Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Of course they can.

Whatever your utility function, removing the people you find to be making society worse makes it better.

Why pretend like you can't understand the anti-humanist position on this? It's so simple.

edit: Like, I can't wrap my head around how you can say this:


obviously indicating you believe in the subjectivity of moral values (i.e. moral anti-realism) but then purport to not understand how it's possible to think it's a good enough thing to permanently get rid of very bad people by killing them to outweigh the cost of the inevitable false-positives.

I'm not even saying I agree with this, but I don't get why you'd pretend to not understand that this point of view exists. If you find it immoral, argue it's immoral, not that it doesn't make sense.

The first bit isn't true. In a purely cumulative view of utility, where it's not about the average utility but about the total utility, every additional person makes society a little bit better.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Armani
Jun 22, 2008

Now it's been 17 summers since I've seen my mother

But every night I see her smile inside my dreams

WillyTheNewGuy posted:

Many American Christians would see abortion doctors as horribly evil people who commit murder for a living, and that perspective is quite obvious to them.

Hi thanks female goon posting happy to be here - this is a big, big reason this undoubtedly male dominated forum should be against the death penalty. You guys can have that toy when entire governments stop trying to criminalize my normal biological responses and behaviors and basically want to make the other half of your society into de facto murderers in the eyes of the law because Babies.

I'm here all night folks tip the waiter

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

hakimashou posted:

The first bit isn't true. In a purely cumulative view of utility, where it's not about the average utility but about the total utility, every additional person makes society a little bit better.

You're just a priori ruling out the possibility that an individual can contribute negative utility to the world. Good job.

edit: what sort of retarded idea is maximising "average utility" anyway? That would just lead you to killing everybody but the happiest person on Earth.

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Mar 11, 2017

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

hakimashou posted:

Say that in the future we invent some perfect lie defector and mind reader, some form of advanced brain analyzer.

John's wife Jane has a lot of money, and carries a large life insurance policy. Enough for John to be rich and set for life if he gets it all. He murders her and gets all the money, but the police soon figure out he did it, and he is apprehended.

The police question him and turn on the brain analyzer. He admits to killing his wife, and explains he did it for the money. The police ask him if he would ever kill anyone else, and he tells them he would not. He has all the money he could ever want, and getting rich was his main ambition in life. The brain analyzer confirms he is telling the truth, and that there is almost no chance he would ever kill anyone again.

Does he deserve to be punished, or should the police just let him go with his ill-gotten gains and subject him to periodic brain analysis in the future to make sure he hasn't changed his mind about murdering anyone else?

-

This doesn't really address whether in today's world we can justifiably administer the death penalty as a public policy, but it can help you explore moral intuitions about whether people really do deserve punishment or not.

As for the first part, all I've tried to argue is that it's not wrong for a guilty murderer to get the death penalty, not that the US justice system, or any other, does a good job of imposing it or that it should remain on the books.

One argument against the death penalty is "the death penalty is always wrong, it's is never not-wrong to execute a criminal." I disagree with this one specifically.

Why does desert need to enter this equation? I mean, it can, but there's still a perfectly adequate utilitarian case to be made for punishing defectors from the norm of not murdering people even if you know for certain the particular offenders in question will never do it again. Collectively, we have every reason to want to disincentivise people from doing their first murder as their fifth.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Smudgie Buggler posted:

You're just a priori ruling out the possibility that an individual can contribute negative utility to the world. Good job.

edit: what sort of retarded idea is maximising "average utility" anyway? That would just lead you to killing everybody but the happiest person on Earth.

Cumulative utility leads to another 'repugnant conclusion' where infinite people living lives the slightest bit better than death is preferable to vast numbers of people living lives that are really really good.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Why does desert need to enter this equation? I mean, it can, but there's still a perfectly adequate utilitarian case to be made for punishing defectors from the norm of not murdering people even if you know for certain the particular offenders in question will never do it again. Collectively, we have every reason to want to disincentivise people from doing their first murder as their fifth.

The utilitarian case allows for edge scenarios where guilty people are rewarded instead of punished, as long as everyone thinks they have been punished.

