5 ms·

I didn't downvote, will probably be downvoted, but as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal, I don't understand the great value placed on human life. We slau

by __s 9y ago

I didn't downvote, will probably be downvoted, but as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal, I don't understand the great value placed on human life. We slaughter animals, we put down dogs which bite, I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. All while being generally left wing. I think suffering should be an active goal, but I don't believe execution is suffering. There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism This logic likely exists in a watered down form amongst the HN crowd more than Human Rights groups

orf 9y ago
> put down humans who have malfunctioned What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  That's a flaw in the system. My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer. Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death. It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
  - anarazel 9y ago
    Sure, wrongfully convicted to long-term sentences is bad. But it's at least partially reversible. It's also cheaper to convict somebody of life without parole, than the death sentence. I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect. > Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence. > It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. Reductio ad absurdum.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    > That's a flaw in the system. Not only that, is is a flaw that cannot be fixed. Period. There is no 100% reliable way to handle this without mistakes. And mistakes are not only irreversible, they cannot be made up for in any way. As such this particular system cannot be allowed to be used.
catshirt 9y ago
I understand and appreciate the consistency with which you value life. my proposed solution is to stop killing things. not "kill all things equally". killing a dog because it bit a person is just another demonstration of how we overvalue human life. you should get mad about that- too.
- jnardiello 9y ago
  And surprisingly I completely agree on this.
jnardiello 9y ago
I don't even know honestly where to start. 1. "as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal". Describing yourself as suicidal is not a great introduction, go and see a doctor. Self-termination is not a "normal" feeling. 2. "I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned" - See point 1. Also, non third-world countries should have a justice system which would aim to recover individuals instead of "putting them down" or "making them pay/suffer". You might be stuck during middle-age if you think otherwise. 3. "There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism" - again I don't even know where to start. Like if life was not difficult. Such a superficial view on life.
- catshirt 9y ago
  "I don't honestly know where to even start" maybe next time try starting with some empathy.
  - jnardiello 9y ago
    Empathy in what sense? Not taking someone who is "suicidal" in such a direct way?
    - catshirt 9y ago
      your post is peppered with insensitivity and condescension. the kind of behavior that typically drives people to become antisocial in the first place. I am not trying to be overly critical. I don't sense you are a bad person. maybe just uninitiated :). the line between "direct" and "insensitive" becomes so much more clear only once you've experienced a similar depression.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's weird because life is both overvalued and undervalued. The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard truth) get fixated more on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed. I do mean that literally. Monsters like John Wayne Gacy don't need to live any more. They have nothing to offer society but a sneering "kiss my ass" as they are put to death.
- mrec 9y ago
  I think your position is perfectly coherent, but I don't think the opposing view is necessarily that weird, for two reasons. The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option. The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    You're right. Didn't mean that suggest that the other side is weird, just that society's back and forth is weird, your second point gets to that. Yet another controversial topic that gets at that friction is people's view on abortion and war. Some people will fervently protect an unborn child but see nothing wrong with carpet bombing fifty others. On the other hand some people are fervently anti-war but see nothing odd about someone having six abortions (slow down maybe?). So much of it does seem like political signaling. You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported. > it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.
vacri 9y ago
How do you miss the monthly-odd posts of Yet Another Prisoner Jailed For 20 Years Found Innocent here on HN? Again and again and again it's shown that the justice system can get it wrong. The death penalty doesn't reduce the crime rate, it's not cheaper, it consumes more legal resources, and it's philosophically unsound. The only thing the death penalty does do is slake a thirst for vindictiveness. If you're atheist, well, there's no 'heaven' to make it up to an actually-innocent convict (and their still-living loved ones). There is nothing you can do to 'make it better', not even in a token manner. If you're a nihilist, well, it's the more expensive, labour-intensive path, requiring more effort. If nothing really matters, then why go to the extra effort? And if you're proposing we treat humans the same way we treat dogs, then you should be aware that the number of dogs we kill for 'malfunctioning' (biting) is a rounding error of all the dogs we intentionally kill. If we were to treat humans like dogs, then for each of us there'd be someone deciding whether or not a person was convenient to have around (not necessarily someone that we even knew existed). Then we'd either be given a lethal injection if the decider was nice, or be killed in a variety of increasingly unpleasant ways if the decider wasn't. We kill an awful lot of canines (and all common pets) just because we can't be bothered to keep them around, from abandoned pets to puppy farms to feral culls to just getting rid of a pet's unwanted litter. Given all that, it seems odd to make much of a fuss over a 'broken' animal. Final thought: > but I don't believe execution is suffering The act itself is largely not, but the lead-up to it is.
giucal 9y ago
Your own attitude towards life or criminals is not something worth considering when seriously pondering this question. Society is a collection of individuals; everyone has different opinions and feelings on almost anything: at least when we discuss such sensible matters, we should rationalize our arguments, stripping any trace of subjectivity. > I don't understand the great value placed on human life. Coming to the case, you may not value your life very much, but we can't say the same for the criminal who is facing a death sentence. Personally, I don't feel empathy for some criminals who consciously perpetrated atrocious crimes; I literally fail to care for them. Nevertheless, I can objectively understand that in a civilized country any human must be granted some undeniable rights. > I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. Humans do not malfunction. Humans err, whether deliberately or not. They must have the right to redeem themselves. And even if they refused to, putting them to death would still be a miserable solution: it wouldn't mitigate the crime, nor would provide justice -- and I mean justice, not revenge. Indeed, it would be itself a crime. Edit: typos and form

by __s 9y ago

orf 9y ago

> put down humans who have malfunctioned What about the ones that have not, but are put down due to a malfunctioning justice system instead?

