5 ms·

Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.

by danhak 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
lr4444lr 10y ago
But that's also one of the essential points of Kant's argument in favor of the death penalty: depriving another person of life is a uniquely irrestorable offense.
- marricks 10y ago
  Arguing with the ghost of Kant seems like something one should avoid, but here I go... isn't that also an argument for why a state should not impose capital punishment? Mistakenly taking someone's life is something a state could never remedy.
  - lr4444lr 10y ago
    Kant did not appear to grapple with the fallibility of the judicial system in the way that we do now, and I neither intend to defend his views or put words into his mouth on that point (though I welcome someone more knowledgeable in his work than I to do otherwise and cite). My point is that there aren't easy answers to these questions, which is why I upvoted the OP comment, because it implies a mature understanding that fallibility is also a value judgment. (Edited for grammar. I hate typing on a smartphone.)
- caf 10y ago
  If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong. For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
  - lr4444lr 10y ago
    I believe he was a pretty "eye for an eye" guy: "This is the right of retaliation (jus [lex] talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court (as opposed to individuals’ private judgement), can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty." (http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant.html http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant....) But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.
    - caf 10y ago
      This is a different question though - one of penalties rather than one of restoration.

Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.

by danhak 10y ago

Other errors can be remedied. Death penalty not so much.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

lr4444lr 10y ago

But that's also one of the essential points of Kant's argument in favor of the death penalty: depriving another person of life is a uniquely irrestorable offense.

marricks 10y ago
Arguing with the ghost of Kant seems like something one should avoid, but here I go... isn't that also an argument for why a state should not impose capital punishment? Mistakenly taking someone's life is something a state could never remedy.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Kant did not appear to grapple with the fallibility of the judicial system in the way that we do now, and I neither intend to defend his views or put words into his mouth on that point (though I welcome someone more knowledgeable in his work than I to do otherwise and cite). My point is that there aren't easy answers to these questions, which is why I upvoted the OP comment, because it implies a mature understanding that fallibility is also a value judgment. (Edited for grammar. I hate typing on a smartphone.)
caf 10y ago
If Kant said that then he was trivially wrong. For example, if you blind someone, how is that not just as irrestorable?
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  I believe he was a pretty "eye for an eye" guy: "This is the right of retaliation (jus [lex] talionis); and, properly understood, it is the only principle which in regulating a public court (as opposed to individuals’ private judgement), can definitely assign both the quality and the quantity of a just penalty." (http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant.html http://acad.depauw.edu/~jeremyanderson/old/120s05/120z_kant....) But you have to realize, this is not to be read in isolation as a rehash of Hammurabi''s code. There is significant axiomatic and theoretical foundation that brings Kant to this conclusion, which has significant influence in modern ethics.
  - caf 10y ago
    This is a different question though - one of penalties rather than one of restoration.