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
falcon2424
May 2, 2005

stone cold posted:

Why?

How does this distinction work?

Moreover, if you're doing it with revenge in mind, does that not count as malice?

How is murder not murder? You're gonna need to substantiate that assumption some more before you lay down what you think are absolutes.

In standard English, 'homicide' is any killing of a person. 'Murder' is an unlawful killing.

Executions, being lawful, are homicides. But they're not murder.

The only way you get 'executions are murder' is if you're being a bit poetic and denying the legitimacy of the US legal system. But, an illegitimate court's fines are theft. And its warrants amount to kidnapping. So, that argument doesn't lead to "end the death penalty" so much as, "end this court's ability to impose any and all sentences".

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

WampaLord
Jan 14, 2010

falcon2424 posted:

In standard English, 'homicide' is any killing of a person. 'Murder' is an unlawful killing.

Executions, being lawful, are homicides. But they're not murder.

What a pedantic hair-splitting of rhetorical bullshit.

falcon2424
May 2, 2005

WampaLord posted:

What a pedantic hair-splitting of rhetorical bullshit.

Not really.

If we're going 'gently caress the Court' -- and we should in some cases -- then I'm not 'against the death penalty'. I'm against the court having the ability to impose any penalty whatsoever. Everyone sentenced under such a court should get an immediate retrial, if not outright clemency.

It's kind of hosed up to look at totally illegitimate court (eg http://nypost.com/2014/02/23/film-details-teens-struggles-in-state-detention-in-payoff-scandal/ ) and pretend that the problem is the specifics of the punishment.

It's not.

We should oppose illegitimate courts if they're imposing the death penalty. We should oppose them if they're imposing life sentences. We should oppose them if they're "merely" imposing multi-year sentences.

falcon2424 fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Mar 2, 2017

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

stone cold posted:

How about don't kill anybody, do you think you could restrain yourself from killing another living human being?

Impossible, the criminals must be executed in order to control my insatiable bloodlust.

stone cold
Feb 15, 2014

falcon2424 posted:

In standard English, 'homicide' is any killing of a person. 'Murder' is an unlawful killing.

Executions, being lawful, are homicides. But they're not murder.

The only way you get 'executions are murder' is if you're being a bit poetic and denying the legitimacy of the US legal system. But, an illegitimate court's fines are theft. And its warrants amount to kidnapping. So, that argument doesn't lead to "end the death penalty" so much as, "end this court's ability to impose any and all sentences".

I see that you too are having a bit of trouble reading and understanding context but the post of hakimashou to which I was responding explicitly refers to murder here:

hakimashou posted:

It isn't murder to execute someone who is guilty of murder.

We are better than a murderer, much better in fact, since we are giving someone their just desserts, instead of wrongfully depriving them of their life.

Doing a good thing instead of a bad thing.

I recommend you meditate a bit more on the importance of context clues and of lurking more before you breathlessly trip over yourself to claim that state sponsored murder via execution is legitimate.

Moreover, your definition of murder does not encompass the necessary malice of forethought, unless you're going to begin asserting that manslaughter and vehicular manslaughter are now murder. Or were you planning on tossing shades of culpability and the idea of diminished capacity out of the window, and overturning a rather rich precedent?

And simply because you assert state sanctioned homicide is currently lawful in some US states by the way, not even the majority of world jurisprudence, does not mean it should be legal or indeed is legal for all of the US.

Ytlaya posted:

Impossible, the criminals must be executed in order to control my insatiable bloodlust.

I mean the way some people are posting, it seems as those they don't view criminals as people, which is hosed up enough on its face, and then you consider the heavy race bias in a system built on slavery, and it just makes you :yikes:

T8R
Aug 9, 2005
Yes, I would like some tea!

falcon2424 posted:

Like twodot, I think there are good arguments against the death penalty.

But I find this one, in particular, to be pretty unconvincing.

Yes, it's immoral to execute innocent people. But it's also immoral to imprison them.