Also punishing innocent people is just as good a deterrent as punishing guilty people, as long as you can convincingly frame them.

Many people think this would be wrong, so deserts enter into it for a lot of people.

N. Senada
May 17, 2011

My kidneys are busted
The answer is that the guy deprived society of his wife's contributions to society and his wife of her right to be alive. He also committed fraud against his insurer (unless they stipulated murdering your spouse was a condition you could make a claim against) and they should sue him for breach of contract.

We need to make it clear that such flagrant violations of our agreed-upon rules will not be tolerated, and so we'll take him away for awhile and hopefully indoctrinate him with our belief that people are more important than money.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

hakimashou posted:

Cumulative utility leads to another 'repugnant conclusion' where infinite people living lives the slightest bit better than death is preferable to vast numbers of people living lives that are really really good.

Of course. Utilitarianism is batshit. But, as I said, no matter the utilitarian's utility function, you're better off without negative-utility people.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

N. Senada posted:

We need to make it clear that such flagrant violations of our agreed-upon rules will not be tolerated, and so we'll take him away for awhile and hopefully indoctrinate him with our belief that people are more important than money.

Yeah my dude killing unrepentant murderers of opportunity is barbaric and obviously wrong, but brainwashing them with my universalist egalitarian moral framework is the poo poo.

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Mar 12, 2017

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Yeah my dude killing unrepentant murderers of opportunity is barbaric and obviously wrong, but brainwashing them with my universality egalitarian moral framework is the poo poo.

Death is preferable to being persuaded? Are you sure you want to say this?

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

Death is preferable to being persuaded? Are you sure you want to say this?

What the hell makes you think I care in the slightest what the guy who killed his wife for money would prefer?

edit: I do like how deftly you pivoted from "indoctrinate" to "persuade" though. That was cool.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

What the hell makes you think I care in the slightest what the guy who killed his wife for money would prefer?

edit: I do like how deftly you pivoted from "indoctrinate" to "persuade" though. That was cool.

Indoctrination doesn't mean brainwashing, either, my guy.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

Indoctrination doesn't mean brainwashing, either, my guy.

Are you retarded?

Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Mar 12, 2017

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Are you retarded?



Your incompetence at linking images is almost as good as you not reading the list of synonyms all the way through before posting it.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

Your incompetence at linking images is almost as good as you not reading the list of synonyms all the way through before posting it.

OK so you're going to rely on "brainwashing" and "persuading" being the same thing?

That's cool man.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

OK so you're going to rely on "brainwashing" and "persuading" being the same thing?

That's cool man.

No, I'm saying that "indoctrinate" is a concept that overlaps both of them and you shrieking about how rehabilitative justice is evil is far more telling about your moral failings than it is an ethical argument.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

No, I'm saying that "indoctrinate" is a concept that overlaps both of them and you shrieking about how rehabilitative justice is evil is far more telling about your moral failings than it is an ethical argument.

a) I'm not doing that, I'm asking why anybody should give enough of a poo poo about what the wife-murderer would prefer to want to spend the difference between a .45 to the back of the head and decades of whatever fluffy rehabilitative re-education camp you idiots have in mind

b) the fact that you don't think "rehabilitative justice" is an oxymoron is cute as gently caress.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

a) I'm not doing that, I'm asking why anybody should give enough of a poo poo about what the wife-murderer would prefer to want to spend the difference between a .45 to the back of the head and decades of whatever fluffy rehabilitative re-education camp you idiots have in mind

b) the fact that you don't think "rehabilitative justice" is an oxymoron is cute as gently caress.

I was making a point about your preferences, that you believe death is superior to persuasion on a moral level. Which, I see, you actually do believe. One wonders why you're not railing for the reinstitution of corporal punishment, since after all prison only guarantees psychological damage. Surely, from your point of view, it would be better if criminals were guaranteed to be maimed when they came out?

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

I was making a point about your preferences, that you believe death is superior to persuasion on a moral level.

This implies I think it's preferable to shoot you than convince you not to kill me. Not the case.

