, which is a similar premise in the case you brought up with the show, DEXTER. However, there is what is known as a "existential discord" between virtue and the actual act (in this case, the outcome), and in the end, we fail to throw into the equation the actual values of Jim (or Dexter) and even the other people involved (i.e. of Jim the Botanist, the other 9 captives) in assuming that killing one person will naturally benefit the other 9 in the process.

Of course, if we just stick with the latter choice, then we hold the moral burden of being somewhat responsible for the deaths of all 10 captives, or whoever is represented in the TV series, DEXTER.

It's rather difficult to say whether or not DEXTER's actions are truly "right" or not, because in the end, history tells us that the result of his actions will determine it's functional appropriateness... but morally, that's something that would have to be answered by DEXTER, himself. In terms of functional appropriateness, it can be understood in the sense that Hitler would probably be "right" in the course of history if he indeed won the war ~ but morally, we'd understand him to be cruel and unjust, despite showing himself to be historically correct.

I personally believe that DEXTER's actions are perhaps morally inappropriate, but historically acceptable if it, indeed, does bring about some form of desirable social effect (i.e. saving hundreds of lives). The problem is that it is he who will hold the motional/moral burden of actually being responsible for the deaths of the people he killed in the process of doing so. Not to say that it is just a black and white situation, but there are always alternatives, despite a seemingly "narrow" perspective in terms of actions and possibilities.

So to end, yes, he is morally culpable if he is to take a utilitarian stand in justifying his actions.




edsamac you have once again won my respect for such a detailed respones. Indeed, there can never be a right or wrong in such situations. But government-wise DEXTER is a criminal for murder , even how grateful they are to DEXTER secretly, justic must be carried out in the face of law.

Sorry DEXTER, there's no super heros in the world we now call reality.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.