|
VitalSigns posted: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. quote: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.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
The logical conclusion of what you're saying then is we should never examine the negative implications of anything for fear that someone might decide they like them. This does not seem reasonable or prudent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I really dont know, never thought about it. I mean, past a certain point you can basically just argue "morality is entirely subjective, the universe doesn't care about human suffering" but that isn't really a useful guiding principle for human societies. That's why "what are the practical impacts of doing this" is an important question to ask (and in the case of punishments like execution or other cruel/unusual things, arguably the biggest downside is the fact that the justice system is fallible and any existing punishment will inevitably be levied against the innocent).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The logical conclusion of what you're saying then is we should never examine the negative implications of anything for fear that someone might decide they like them. Ytlaya posted:I mean, past a certain point you can basically just argue "morality is entirely subjective, the universe doesn't care about human suffering" but that isn't really a useful guiding principle for human societies. That's why "what are the practical impacts of doing this" is an important question to ask (and in the case of punishments like execution or other cruel/unusual things, arguably the biggest downside is the fact that the justice system is fallible and any existing punishment will inevitably be levied against the innocent).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
There is no accurate measure of human suffering, and we can't truly see inside anyone else's head anyway, so its complicated and difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to assign exactly equal suffering to a perpetrator as to his victim. But in the special case of murder, this becomes moot, since the victim is dead, and executing the perpetrator will make him exactly equally dead. Its one instance where its very easy to tailor the punishment to fit the crime with absolute certain equivalence and perfect symmetry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
eye for an eye makes everybody's faces perfectly symmetrical
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:There is no accurate measure of human suffering, and we can't truly see inside anyone else's head anyway, so its complicated and difficult, and perhaps even impossible, to assign exactly equal suffering to a perpetrator as to his victim. Lots of crimes other than murder leave behind a dead victim. Is Involuntary manslaughter also a capital offense? What about negligent homicide? How does this apply if a killer is coerced, misled, or mentally incompetent? How far removed from the corpse can a person be for execution to apply - should every wartime US commander in chief be executed?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:Lots of crimes other than murder leave behind a dead victim. Is Involuntary manslaughter also a capital offense? What about negligent homicide? How does this apply if a killer is coerced, misled, or mentally incompetent? How far removed from the corpse can a person be for execution to apply - should every wartime US commander in chief be executed? The justice system seems to do a pretty good job of differentiating between different degrees of culpability in murder cases. Its certainly something people have thought and written about a lot. A few pages back I gave a spitball list of examples where I think the maximum degree of culpability holds. quote:I think we can agree that for the question of whether or not it is moral to execute people who are guilty of murder, we can use "guilty" to mean something along the lines of "fully culpable, responsible, and deserving of punishment."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
But the victims in those other crimes are equally as dead as the victims in a murder case. By your own logic, a life for a life is the only symmetrical and just punishment in the case of a dead victim. Why is it that some corpses deserve symmetrical justice but other corpses don't? Or, rather, how is it possibly just to attribute a "corpse for a corpse" policy to some corpses, but not others? They're all as exactly dead as the other due to the actions of another party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:Lots of crimes other than murder leave behind a dead victim. Is Involuntary manslaughter also a capital offense? What about negligent homicide? How does this apply if a killer is coerced, misled, or mentally incompetent? How far removed from the corpse can a person be for execution to apply - should every wartime US commander in chief be executed? To be fair, hakimashou is presumably talking about limiting the death penatly to situations with some much higher burden of proof. The problem in that case lies more with the fallibility of the people administering justice than with the laws themselves.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:But the victims in those other crimes are equally as dead as the victims in a murder case. By your own logic, a life for a life is the only symmetrical and just punishment in the case of a dead victim. Why is it that some corpses deserve symmetrical justice but other corpses don't? Or, rather, how is it possibly just to attribute a "corpse for a corpse" policy to some corpses, but not others? They're all equally dead due to the actions of another party. I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. My (Kant's) actual logic goes something like: A person who chooses commit murder also chooses to die at the hands of an executioner. The justification for doing it is that we have an obligation to treat the killer as an equal, a human being, with human dignity, and the right to make choices about his own life and have them be respected. One of the most difficult Kantian positions is that we owe punishment to the perpetrator and act wrongly, by him, if we don't impose it. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 02:26 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:To be fair, hakimashou is presumably talking about limiting the death penatly to situations with some much higher burden of proof. The problem in that case lies more with the fallibility of the people administering justice than with the laws themselves. No, limiting it to cases where the perpetrator is not just factually guilty of causing death by action or inaction, but morally culpable as well, since he made the deliberate choice to kill the victim. Spilling your coffee on your lap in the car and running someone over, or shooting a gun off in the air and the bullet landing on someone, or some other lapse in judgement, or even just driving down the road and having someone dive out in front of your car aren't all the same, and aren't the same as the examples. When a perpetrator chooses to commit a murder for a reason, especially to obtain some benefit for himself, or do some other malicious harm, those are the clear cut cases of moral guilt. If we have to treat people as ends in themselves, rather than as means to some other end, then the most egregious crime is killing someone to advance selfish ends.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
what if the victim is resurrected using the dragon balls, do you still execute the murderer
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:what if the victim is resurrected using the dragon balls, do you still execute the murderer Actually a very good question. Also applies to attempted murder.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:When a perpetrator chooses to commit a murder for a reason, especially to obtain some benefit for himself, or do some other malicious harm, those are the clear cut cases of moral guilt. So all murders done in the name of political change, wartime progress, or self-preservation should also be punishable by death?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
tin can made man posted:So all murders done in the name of political change, wartime progress, or self-preservation should also be punishable by death? Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. It's very complicated. As for self-defense, most people agree that there is a right to defend yourself from harm or death. Taking that right away from criminals is one way that we punish them. Remember, all punishment involves depriving someone of his rights. Whether we are justified in doing so or not is what makes the punishment just or unjust.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. This logic doesn't explain why you're suddenly limiting it to murder. Why is a rapist not choosing to be raped (forever?) when he chooses to rape someone? You've said that doing X to someone means you want X done to you, so why not punish rapists with a lifetime of state administered morally obligatory raping by eager volunteers?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Hey guys have you heard of Immanuel Kant? No no not the groundbreaking metaphysics, his whacked out anti-consequentialism. Yes I am an undergraduate philosophy major why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:No, I'm saying you need to actually explain why what you are examining is a negative implication. "Your philosophy suggests the state could morally rape rapists" is just a true fact, it's not an argument. You're hoping that emotion is going to override reason, and instead of doubling down on a consistent position they will randomly hop to a new position, but you haven't done any work to show why a moral system where the state can rape rapists is bad, or where the right place to jump is, assuming you succeed. People aren't logical-consistency machines. A lot of the time we absorb values from our culture like "executions are good" or "intentional cruelty is bad" and grab at rationalizations to support them. We might have thought a particular one through until we apply them consistently everywhere or, like hakimashou, "never really thought about it." If I probe at these rationalizations where they conflict with someone's other values, yeah a person might double down and go full eye-for-an-eye the state should be tortured and raping and maiming. Or he might resolve the conflict some other way, for example with special pleading as hakimashou is doing now. And now I can say that "doing X to someone forfeits your right not to have X done to you" cannot the justification for the death penalty because there's no clear reason why it doesn't apply to other crimes. twodot posted:Presupposing consequentialism seems rude. I agree consequentialism is great, but a lot of people don't. Almost everyone is consequentialist to some degree; very few of us are willing to go all the way with Kant and agree that lying to the SS when they ask if there are any Jews in your house is the wrong thing to do. For those few who do I can't objectively prove they're wrong (ditto solipsists, or nihilists, etc) but it may help bystanders who haven't thought a particular anti-consequentialist argument all the way through to reject some of its more facially agreeable conclusions like "the death penalty is good", even if my debate opponent does go full-on "turn over those Jews, you don't want to be a liar." VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:50 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. You could apply it to literally any punishment/crime combination no matter how cruel and unusual. PYF most dignified execution everyone! Mine is the electric chair where people's faces literally melt off. That's quality dignity. bitterandtwisted fucked around with this message at 10:24 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
If I steal $500 the state should require that I pay no more or less than $500 as punishment, because the punishment must match the crime.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:41
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I don't know if that's my logic unless you just read that one post. A ridiculous blanket statement regarding the motivations behind the intent of all murderers. Murderers rarely walk into the police station and demand execution. quote:
I think you'll find most murderers would choose to never get caught. They would also choose to not be executed. What kind of human dignity is being imposed by executing people against their will?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:If I steal $500 the state should require that I pay no more or less than $500 as punishment, because the punishment must match the crime. 500 dollars was lost by the victim, but you also committed a crime against the state/all citizens by stealing at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:You could apply it to literally any punishment/crime combination no matter how cruel and unusual. Guillotine is pretty dignified, all kinds of really fancy French people got guillotined.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