It is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Do we risk immoral death, or immoral imprisonment? The latter is the vastly more preferable outcome. It leaves the maximum amount of time possible for exoneration. It also does not require putting someone to death.

got any sevens
Feb 9, 2013

by Cyrano4747

stone cold posted:

How about don't kill anybody, do you think you could restrain yourself from killing another living human being?

Dude it was a hypothetical. I'm against the death penalty in general but it'd be nice if it was possible as a voluntary thing. What if you went crazy or w/e and got a 50+ year sentence for it? Would you really want to be caged up for the rest of your life? Sounds like torture to me.

wateroverfire
Jul 3, 2010

falcon2424 posted:

Not really.

If we're going 'gently caress the Court' -- and we should in some cases -- then I'm not 'against the death penalty'. I'm against the court having the ability to impose any penalty whatsoever. Everyone sentenced under such a court should get an immediate retrial, if not outright clemency.

It's kind of hosed up to look at totally illegitimate court (eg http://nypost.com/2014/02/23/film-details-teens-struggles-in-state-detention-in-payoff-scandal/ ) and pretend that the problem is the specifics of the punishment.

It's not.

We should oppose illegitimate courts if they're imposing the death penalty. We should oppose them if they're imposing life sentences. We should oppose them if they're "merely" imposing multi-year sentences.

I think we all oppose illegitimate courts and corrupt practices. The case you linked is horrifying.

A court can come to the wrong outcome, though, even if all the participants are acting in good faith. Shouldn't society at least allow for that possibility? You probably can never fully compensate someone for years spent in confinement but you can't compensate them at all if you've executed them.

stone cold
Feb 15, 2014

got any sevens posted:

Dude it was a hypothetical. I'm against the death penalty in general but it'd be nice if it was possible as a voluntary thing. What if you went crazy or w/e and got a 50+ year sentence for it? Would you really want to be caged up for the rest of your life? Sounds like torture to me.

First off, please do not call me a dude. Secondly, as has been explicated upon now multiple times in this thread, there are both the concepts legally of diminished capacity and of one being not responsible for criminal conduct taking place when that person, due to mental disease or defect, does not have the capacity to either conform said criminal conduct to the standards of the law or to understand the criminality of their conduct.

In other words, if you "went crazy," you oughta get psychiatric treatment, not a fifty year prison sentence.

Also, a thought occurs: perhaps we should also reform the penal system, literally built to keep slavery alive, into a more rehabilitative system that doesn't completely suck, rather than tossing our hands up and going "lol prison fukken sux ey prisonboiis u should kill yourselves kekekekekeke"

Phantom Star
Feb 16, 2005

got any sevens posted:

Dude it was a hypothetical. I'm against the death penalty in general but it'd be nice if it was possible as a voluntary thing. What if you went crazy or w/e and got a 50+ year sentence for it? Would you really want to be caged up for the rest of your life? Sounds like torture to me.

So basically we allow prison rape to become widespread, to coerce convicted people who are vulnerable to rape to kill themselves with the death penalty?

tin can made man
Apr 13, 2005

why don't you ask him
about his penis

hakimashou posted:

I don't know that it is impossible, I think it might just be very difficult.

It doesnt have to be perfect in order to prove someone is guilty of murder.

I'm not sure that you and I could hash out how to make a system that only gave the death penalty to people who were actually guilty, but I think if enough time and effort and brainpower was put into it, it wouldn't be impossible.

And when guilty people were given the death penalty for committing murder, it wouldn't be morally wrong.

So in the same breath you admit the justice system is incapable of reaching a level of confidence in guilt to administer the death penalty, but re-assert your belief in (and, judging by the tenor of your other posts in this thread, the sense of sheer obligation towards) the utter extermination of a murderer. In that case, who's going to end the lives of murderers? The justice system is clearly untrustworthy, so it'd have to be you to pull the trigger, wouldn't it?

My assumption is that you'd have no compunctions whatsoever with ending the life of a human being deemed unfit to live due to a moral and legal violation. What if you did so while in the jurisdiction of a state that abolished capital punishment; in a word, one that holds the communal belief that it is a moral and legal violation to end a life for a moral and legal violation. You would go to prison, but would you prefer they execute you?