I do, however, think instantiating a policy of shooting you if and when you ever decide to kill me would be a powerful persuasion tool.


quote:

Which, I see, you actually do believe. One wonders why you're not railing for the reinstitution of corporal punishment, since after all prison only guarantees psychological damage. Surely, from your point of view, it would be better if criminals were guaranteed to be maimed when they came out?

Prison is literally the most retarded thing you can possibly to do a defector from the social contract if you want them to change their behaviour for the better.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

This implies I think it's preferable to shoot you than convince you not to kill me. Not the case.

I do, however, think instantiating a policy of shooting you if and when you ever decide to kill me would be a powerful persuasion tool.


Prison is literally the most retarded thing you can possibly to do a defector from the social contract if you want them to change their behaviour for the better.

I'm not defending prisons as rehabilitative, you loving idiot, as you should, by all rights, have been able to figure out by reading my post where I said that prisons are injurious and that you should object to them because they're not injurious enough. How did you get through college with that level of reading comprehension? Did you maintain a solid C- average?

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

Brainiac Five posted:

I'm not defending prisons as rehabilitative, you loving idiot, as you should, by all rights, have been able to figure out by reading my post where I said that prisons are injurious and that you should object to them because they're not injurious enough. How did you get through college with that level of reading comprehension? Did you maintain a solid C- average?

gently caress me you're an angry little man.

I didn't think you were defending prisons as rehabilitative; I was simply rejecting the premise of your idiotic question.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Smudgie Buggler posted:

gently caress me you're an angry little man.

I didn't think you were defending prisons as rehabilitative; I was simply rejecting the premise of your idiotic question.

Don't sign your posts.

Orange Devil
Oct 1, 2010

Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

hakimashou posted:

Say that in the future we invent some perfect lie defector and mind reader, some form of advanced brain analyzer.

What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios?

Should the United States as it exists today have the death penalty? That's the kind of question whose answer actually matters for anything more than words on the internet. It's the kind you can change policy off of, ie. affect actual human beings' lives and actually make the world a better place with. Bullshit hypotheticals are a waste of time and energy.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Yeah my dude killing unrepentant murderers of opportunity is barbaric and obviously wrong, but brainwashing them with my universalist egalitarian moral framework is the poo poo.
Technically, wouldn't brainwashing always be not-as-bad/only-as-bad as death though? Even if you consider brainwashing ego-death (and that's a fairly understandable belief to have), wouldn't ego-death and literal-death be, at the worst, equivalently immoral actions?

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Orange Devil posted:

What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios?

Should the United States as it exists today have the death penalty? That's the kind of question whose answer actually matters for anything more than words on the internet. It's the kind you can change policy off of, ie. affect actual human beings' lives and actually make the world a better place with. Bullshit hypotheticals are a waste of time and energy.

See above, the end of the post you quoted part of. Also the person I quoted. I thought it was pretty clearly explained, let me know if it's not.

hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Mar 12, 2017

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Smudgie Buggler posted:

gently caress me you're an angry little man.

I didn't think you were defending prisons as rehabilitative; I was simply rejecting the premise of your idiotic question.

Have you ever heard the parable of the piss-soaked thing?

Jacob and Esau were traveling along the road to Galilee, and on the side of the road Jacob spotted something in the dirt.

It looked like a bundle of cloth, but it was all wet. Jacob looked to Esau and said "I wonder if there is something valuable inside."

The two brothers looked closely, and Esau replied "it smells like piss, it looks like it is soaked in piss."

"I know," said Jacob, "but I want to see if there is anything inside."

Esau sighed, and watched Jacob pick up the bundle and carefully unwrap it.

There was nothing inside, and Jacob got piss all over his hands and his clothing.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

N. Senada posted:

The answer is that the guy deprived society of his wife's contributions to society and his wife of her right to be alive. He also committed fraud against his insurer (unless they stipulated murdering your spouse was a condition you could make a claim against) and they should sue him for breach of contract.

We need to make it clear that such flagrant violations of our agreed-upon rules will not be tolerated, and so we'll take him away for awhile and hopefully indoctrinate him with our belief that people are more important than money.

Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?

