Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.
What makes killing someone "bad" ?
This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.
I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654052]Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.
What makes killing someone "bad" ?
This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.
I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.[/QUOTE]
Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.
What makes killing someone "good"?
He never said it was good.
[QUOTE=kilerabv;51654104]He never said it was good.[/QUOTE]
So why argue in its defense if it's not a "good" thing?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654052]Okay here is a legitimate question about this whole "it's barbaric" rhetoric that I keep seeing.
What makes killing someone "bad" ?
This may sound stupid, but what exactly do you find in this action that's terrible ? The usual response would be "it just is" or "it's immoral", but I want you to take a solid minute and think what, practically, there is in the killing of someone that actually is repulsive enough to warrant the reaction we have of it now.
I'm not trying to make a point that murder's A-okay or something, I'm trying to make people think a bit more about why they even have the whole "it's barbaric !!!!" rhetoric when the notion itself of "barbaric" changes every century.[/QUOTE]
are you serious
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654084]Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.[/quote]
Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654084]What makes killing someone "good"?[/QUOTE]
The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.
It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.
Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654116]So why argue in its defense if it's not a "good" thing?[/QUOTE]
See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654128]Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.
The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.
It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.
Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.
See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.[/QUOTE]
i want you to print out your last post and seal it in a time capsule for you to open in 10 years
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51654136]i want you to print out your last post and seal it in a time capsule for you to open in 10 years[/QUOTE]
What exactly did you think my goal was with that post that it'd warrant this kind of snide bullshit instead of an actual response ?
Because I've made it pretty clear that I wasn't trying to convince anyone murder's fine (because it isn't) and simply asked people to put a little more reflection into their reasoning than "oh well it's bad because it's barbaric and it's barbaric because it's bad".
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654084]Your question is laughable and can be answered by a 4th grader, so here's one for you.
What makes killing someone "good"?[/QUOTE]
In this case, it removes a murderer from the world and ensures that the murderer in question won't have to sit around in a cell forever. As I've said before, I don't know where I stand on this, but I actually think that's an interesting question and these rebuttals are bad, and that's interesting to me.
Ah, the good ol' residents of facepunch sitting on high horse about death row.
If you ask me, people who take countless lives without good justification (read as: within the limits of law, such as self defense) should literally rot in jail by locking up the person and depriving him of food and water so he dies of starvation and dehydration.
When you take life of others willingly in the same fashion Dylann Roof did, you forfeit your right to human conditions.
The reason why I think capital punishment is bad is the idea that we should have the power to determine whether someone should live or die based on their actions.
But at the same time that's a very, very morally grey zone especially when it comes to a mass murder. It's not an easy question to answer from that point of view.
However, capital punishment and executions do not seem to work from the point of view of preventing crimes. They, obviously, also don't rehabilitate the person who undergoes the punishment.
It's not something I feel I'm qualified to really answer, but since it is banned here for years and has never really come up, it's not something that matters for me.
[QUOTE=paul simon;51652586]Evidently not.[/QUOTE]
If you have conflicting opinions that doesn't make you dysfunctional.
Also if any of you paid attention to the criteria I gave regarding the death sentence you'd quickly notice that Dylann Roof's own sentencing does not even fall under the right conditions.
I'm just using this as a platform to try and get people to discuss further about their own motivations or the reasons for their own standpoint and so far it's been kind of an egregious failure because of the amount of defensive, snide nonsense that came my way and how little I got in the realm of proper responses that aren't fallacies or circular thinking.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654128]Actually answer the question then instead of dodging it if it's so easy.
The point of the question is to bring up the fact that our moral compass is established by the society we live in, not by some kind of universal rule.
It's the result of living in a Judeo-Christian society that has built itself around the concept for thousands of years (ten commandments, you shall not kill, etc). Societies that existed either prior or outside of this specific framework are known to have had a different, sometimes more lax stance on killing.
Killing someone isn't "good" in our society, because we've spent more than two thousand years establishing it wasn't. However, killing someone as some form of punishment for a crime is, has always been, and will likely always be a grey area, because it not being an outright "good thing" doesn't make it "bad" by default.
See, this pretty much proves my point. A Manichean way of thinking only entrenches you deeper into a childish perception of the world where the whole of humanity can be categorized in either "good" or "bad". Those notions can only really be applied in context and are almost always going to cause problems when applied as absolutes.[/QUOTE]
No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.