What about people who murder because they believe they're doing justice? A husband who murders his wife for infringing on his ability to provide? Or someone methodically premeditating and executing a murder of someone whom they perceive as an imminent threat to the safety of their family? Where does your sense of justice begin and the "criminal" sense of justice end?

These are dizzying and hyperbolic hypotheticals, but maybe such thorny moral quandaries would be more easily avoided if we could collectively evolve to the understanding that there is no justifiable consensus on the acceptability of murder, and so in lieu of that we should not tolerate murder in any form. Especially when every other method of reprisal (no matter how heinous they are) is infinitely more revocable and open to the possibility of reparation

tin can made man fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Mar 3, 2017

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

tin can made man posted:

So in the same breath you admit the justice system is incapable of reaching a level of confidence in guilt to administer the death penalty, but re-assert your belief in (and, judging by the tenor of your other posts in this thread, the sense of sheer obligation towards) the utter extermination of a murderer. In that case, who's going to end the lives of murderers? The justice system is clearly untrustworthy, so it'd have to be you to pull the trigger, wouldn't it?

My assumption is that you'd have no compunctions whatsoever with ending the life of a human being deemed unfit to live due to a moral and legal violation. What if you did so while in the jurisdiction of a state that abolished capital punishment; in a word, one that holds the communal belief that it is a moral and legal violation to end a life for a moral and legal violation. You would go to prison, but would you prefer they execute you?

What about people who murder because they believe they're doing justice? A husband who murders his wife for infringing on his ability to provide? Or someone methodically premeditating and executing a murder of someone whom they perceive as an imminent threat to the safety of their family? Where does your sense of justice begin and the "criminal" sense of justice end?

These are dizzying and hyperbolic hypotheticals, but maybe such thorny moral quandaries would be more easily avoided if we could collectively evolve to the understanding that there is no justifiable consensus on the acceptability of murder, and so in lieu of that we should not tolerate murder in any form. Especially when every other method of reprisal (no matter how heinous they are) is infinitely more revocable and open to the possibility of reparation

Our justice system might be incapable, but I don't believe it is impossible for any justice system ever to be so.

And in cases where a perpetrator is indeed guilty of murder, it is not morally wrong to execute him for it.

I don't agree that executing a guilty murderer is itself murder, any more than arresting a suspect on good evidence of a crime is 'kidnapping' or imposing a fine to punish a wrongdoing is 'theft.'

stone cold
Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

And in cases where a perpetrator is indeed guilty of murder, it is not morally wrong to execute him for it.

You keep asserting this and using cute analogies to back it up, but you're taking a huge leap by making this assumption and you never explicate on this.

Can you outline your morality and philosophy on why you think it is moral for the state to execute, particularly when the majority do not?

Can you give us the road that led you to that absolute thought?

Legit Businessman
Sep 2, 2007


hakimashou posted:

Our justice system might be incapable, but I don't believe it is impossible for any justice system ever to be so.

And in cases where a perpetrator is indeed guilty of murder, it is not morally wrong to execute him for it.

I don't agree that executing a guilty murderer is itself murder, any more than arresting a suspect on good evidence of a crime is 'kidnapping' or imposing a fine to punish a wrongdoing is 'theft.'

This is a pipe dream. In order to pursue a justice system that cannot make mistakes, it must undertake a complete surveillance of its citizens to do so.

And let's not forget that if the death penalty is available, it can be used as leverage by prosecuting attorneys in cases to get an accused person to plead guilty to a lesser charge to take death off the table, even if they have a meritorious defence (http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/P...mWVvRJJUuQq9hQg)

Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 08:17 on Mar 3, 2017

Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.
What the gently caress, 60% of people in the US are pro death penalty?

NoDamage
Dec 2, 2000
It's completely pointless to discuss a hypothetical world where the justice system makes no mistakes in order to make an argument about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable. Why even bother? It's a waste of time.