Infinite Karma
Oct 23, 2004
Good as dead





hakimashou posted:

Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?

What's the purpose of the punishment? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Restitution? Protection of society from future crimes?

I'm sure all of the above, but the question is really what penalty best serves those ends. What about killing him is a better punishment than locking him up forever, or torturing him forever, or making him into a slave laborer? Any of those are as morally repugnant as murdering him, if not less.

don longjohns
Mar 2, 2012

Infinite Karma posted:

What's the purpose of the punishment? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Restitution? Protection of society from future crimes?

I'm sure all of the above, but the question is really what penalty best serves those ends. What about killing him is a better punishment than locking him up forever, or torturing him forever, or making him into a slave laborer? Any of those are as morally repugnant as murdering him, if not less.

Because the people who are forced by the law and their jobs to kill him do not also become murderers. Who do we hire to kill people? Why is paying someone to murder someone else only legal when the state does it?

reignonyourparade
Nov 15, 2012

hakimashou posted:

Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?

No, because no one ever deserves anything.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010

reignonyourparade posted:

No, because no one ever deserves anything.

But then no one deserves not to be executed, either.

Smudgie Buggler
Feb 27, 2005

SET PHASERS TO "GRINDING TEDIUM"

hakimashou posted:

piss story

I take your point.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Infinite Karma posted:

What's the purpose of the punishment? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Restitution? Protection of society from future crimes?

I'm sure all of the above, but the question is really what penalty best serves those ends. What about killing him is a better punishment than locking him up forever, or torturing him forever, or making him into a slave laborer? Any of those are as morally repugnant as murdering him, if not less.

I'd say he does deserve to be punished because he did something wrong. I don't think it would be wrong to give him the death penalty for it.

It's not morally repugnant to execute a murderer. As above, the death penalty for murderers has virtues like exact proportionality to the crime. It also fulfills the golden rule or the categorical imperative.

In utilitarian terms, it is as good as a deterrent as other sever penalties, and it absolutely prevents recidivism.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010

hakimashou posted:

I'd say he does deserve to be punished because he did something wrong. I don't think it would be wrong to give him the death penalty for it.

It's not morally repugnant to execute a murderer. As above, the death penalty for murderers has virtues like exact proportionality to the crime. It also fulfills the golden rule or the categorical imperative.

In utilitarian terms, it is as good as a deterrent as other sever penalties, and it absolutely prevents recidivism.

N. Senada
May 17, 2011

My kidneys are busted

hakimashou posted:

Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?

I know we should strive really hard to figure out how to preserve the offender's right to life as we move forward in figuring out what to do in reaction to his criminal activity.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

N. Senada posted:

I know we should strive really hard to figure out how to preserve the offender's right to life as we move forward in figuring out what to do in reaction to his criminal activity.

How can he have the same right to be alive after he murdered his wife as before?

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless
Given that fines and prison terms are interconvertible for certain offenses, if we are concerned about proportionality, we must in turn be able to pay our way out of any prison term or death sentence, treating a death sentence as equivalent to life in prison and calculating the precise cost from actuarial tables.

LeJackal
Apr 5, 2011

Orange Devil posted:

What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios?

Should the United States as it exists today have the death penalty? That's the kind of question whose answer actually matters for anything more than words on the internet. It's the kind you can change policy off of, ie. affect actual human beings' lives and actually make the world a better place with. Bullshit hypotheticals are a waste of time and energy.

The obvious answer is that the death penalty needs to be eliminated immediately as step one of a complete overhaul of our prison systems and enhancement of our justice system.

All this back and forth about perfect lie detectors and absolute morality belongs in a philosophy classroom or pot-haze filled dorm room, not a serious discussion about policy and its impact on human lives.

Patrick Spens
Jul 21, 2006

"Every quarterback says they've got guts, But how many have actually seen 'em?"
Pillbug
D&D is substantially closer to the former than the latter.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010

LeJackal posted:

The obvious answer is that the death penalty needs to be eliminated immediately as step one of a complete overhaul of our prison systems and enhancement of our justice system.

But that doesn't seem obvious at all. It's the very thing we're all arguing about.

  • Locked thread