The moral compass of the society [i]is[/i] the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51654149]In this case, it removes a murderer from the world and ensures that the murderer in question won't have to sit around in a cell forever. As I've said before, I don't know where I stand on this, but I actually think that's an interesting question and these rebuttals are bad, and that's interesting to me.[/QUOTE]
Only the first bit of that statement's important. Being behind bars in a maximum security prison is for all intents and purposes exactly the same as the person being executed, as far as the general public is concerned. So why take is a step further and fulfil the need for revenge, when the objectives of ensuring the public's safety and punishing the criminal are both accomplished?
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654170]No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
[B]The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.[/B]
The moral compass of the society [i]is[/i] the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.[/QUOTE]
Care to actually elaborate/bring proof on that ?
What exactly is the "default state of humans" ?
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654170]No, the point of the question is to make you appear like you have a moral high ground by questioning everyone else's moral compass, instead of arguing against their specific beliefs (like being against the death penalty). In fact, to be precise, I'd call what you're doing belittling - you're trying to make everyone else's argument appear childish. You're the one who put the line at good and bad with your idiotic, loaded question.
The default state of humans is not wanting someone else's death, so why is the burden of proof on the people wanting to preserve this state? That's why I'm not answering.
The moral compass of the society [i]is[/i] the individual's moral compass, by definition. That's what a moral compass is! Killing someone in our society is not just "bad", it's deplorable and punishable to the full extent of the law. I draw the line at state sanctioned murder, you don't.[/QUOTE]
What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?
It's important to ask these questions because it forces you to think outside of your comfort zone and question your own ideals and standpoints.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51654182]What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?[/QUOTE]
I've raised that issue several times wherein there are cases where keeping someone incarcerated would be more inhumane than killing them, but it's usually been dodged or ignored to some extent.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654181]Care to actually elaborate/bring proof on that ?
What exactly is the "default state of humans" ?[/QUOTE]
Because we don't require other humans for sustenance.................
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654184]Because we don't require other humans for sustenance.................[/QUOTE]
Neither do monkeys and apes and lions and they still kill the shit out of each other for non-food related reasons.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51654182]What do you feel about the idea that being locked in prison forever could potentially be worse? I mean, your argument in your last line is to equate execution with murder, such that an individual doing it for any reason is equal to the state doing it for specific reasons. Wouldn't that also apply to kidnapping and trapping people?[/QUOTE]
Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety. Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654190][B]Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety.[/B] Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.[/QUOTE]
What if it doesn't anymore ?
What if it's inhumane for the person you incarcerate ?
The thing with the death penalty for me is: I don't care if this guy gets the death penalty or life in prison. Same difference for society.
I do care about the fact that miscarriages of justice exist and there's no way to correct for them when a person's dead. That's why I'd like to see the death penalty gone everywhere.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654170]So why take is a step further and fulfil the need for revenge, when the objectives of ensuring the public's safety and punishing the criminal are both accomplished?[/QUOTE]
No punishment should ever come from a desire for revenge, so I agree with this. I think the situation in which I would consider supporting it would be when you [I]know[/I] that the prisoner is going to have to be kept in some terrible high-security part of a terrible prison with no chance to ever have another human experience in his life, at that point I feel unsure which treatment I think is the most inhumane.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654190]Because locking someone up for life satisfies the requirement for public safety. Executing someone is taking it an unnecessary step further.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I just have a far too terrible mental image of the inside of an American prison, but my issue is that I can't decide which one is the step further, and which one is the step back.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;51654200]No punishment should ever come from a desire for revenge, so I agree with this. I think the situation in which I would consider supporting it would be when you [I]know[/I] that the prisoner is going to have to be kept in some terrible high-security part of a terrible prison with no chance to ever have another human experience in his life, at that point I feel unsure which treatment I think is the most inhumane.
Maybe I just have a far too terrible mental image of the inside of an American prison, but my issue is that I can't decide which one is the step further, and which one is the step back.[/QUOTE]
If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?
The deplorable conditions in some prisons are a different, no less important topic, but not the one at hand.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654169]Also if any of you paid attention to the criteria I gave regarding the death sentence you'd quickly notice that Dylann Roof's own sentencing does not even fall under the right conditions.