The reality in any justice system administered by humans is that 1) mistakes will happen or 2) abuse will happen, and therefore the death penalty should not be practiced in any civilized society. The potential for mistakes or abuse is simply too great.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

NoDamage posted:

It's completely pointless to discuss a hypothetical world where the justice system makes no mistakes in order to make an argument about whether or not the death penalty is morally justifiable. Why even bother? It's a waste of time.

The reality in any justice system administered by humans is that 1) mistakes will happen or 2) abuse will happen, and therefore the death penalty should not be practiced in any civilized society. The potential for mistakes or abuse is simply too great.

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Drewjitsu posted:

This is a pipe dream. In order to pursue a justice system that cannot make mistakes, it must undertake a complete surveillance of its citizens to do so.

And let's not forget that if the death penalty is available, it can be used as leverage by prosecuting attorneys in cases to get an accused person to plead guilty to a lesser charge to take death off the table, even if they have a meritorious defence (http://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/P...mWVvRJJUuQq9hQg)

Better surveillance is one way to mitigate the risk of wrongful conviction.

Jewel Repetition
Dec 24, 2012

Ask me about Briar Rose and Chicken Chaser.

hakimashou posted:

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.

It is, bitch.

Legit Businessman
Sep 2, 2007


hakimashou posted:

Better surveillance is one way to mitigate the risk of wrongful conviction.

Dude, just stop. We can never get the desired result you want, without giving up other fundamental freedoms. Most people will not agree to giving up those freedoms, so we're back to an imperfect system. So no death penalty.

Also, if you could address my point about how the death penalty is used as a bludgeon by prosecuting attorneys to leverage plea bargains, that would be great.

NoDamage
Dec 2, 2000

hakimashou posted:

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.
Who cares? I don't understand why there are 7 pages of arguments over a hypothetical moral situation which has no bearing on policy in the real world.

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

hakimashou posted:

Kant was hugely in favor of the death penalty for murderers though... To Kant, executing them was a duty we had to them.

The categorical imperative doesnt absolutely forbid killing, it obliges us to kill people who commit murder. According to the categorical imperative, we act wrongly if we don't execute murderers, because we are obliged to treat them as ends in themselves, and so if they choose to live by the maxim of killing, we have to respect their choice and execute them in turn. If we didn't do that, we'd be doing something worse, we'd be treating them as animals or children, less than fully people, refusing to accept that they were rational moral actors capable of making decisions with consequences.

One of the most difficult Kantian positions is that capital punishment isnt an obligation to the victim of the crime, but to the criminal.

Hey I'd love to stay and talk about this but I can't because Brock Turner has a real pretty mouth and I've just learned about this great ethical system that says anyone who rapes desires to be raped and it's a service, nay, an obligation to Brock that we rape his tight swimmer's rear end all day every day.

And this ethical system appears to have no room for regret or repentance or rehabilitation so if I don't get it while the gettins good, he's going to be pretty used up from all the morally justified/obligatory assrape coming his way.

E:also I'm going to pull a con on everyone who has ever lied about anything, in other words everyone, because hey free money. So I've got a real busy day ahead, sorry I can't do the debate thing.

bitterandtwisted
Sep 4, 2006




hakimashou posted:

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.


Harming people is bad.
Murderers are people.


Big bad thing worse than small bad thing.
Jailing murderers in safe secure environment less bad than letting murderers do their thing.

Death greater bad than detainment in safe secure environment while conferring no other advantage.

Therefore killing murderers is bad.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Drewjitsu posted:

Dude, just stop. We can never get the desired result you want, without giving up other fundamental freedoms. Most people will not agree to giving up those freedoms, so we're back to an imperfect system. So no death penalty.

Also, if you could address my point about how the death penalty is used as a bludgeon by prosecuting attorneys to leverage plea bargains, that would be great.

My only response is that the US should probably get rid of the death penalty, but not because it is morally wrong to execute murderers.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

NoDamage posted:

Who cares? I don't understand why there are 7 pages of arguments over a hypothetical moral situation which has no bearing on policy in the real world.

You should see a library some time!

stone cold
Feb 15, 2014

hakimashou posted:

My only response is that the US should probably get rid of the death penalty, but not because it is morally wrong to execute murderers.

