 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Immortal Wombat
|
 |
in perpetuity
Dec 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
Without knowing the mental state of the girl at the time of the killing, without knowing how long (or not) she spent deliberating or deciding, how, when and why to kill her mother, it's absolutely impossible to come up with an analagous situation on a larger scale to paint her evil. We don't know if it was a calculated act - she clearly had issues - she may have gone straight to the gun cupboard, sat rocking backwards and forwards nursing the hate for a couple of hours, then gone in and shot. That's not evil, that's just wrong.
There is no way that during the construction of a Death Star you wouldn't have serious moral doubts about using it, unless you are evil.
Or if you must, how about this: You're really pissed with planet Earth because they everyone on the planet individuall has turned down your request to stay up late and go out with boys. You're flying to your bedroom in an X-wing, and you suddenly find yourself passing by the external on/off switch on the Death Star. You're still really pissed and not really thinking things through, so you flick the switch and blow up the planet. Oops. You're evil.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
I notice that you originally started by claiming there was no deterrent effect, changing to there is a deterrent effect but I don't think it is large enough, going to the death penalty is nothing but revenge killing. Keep changing your argument and maybe you'll come up with a winner.
|
Nein, I don't think there is a deterrent effect except in cases of hot-blooded murder as I have originally said and maintained. With psychotic, severely psychopathic and sociopathic cases, the effect of such "deterrents", particularly nonchalent sociological fear is going to be negligible/nothing.
quote:
The death penalty isn't about revenge killing it is about making the punishment fit the crime and by having that punishment serve society through detering future crime. In short it is about justice and the good of society.
|
Having the punishment fit the crime? So an eye for an eye basically? You have two choices, punishment in the sense of doing the person an equal evil that they have done others (and I use the flawed concept of "evil" in that deliberately), or deal with them on a subjective basis. Punishment is fine if it will stop the punished from committing the crime, or keep them separate from society if they cannot be cured, but punishment for the sheer hell of it, making them suffer as it were to no end, that's just revenge and thus not justice.
You'll note of course that parents will sometimes make their children suffer but to the end of stopping their behaviour, those that do it for revenge or enjoyment are hardly fit parents now are they? Or are things different in Texas?
quote:
I don't see it as wrong; instead I see it as a justifiable penalty for the worst criminals of our society. The fact that numeropus studies also show this deters other crime is just a bonus.
|
I'm sorry but you fail to show how it is justifiable. I very much doubt you will be able to do so without resorting to "an eye for an eye" or a twisted version of "supply and demand" that only works in cases of hot blood (self-defense).
quote:
The anti-DP guy claims that no matter what personal responsability for executing the wrong people should be avoided while the pro-DP guy claims that the most innocent lives should be saved. It's a pure value argument and as such there can be no winner.
|
No that assumes that the latter utilitarian argument (because as MikeH said, it effectively boils down to the speculative possibility that lives are saved as a result of people being proactively killed, and contextually in your case, many of them innocent. That consequential logic fails to account for the individual in question and since I assume you are talking about justice and not revenge then that is what you must do. Consequentialism is fine for dealing with your own life but in situations like this, it tends to break down, otherwise the debate would have been settled long ago.
quote:
What ever deterrent effect execution has surely life in prison (especially when life in prison often means 20 years in prison) has a much, much smaller deterrent effect. In many cases life in prison is a more just punishment then execution though. I'd only put up execution for the worst of the worst especially if they were repeat offenders as doing so would virtually eliminate the possibility of an innocent man being wrongfully accussed.
|
Seems to me like an ad hoc attempt to satiate the weakest of the anti-DP arguments. It fails to answer the very pertinent question of justice here I must point out.
quote:
I thought psychologists believed that when people murder, they are not thinking about the possible punishment anyway.
|
Bang on! 
quote:
Oh my gosh we're so cruel to people who take a gun and kill their parents because they're not allowed to visit boys at night... right.
|
Has that ever actually been said here?
quote:
Not at all. Vengeance and justice are DIRECTLY related. Justice and utilitarianism are not the same thing; justice is not even really doing what's "right". Justice is applying consequences proportional to the crime.
|
No, justice is, by more advanced definitions, reconciling existential responsibility with actions, whereby one is responsible for ones actions with consideration of their subjective state, very much in the Platonic sense. It's a very interesting field in my view, very easily misunderstood by simplistic, childish arguments such that you have espoused, including the strawman of my argument whereby you have assumed that I think justice is a consequential idea. It is not. Of course, unless you assume solipcism you're not going to be able to make the claim that, therefore, justice is irrelevant. You're argument would effectively boil down to "might makes right", in other words, justice according to the victims and their ability to carry it out. An eye for an eye (or worse) basically.
quote:
It's pretty simple, actually. If I built a Death Star and blew up the planet, I think it'd be pretty accurate to label me evil.
|
By those you have wronged, yes. Objectively, no. Which do you think is sufficient, in the just sense, to kill?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-10-2004 20:55
) taken forward a couple thousand year would probably say that the philosopher is one who can see through his own emotional states. What I am trying to say is that vengeance is not an intrinsically logical position. It is possible to half-assedly justify it, but vengeance relies upon an opaque emotive assumption that is easily critiqued here. Fundamentally, vengeance boils down to self-interest in this case.
.
|