|
BRJohnson posted:I think it's funny you're trying to build your justification of execution off of the writings of philosophers, and you're totally ok using the idea of what people deserve. That's a bizarre way of looking at the world and I don't agree with it one bit. I think it would be wrong to reward people who do bad things instead of punish them, because they deserve to be punished not rewarded. Also if no one deserves anything, how can people have rights? Does no one deserve to live? To be free? To be treated like an equal or with respect? Can people only deserve good things but never bad ones? Why? hakimashou fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 6, 2017 |
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
WillyTheNewGuy posted:This isn't true through. Sometimes a person chooses to murder, never gets caught, then dies of complications from getting too old. The choice to murder cannot also be the choice to be executed unless their correlation is 100%. Whoosh!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:You said: There "justification" for proportionate punishment is that it isn't arbitrary. I'm not sure what you're getting at but the death penalty is proportionate for murder because both victim and perpetrator end up identically unable to experience anything ever again. You seem to be confusing what makes someone deserving of punishment with what makes a particular punishment proportionate to a particular crime. A person deserves to be punished if he is guilty and fully culpable and responsible for some wrongdoing, as above. Many people think that one of the criteria for a punishment being just is that it is proportionate, and the death penalty is a proportionate punishment for murder.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This isn't solely related to this topic, but I want to point out that "treat others as you would want to be treated" is actually not a good idea and can lead to a lot of bad things. People are different, and some people are hurt by things that other people enjoy (for example racists find racist jokes funny while the minority in question finds them hurtful). 1. Yeah its easy to think about a little bit and arrive at ideas like "I want to be treated with respect so I will treat others with respect." 2. If you see above, different levels of culpability have already been covered. Twice now a list has been posted of crimes where most people would agree the perpetrator has the highest level of culpability and responsibility. Maybe we just stick to those ones for the death penalty? 3. Looking above again, you'll find you're in luck, It isn't the justification for anything, its helpful advice!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
BRJohnson posted:I said the concept of deserve is silly because the universe doesn't work that way. It doesn't matter if it's deserving something 'good' or 'bad', it's a construction. I think the death penalty (state executions) are unnecessary and unjust (and the reasoning for that line of thought has been well documented in this thread), so it has no place in the world we have a part in cultivating. I don't know that presenting Kantian ideas is philosophical dressing... it's Emmanuel Kant. It is what it is, it's not something I made up myself. I'm arguing that it's not morally wrong for people who are guilty of murder to be executed. I think Kant's ideas are compelling. Anyway a lot of people disagree with Kant, it isn't the end of the world.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
Motto posted:Have any countries that abolished the death penality suffered significantly for it? The people rotting in prison who would have otherwise been executed are suffering for it I suppose.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:Specifically, you're acting as though your moral opinions are objectively correct. That's a lot more horrifying to anyone who doesn't hold them. Justice is a word about morality. In a purely utilitarian 'justice system' you could have situations where wrongdoers are secretly rewarded for their crimes instead of being punished.This goes against many people's moral intuitions. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:17 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:10
|
|
|
bitterandtwisted posted:
Apologies for the long post but it's kind of a complex thought experiment, I've tried to keep it as brief as possible, please bear that in mind if I've omitted anything. If the only aims of punishment are utilitarian- to deter crime and keep the public safe from dangerous people, then the aims can be fulfilled without actually punishing wrongdoers. lets say some hypothetical future utilitarians, in a time when technology has largely alleviated the conditions of resource scarcity we face today, as well as the difficulty in proving criminal accusations, impose a draconian punishment for sexual assault. Anyone proved guilty is carted off to Horror Island and tortured for many years, then executed. No one convicted of rape is ever seen again. Terror of this cruel fate deters people from committing the crime. And no one ever reoffends. It is not necessary for the deterrent effect that the guilty are actually tortured and executed, as long as people believe it has happened. Horror Island could in fact be a paradise where the criminals live out the rest of their lives in sumptuous luxury with their every need and hedonistic desire fulfilled- as long as it is kept secret. To committed utilitarians, this would be a better outcome than any form of punishment being levied