Why do you think it isn't?

tin can made man
Apr 13, 2005

why don't you ask him
about his penis

hakimashou posted:

My only response is that the US should probably get rid of the death penalty, but not because it is morally wrong to execute murderers.

Is it morally wrong to punitively rape sexual predators? Should private citizens be able to lobby to volunteer to be a state-sanctioned Rapist in the way they can for Executioner?

If you litter or speed, is it the obligation of the state to enter your home and start throwing garbage around or move around your house in ways that could potentially be hazardous for you and its inhabitants? Why do all other crimes receive an abstracted punishment but murder receives a literal, reactive one?

And I'm genuinely curious about a question I asked that you didn't address: should an executioner who has ended life in a state with permissive capital punishment be deported to a state with abolished capital punishment and be executed?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

If you drive drunk the cop knocks back a few shots while you get back in your car and then he chases you down the highway.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

tin can made man posted:

Is it morally wrong to punitively rape sexual predators? Should private citizens be able to lobby to volunteer to be a state-sanctioned Rapist in the way they can for Executioner?
This style of argument always seems bad to me. What do you do if they just say "Yeah"? It's already apparent there's some sort of irreconcilable different in moral systems between you two, it's not difficult to double down, and it's not like that person has a constituency they need to worry about offending. Forcing people into more consistent and more morally offensive positions just doesn't seem smart.

quote:

If you litter or speed, is it the obligation of the state to enter your home and start throwing garbage around or move around your house in ways that could potentially be hazardous for you and its inhabitants? Why do all other crimes receive an abstracted punishment but murder receives a literal, reactive one?
It seems probably really expensive and annoying to have a complete specialized list of reciprocal punishments, the question you're supposed to be asking is would it be moral for the state to throw a bunch of trash into litter bugs' houses, and I think the answer to that is "Yeah, but it seems dumb".

Peachfart
Jan 21, 2017

twodot posted:

This style of argument always seems bad to me. What do you do if they just say "Yeah"? It's already apparent there's some sort of irreconcilable different in moral systems between you two, it's not difficult to double down, and it's not like that person has a constituency they need to worry about offending. Forcing people into more consistent and more morally offensive positions just doesn't seem smart.

It seems probably really expensive and annoying to have a complete specialized list of reciprocal punishments, the question you're supposed to be asking is would it be moral for the state to throw a bunch of trash into litter bugs' houses, and I think the answer to that is "Yeah, but it seems dumb".

The point of the argument is to show how absurd 'an eye for an eye' style punishments are.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Peachfart posted:

The point of the argument is to show how absurd 'an eye for an eye' style punishments are.
But it doesn't do that, it just says "Are you willing to double down y/n?". I don't think retributive justice is good, but "Have you considered that retributive justice involves making retributions against people!?" can't be an effective argument.

Ogmius815
Aug 25, 2005
centrism is a hell of a drug

twodot posted:

But it doesn't do that, it just says "Are you willing to double down y/n?". I don't think retributive justice is good, but "Have you considered that retributive justice involves making retributions against people!?" can't be an effective argument.

Like all arguments, the point is not to persuade the other party, but to persuade bystanders. It works because if they double down they and by extension their reasoning look bad.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Ogmius815 posted:

Like all arguments, the point is not to persuade the other party, but to persuade bystanders. It works because if they double down they and by extension their reasoning look bad.
Liking retributive justice isn't bad reasoning anymore than liking vegemite is bad reasoning. Doubling down is the consistent position for those people. Like maybe you can get the bad guys to say something sufficiently horrible that onlookers will have an emotional reaction, but the hypothetical onlookers we're talking about are waffling on "Should the state kill people who present no immediate danger to anyone whatsoever?", so that seems unlikely to me. What seems more likely is our hypothetical onlookers is going to think "This idiot can't even understand and address the basic tenets of hakimashou's philosophy and is plainly trying to provoke an emotional reaction to score rhetorical points rather than discuss the actual issue at hand."

