I mean, it's more reversible than a dip in an acid vat, or hacking off limbs

you can still release them

but it's still a wrong done to them.

That's why undeniable is important.

'undeniable' is an unnaturally high standard.

'Beyond a reasonable doubt' is the standard we usually work with at trial level.

There are cases where it's pretty easy to get undeniable evidence.

Like a mass stabbing attack or truck attack.

It still leaves exceptions to unreasonable circumstances for misapplication of the law.

And that standard would be applied to the cruel punishments.

The point remains, though

Acid Attacks are generally used as a punishment for some crime perceived by the attacker, right?

Usually a crime against decency set forth by Sharia law?

Which is not legally defined and vigilante "justice" if you could even call it that.

Or at least not by western standards.

The point is, by using their own forms of punishment, when the punishment is the problem

Don't you ultimately validate their methods?

If a citizen detains someone who's committed a crime, and it's proven

The citizen isn't called in to question

In their own countries it could be considered valid even though I'd disagree with it.

but if the person detained hadn't done anything, or is found innocent

the citizen can actually face 'kidnapping'.

I'm not talking about foreign nations in this particular matter, either. I'm talking Western nations upholding cultural standards that keep us that way.

Justice as it stems from English Commonlaw, if you will.

I'm saying it's rather tempting when I hear of someone being a victim of an acid attack, to wish the same upon the attacker

But ultimately, that's the wrong course, even if we didn't have laws forbidding it.

(I really need to sleep...)

(I'll respond to stuff later on...)

Gnight

should we set our morale base by the principles and values that the science of ethics teaches?

or just continue letting the masses wing it with social media?

I'm by no means a cultural relativist. But I don't like the idea of experiments determining what is morally right and wrong. That should be left up to society.

*''Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The field of ethics, along with aesthetics, concern matters of value, and thus comprise the branch of philosophy called axiology.''*

I would say Morals are never up for social debate, rather, Ethics must be the product of public consensus.

what

so your answers are leave it like it is

I don't think anyone would like the idea of having a moral abiter, commanding from upon high what is right.

I have always seen a clear distiction, Morals are an individuals pricibles and value's of right and wrong, Ethics by contrast are a comunity standard. To say "That person has no morals" implies that they have no internal standards. Judges are held to standards of Ethics by their associations.

everyone has a morla arbiter

parents, priests, politicians, social media

novadays politicans are the ones on top using morality to sway public opinion