I'm just using this as a platform to try and get people to discuss further about their own motivations or the reasons for their own standpoint and so far it's been kind of an egregious failure because of the amount of defensive, snide nonsense that came my way and how little I got in the realm of proper responses that aren't fallacies or circular thinking.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654183]It's important to ask these questions because it forces you to think outside of your comfort zone and question your own ideals and standpoints.
I've raised that issue several times wherein there are cases where keeping someone incarcerated would be more inhumane than killing them, but it's usually been dodged or ignored to some extent.[/QUOTE]
Oh give me a break. You're just [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions"]JAQ-ing[/URL] off. You're doing the moral highground thing again. You've already accepted in your mind that you are unequivocally correct, so why waste time arguing?
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654187]Neither do monkeys and apes and lions and they still kill the shit out of each other for non-food related reasons.[/QUOTE]
Should we revert back to the law of the jungle then?
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51654195]What if it doesn't anymore ?
What if it's inhumane for the person you incarcerate ?[/QUOTE]
What is that hypothetical? A terrible earthquake splits a prison in half and releases all the deadly, deranged murders? We're pretty damn good at keeping people inside prisons, if you haven't noticed.
The requirement for public safety trumps that. That's literally the whole point of prison.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654211]If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely, yes. But I do think that's an important factor to this discussion. If a prisoner can't be provided with opportunities to live some kind of life on the inside, is it really humane to keep them for the rest of their lives? Perhaps ideally the death penalty should be abolished, but nobody should attempt to stop a prisoner with a life sentence from committing suicide.
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654211]If it helps, imagine a Scandinavian prison instead of an American one. Do you agree with what I'm saying then?
The deplorable conditions in some prisons are a different, no less important topic, but not the one at hand.[/QUOTE]
Funny you should mention the Scandinavian model when Anders Breivik is currently undergoing another legal procedure after a ruling by Oslo stating that keeping Breivik in isolation was violating his human rights.
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/10/norwegian-mass-murderer-breivik-in-court-in-appeals-case.html]He opened the case with a nazi salute by the way[/url]. Even Norwegian prisons are having difficulties keeping a mass murderer around without tip-toeing with the definition of inhumane, and only for 21 years at a time rather than a life sentence.
There is a point where you must question the practical feasibility of keeping individuals have killed [I]this many people[/I] and therefore have a lot of enemies in prison without resorting to inhumane treatment, for instance by isolating a social creature such as a human being.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654211]Oh give me a break. You're just [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions"]JAQ-ing[/URL] off. You're doing the moral highground thing again. You've already accepted in your mind that you are unequivocally correct, so why waste time arguing?[/QUOTE]
I'm always open to new perceptions of a same issue considering five to ten years ago I was fervently against the death penalty and I actually changed my mind over time and now I'm more willing to see the use of it in certain extreme situations.
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Stopper;51654211]What is that hypothetical? A terrible earthquake splits a prison in half and releases all the deadly, deranged murders? We're pretty damn good at keeping people inside prisons, if you haven't noticed.
The requirement for public safety trumps that. That's literally the whole point of prison.[/QUOTE]
Hardly hypothetical when there's people out there who have been a notable pain in the ass to keep in prison. Someone like [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Salvador]Bronson[/url] but also a mass murderer would be a fucking nightmare to keep in jail without directly endangering public safety, including the safety of the employees at the prison and of the other prisoners (who still have rights).
I may be a bit extreme, but I prefer the Bapu way.
But now he doesn't get Bubba's dick.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51651033]alright cool i will: why does someone being sick justify killing them
[editline]11th January 2017[/editline]
killing somebody is never a good course of action. not ever. i don't care if they're a nazi and killed 100 babies. there is no justification for killing a person for their crimes.[/QUOTE]
Moral absolutism is hilarious.
Life is not so sacred. Not every life is worth embracing.
Take this guy Dylann Roof as an example.
A guy not really worth all this legal battle when a cheap hammer for the nearest hardware store would do.
From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'm of the opinion that a human being is always more useful alive than dead. Would the net gain for society not be greater if death row inmates were instead put towards labor/experimentation? Obviously you can argue that's unethical, but why is it more-so unethical than execution?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