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The number of people who believe in corrective rape is obviously much smaller than the number who agree with retributive justice arguments for the death penalty. Following that chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion and arriving at corrective rape will conceivably get at least some number of them to reconsider the assumptions that lead us to that abhorrent conclusion.

Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

hakimashou posted:

Some people believe it is somehow wrong to execute guilty murderers.

As a hypothetical, do you think it is okay to rape rapists?

Because the argument against killing murderers basically stems from the "no cruel/unusual punishment" idea. It's obvious that our legal system was not created with "an eye for an eye" in mind.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

VitalSigns posted:

The number of people who believe in corrective rape is obviously much smaller than the number who agree with retributive justice arguments for the death penalty. Following that chain of reasoning to its logical conclusion and arriving at corrective rape will conceivably get at least some number of them to reconsider the assumptions that lead us to that abhorrent conclusion.
Yeah, I'm going to stop you at "obviously", this isn't obvious at all. I have no clue how support for the death penalty breaks down by justification. Personally I think the most common one I see is families shouldn't have to live with knowing their loved one's killer is still alive, which I don't think slots cleanly into any theory of justice system. To the extent it is retributive, it avoids the "Well do you also want corrective rape?" question, because the families of rape victims can presumably get by knowing the rapist is possibly un-raped.

Ignoring we've got no data on how many people actually follow retributive justice, we've also got no data on how many people think corrective rape is good, and I don't know why you think that number is small. At a minimum, at a societal level, there's clearly no desire to even attempt to reduce how much rape happens in prison. Media is very casual about it as though it's just a price of doing business, and there's lots of jokes that would be frowned upon in other contexts.

For all the data you've presented, maybe most people will see "Do you also think rapists should be raped by the state" and think "Hell, yeah!".

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

tin can made man posted:

Is it morally wrong to punitively rape sexual predators? Should private citizens be able to lobby to volunteer to be a state-sanctioned Rapist in the way they can for Executioner?

If you litter or speed, is it the obligation of the state to enter your home and start throwing garbage around or move around your house in ways that could potentially be hazardous for you and its inhabitants? Why do all other crimes receive an abstracted punishment but murder receives a literal, reactive one?

And I'm genuinely curious about a question I asked that you didn't address: should an executioner who has ended life in a state with permissive capital punishment be deported to a state with abolished capital punishment and be executed?

I dunno if it's morally wrong to.

As for the private citizens thing, the state must have an absolute monopoly on punishment. I'm a very firm believer in the state. It's mandkind's greatest invention.

As for why murder justifies death, I guess because it is such a unique crime it is a special case. Nothing else but death really approximates death. No punishment fits it better. Death penalty for murderers has a perfect symmetry in a way it's very difficult to achieve with other examples.

No.

hakimashou
Jul 15, 2002
Upset Trowel

Ytlaya posted:

As a hypothetical, do you think it is okay to rape rapists?

Because the argument against killing murderers basically stems from the "no cruel/unusual punishment" idea. It's obvious that our legal system was not created with "an eye for an eye" in mind.

I really dont know, never thought about it.

Why do you think it would be immoral?

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

The people who don't agree with haki's defense of the death penalty are irrelevant because they already don't agree with him. The argument obviously is only relevant to people who agree with him.

As for the risk that I will convince some people to be okay with retributive rape: some people already do and arguments for this exist already. The number of hypothetical people who like the death penalty and are so close to saying "hell yeah" to retributive rape that one post from me will tip them over the edge, but who have somehow never and will never encounter a pro-rape-jail argument anywhere else is probably exactly zero because that is an absurd set of circumstances.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

hakimashou posted:

I really dont know, never thought about it.

Why do you think it would be immoral?

Because there's no conceivable benefit that would justify doing something like that even to a bad person. E: killing a murderer has at least one benefit, you can be 100% sure he'll never reoffend. Raping a rapist doesn't even guarantee that.

What benefit do you think there would be, aside from your personal psychological benefit from doubling down on an absurd consequence of your ethical theory rather than reconsidering your assumptions.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Mar 4, 2017

  • Locked thread