against the guilty, since it would make life better for a greater number of people than would actually punishing them. To wit, the criminals themselves. The only utilitarian objections to this are about the resources required, but since it is a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point not connected to resources, any necessary modification can be made to meet them. Any objection based on the pragmatism of these secret rewards is irrelevant, because whether or not it is possible is no objection to whether or not it would be just, if it were. Some people, truly committed utilitarians, bite the bullet and admit that if possible, secret rewards would be better than punishments for some crimes. Some people refuse to take a position and try to mire the issue in irrelevencies. Others have moral intuitions or beliefs about justice that dispose them to believe it would be wrong. It's not a thought experiment meant to discredit utilitarianism or prop up moral theories, just to explore your own beliefs and moral intuitions. If you think secret rewards would be wrong, not just impractical, its worth pondering "why?" I think most people believe that a justice system should have some mix of both utilitarian and moral considerations, even if they can't describe exactly what a perfect mix would be. I know I do. hakimashou fucked around with this message at 13:59 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:47
|
|
go on?
|
Ytlaya posted:Actually, the only problem I see with your proposed fake-torture island is the fact that information about it being fake would inevitably be leaked somehow. If there were some way to 100% avoid the information being leaked, I don't really care how good the quality of life for such criminals is, as long as they're kept separate from the rest of the population so they can't re-offend. Yeah it's an if-then thing. Nothing wrong with being a strict utilitarian, many people are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
There's one line of thought that says life imprisonment is disproportionately cruel for murder. The murderer didnt imprison the victim for decades, he just killed him, so it would be unjust to imprison him for such a long period instead of imposing the death penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
N. Senada posted:It's cruel if the jail is some hellish cesspit. It's still basically slavery, particularly if it is for life. Kant thought that if there were two condemned men and one accepted his death while the other plead for life imprisonment, the former was an honorable man and the latter wretched, since he was willing to accept a life of enslavement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
It seems difficult to me to get from "people deserve to be punished or rewarded based on whether what they do is right or wrong" to "no one deserves to die". If the justification is "they should be kept alive to suffer and think about what they did wrong, not killed" then the implication seems to be that death is too lenient. If there are punishments more severe and less severe than death, why should there be a gap in the punishment spectrum where 'death' sits?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Nah, the logic is pretty straight-forward. Would you agree that no one deserves to be repeatedly raped and tortured for 20 years straight (or insert whatever disgusting inhumane thing you can think of)? It might be possible for someone to do something so wrong that it is justifiable, I don't know. Anyway, compared to that, the death penalty would be a mercy. Why does no one deserve to die?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:The fact that your life is privileged enough that 5 days in minimum security scarred you doesn't mean that the death penalty is good. I'm not sure she said it was "good," just better than permanent dehumanizing slavery in prison.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
BRJohnson posted:I hope that you create a philosophy thread so that I can read and learn from it, as I have much to learn. Yet I still think your use of the word 'deserve' is ridiculous, as the decision of who 'deserves' what is completely subjective. The moral and ethical arguments of philosophers can stimulate our thought, yes, but the world is what we make it; if we can see that we have no human institution that can accurately dispense 'justice', than the sentence of death is too high to ever be allowed. What could possibly be the gain of ending a life*, when put beside preserving it? Cold reason and economics cannot even take us to that conclusion. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 13:24
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Of course they can. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:You're just a priori ruling out the possibility that an individual can contribute negative utility to the world. Good job. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:What is the value of talking about any of this stuff in these kinds of completely abstracted and unreal scenarios? 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 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:gently caress me you're an angry little man. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