T8R posted:A ridiculous blanket statement regarding the motivations behind the intent of all murderers. Murderers rarely walk into the police station and demand execution. You missed it. The choice to commit murder is also the choice to be executed, they are inseparable and one and the same. The act of committing murder is the act of choosing to be executed. The very easy solution to the problem is "don't what to get executed? don't commit murder."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You missed it. You could say the same for any crime/punishment combination, no matter how draconian, cruel and pointless. The choice to commit theft is also the choice to have your hands amputated. The choice to blaspheme is also the choice to be stoned to death. etc
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:You missed it. hakimashou posted:The very easy solution to the problem is "don't what to get executed? don't commit murder." Well this could be used to justify any punishment no matter how cruel or excessive. I've seen right-wingers use it to justify executing people for blocking traffic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:You could say the same for any crime/punishment combination, no matter how draconian, cruel and pointless. I could probably say that stuff but I don't think I would. Come to think of it I could say anything!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:24
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:I could probably say that stuff but I don't think I would. Are you going to even attempt to explain why those are different?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Are you going to even attempt to explain why those are different? They aren't punishments that fit the crimes, like the death penalty for murder is. And laws against blasphemy are unjust in a way that laws against murder aren't. Maybe if you cut someone's hands off, and then had your hands cut off in turn or something. Treat others the way you want to be treated, after all. Hasn't this stuff already been covered?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:They aren't punishments that fit the crimes, like the death penalty for murder is. Irrelevant (also I disagree) "can't do the time, don't do the crime" exists to justify extreme punishment, not proportional punishment. Explain in the terms you used ie choice and dignity why chopping off hands is wrong as a punishment for theft
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Irrelevant (also I disagree) Don't get too worked up over that. "Don't want to get executed, don't murder anyone" is just helpful advice, not some fundamental theory of justice. It might or might not exist to justify extreme punishment, but it is itself justified by fair and proportional punishment. Consider it phrased differently, but meaning the same thing: "don't want to receive a fair and just punishment, in proportion to the crime you have done? Don't do the crime." Now any objection based on some other person, somewhere else, using it to justify something different can be set aside. An excessive or disproportionate punishment is arbitrary, and treating people arbitrarily instead of according to their deserts, based on their choices, means not treating them as an equal with equal dignity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Don't get too worked up over that. "Don't want to get executed, don't murder anyone" is just helpful advice, not some fundamental theory of justice. It might or might not exist to justify extreme punishment, but it is itself justified by fair and proportional punishment. Consider it phrased differently, but meaning the same thing: "don't want to receive a fair and just punishment, in proportion to the crime you have done? Don't do the crime." Now any objection based on some other person, somewhere else, using it to justify something different can be set aside. All punishment based on subjective notions of fairness are arbitrary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:All punishment based on subjective notions of fairness are arbitrary. That's probably less true when it comes to executing murderers than it is for anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:That's probably less true when it comes to executing murderers than it is for anything else. Why?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Proportionality seems to be the least subjective notion of fair punishment. The death penalty for murder is as proportional as you can possibly get. It's truly identical. You don't have to take into account anything about the perpetrator's subjective experience of the punishment, or the victim's subjective experience of the wrong, since they are both identically dead. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 14:14 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:Proportionality seems to be the least subjective notion of fair punishment. No such thing as "least subjective". It's either subjective or it's not. Death is the same for both parties, but that's true of manslaughter as well as murder. Why is it disproportionate for negligence deaths?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
See above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:The death penalty for murder is as proportional as you can possibly get. It's truly identical. You don't have to take into account anything about the perpetrator's subjective experience of the punishment, or the victim's subjective experience of the wrong, since they are both identically dead. That's not even accurate. What if the murderer tortured his victim for days before killing him, should the state do the same? What if the murderer removed limbs before killing their victim? What if they raped them beforehand? Should these things be done to the murderer as well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 02:17 |
|
|
hakimashou posted:See above. You didn't answer it above. You said death was proportionate as a punishment because death is the same for both killer and victim. But death is the same for both regardless of intent or malice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:32
|
|