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. Does he deserve to be punished for depriving his wife of her right to be alive?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:What's the purpose of the punishment? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Restitution? Protection of society from future crimes? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:This answered exactly none of the questions you responded to. I don't know that anyone would get anything out of it, I just don't think it would be wrong to do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:That's pretty loving faint praise for a policy of intentionally killing people. If you say so. It's all I've been saying the whole thread. There are some practical reasons for executing rather than imprisoning murderers. They can't reoffend and you don't have to pay to keep and feed them, which frees up money to spend on something else. There are also compelling ethical reasons to do it. It is plausibly a less harsh and more fair penalty than life imprisonment/enslavement. It is a radical way of respecting the murderer's dignity and equality and agency. And if you think its good for people to get what they deserve, then it's good for that reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:No justice system is infallible. Any state which executes people for crimes will end up executing innocents. There is no recourse once someone is dead. Are you fine with that? See above, I'm not convinced we should have the death penalty on the books, but I strongly diasagree with the idea that it is morally wrong to punish murder with execution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Well the question isn't 'is it morally correct to execute a murderer' but 'is the death penalty as practiced currently morally wrong' and if you addressed the question that would be great. Instead of coming up with insane hypotheticals about infallible lie detectors and such. I thought the context of that was pretty clear, why don't you think it was? Anyway I was responding to someone who said it was wrong to execute murderers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
twodot posted:Would you be fine if one of your loved ones was executed for a crime which they did commit? It would suck if a family member murdered someone and got the death penalty for it, but it's what they'd deserve so I would be 'fine with it,' even if it sucked to lose a family member. Not sure why that would make someone a 'psychopath.'
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you offer definitions of "fine with it" and "sucked" such that this makes any sense? I prefer to avoid circumstances that suck, and wouldn't say I'm fine with a circumstance sucking. If I felt a circumstance sucked, I'd actively work to make it not suck, and wouldn't be content for it to just suck. I suppose? I'd be fine with the death penalty, since the family member would deserve it. I'm fine with people getting what they deserve. Ie, I don't have a problem with it. But it would feel terrible to lose a family member. Because it would feel terrible, it would suck. Sometimes when the right thing happens, it sucks for someone. The same would be true of a jail sentence. "We shouldn't jail people anymore because I don't want my relative to go to jail, since I would miss him or her" is not a respectable position. I would care a lot more about a family member or friend than about a total stranger, especially if the stranger was a murderer. But my personal feelings toward the condemned wouldn't change my views about capital punishment. An easy way to understand why is to consider that my beliefs about capital punishment aren't "I think it is ok because it isn't anyone I know." hakimashou fucked around with this message at 12:41 on Mar 15, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:That's not the point; I'm talking about executing people who didn't commit a murder, but were convicted through a miscarriage of justice. I'm not content that the state will execute innocents, in the pursuit of justice. However, I don't think it is morally wrong to give murderers the death penalty. I don't see what the two have to do with one another.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Plucky Brit posted:I don't agree with you on the morality issue, but I can understand and respect your viewpoint. It's an interesting discussion to have, provided it's at a theoretical level. The issue of executing innocents is why I oppose the death penalty, and we seem to be in agreement on this. Ya, because laws and courts are imperfect I think we probably shouldn't have the death penalty. I think that's a good argument against having it. I don't think "the death penalty is always morally wrong." Is a good argument.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
Zesty Mordant posted:Even if, hypothetically, a criminal's 100% guilt could be ascertained, what would be gained by executing this person? Justice
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:This. I cannot imagine how we ever got to a point where it's ok to put someone in a cage for 20+ years. We stopped executing them I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
Corporal / humiliation based punishments seem almost like a humane alternative to imprisonment. Is there some kind of pain-zapper that doesnt risk giving people heart attacks?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Those drug cocktails are pretty barbaric. Massive opiate/barbiturate overdose is probably the most humane. Maybe combine it with nitrogen asphyxiation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 22:44 |
|
|
Orange Devil posted:How the gently caress is getting paid to kill people morally acceptable anyhow? Why wouldn't it be? You know about war and soldiers don't you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 21:44
|
|