aaron-lebo 9y ago
That's a flaw in the system. My uncle was (by his word, and I've seen the police reports which are a contradictory mess) falsely convicted. He got life in prison and could face parole after 20+ years. He didn't get a chance at that because he suffered and died in prison of cancer. Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. You get falsely convicted and 20 years, you aren't going to get near the appeals and your life is just as ruined. Those 20 years inside your lonely cell might even be worse than just being put to death. It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. To just say no death penalty, lock em up for 30 years instead doesn't begin to solve the issue and perhaps even fails to recognize how horrific that sentence is.
- anarazel 9y ago
  Sure, wrongfully convicted to long-term sentences is bad. But it's at least partially reversible. It's also cheaper to convict somebody of life without parole, than the death sentence. I personally think the extreme incarceration rate, the conditions in prison, the lack of measures aiming at reducing recidivism, the disproportional sentencing are bigger issues in the US than the death penalty. Not because the death penalty is OK in any way, purely because of the size of the effect. > Falsely being convicted and put to death is horrific, but we also have a very rigorous appeals process, which is why some of these guys don't die for a decade or more. There's plenty well documented cases where these appeals were done on an absolutely half-hearted basis, with very dodgy evidence. > It's never struck me as a realistic argument against the death penalty because of wrongful convictions. You could exaggerate your stance and suggest that no jails should exist and in fact no justice should ever be served because there are innocents. Reductio ad absurdum.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  > That's a flaw in the system. Not only that, is is a flaw that cannot be fixed. Period. There is no 100% reliable way to handle this without mistakes. And mistakes are not only irreversible, they cannot be made up for in any way. As such this particular system cannot be allowed to be used.

catshirt 9y ago

I understand and appreciate the consistency with which you value life. my proposed solution is to stop killing things. not "kill all things equally". killing a dog because it bit a person is just another demonstration of how we overvalue human life. you should get mad about that- too.

jnardiello 9y ago
And surprisingly I completely agree on this.

jnardiello 9y ago

I don't even know honestly where to start. 1. "as someone who is atheist/nihilist/suicidal". Describing yourself as suicidal is not a great introduction, go and see a doctor. Self-termination is not a "normal" feeling. 2. "I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned" - See point 1. Also, non third-world countries should have a justice system which would aim to recover individuals instead of "putting them down" or "making them pay/suffer". You might be stuck during middle-age if you think otherwise. 3. "There's enough effort to focus on progressing those who do buy into constructivism; those who don't wish to participate should exile themselves from society rather than lash out in deconstructivism" - again I don't even know where to start. Like if life was not difficult. Such a superficial view on life.

catshirt 9y ago
"I don't honestly know where to even start" maybe next time try starting with some empathy.
- jnardiello 9y ago
  Empathy in what sense? Not taking someone who is "suicidal" in such a direct way?
  - catshirt 9y ago
    your post is peppered with insensitivity and condescension. the kind of behavior that typically drives people to become antisocial in the first place. I am not trying to be overly critical. I don't sense you are a bad person. maybe just uninitiated :). the line between "direct" and "insensitive" becomes so much more clear only once you've experienced a similar depression.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

It's weird because life is both overvalued and undervalued. The same people who believe that the death penalty is barbaric (hey, we all die, that's the hard truth) get fixated more on the tragedy of the criminal on death row than the dozens of people they killed. I do mean that literally. Monsters like John Wayne Gacy don't need to live any more. They have nothing to offer society but a sneering "kiss my ass" as they are put to death.

mrec 9y ago
I think your position is perfectly coherent, but I don't think the opposing view is necessarily that weird, for two reasons. The first is that this isn't zero-sum; there's no evidence I'm aware of that the death penalty reduces homicide. Killing a murderer isn't going to bring the victims back, anyone even mildly sceptical about the criminal justice system should be against irreversible punishments, and (speaking personally and emotionally for a moment) I think it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option. The second is the idea that a lot of the passion surrounding the death penalty is about signalling membership of a political tribe rather than about any of the individuals involved. This is the "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" theory [1]: tribe A attacks/defends murderer M not because they hate/like M but to emphasis their difference from tribe B. [1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything...
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  You're right. Didn't mean that suggest that the other side is weird, just that society's back and forth is weird, your second point gets to that. Yet another controversial topic that gets at that friction is people's view on abortion and war. Some people will fervently protect an unborn child but see nothing wrong with carpet bombing fifty others. On the other hand some people are fervently anti-war but see nothing odd about someone having six abortions (slow down maybe?). So much of it does seem like political signaling. You are right the deterrent argument is dumb and unsupported. > it does something bad to a society when "giving up on one of your citizens completely" becomes an option Human societies have been like this forever, though. Sometimes the protection of the society is more valuable than an individual's life. That stance can be taken too far, but I struggle to see what the point of keeping individuals like Dahmer, Gacy, Bundy around. We can give up on them. We give up quicker on lots of people in society, why not someone who is a mass murderer? They've got nothing to offer and they've given up their rights in taking the rights of and normalcy of hundreds of others.

vacri 9y ago

How do you miss the monthly-odd posts of Yet Another Prisoner Jailed For 20 Years Found Innocent here on HN? Again and again and again it's shown that the justice system can get it wrong. The death penalty doesn't reduce the crime rate, it's not cheaper, it consumes more legal resources, and it's philosophically unsound. The only thing the death penalty does do is slake a thirst for vindictiveness. If you're atheist, well, there's no 'heaven' to make it up to an actually-innocent convict (and their still-living loved ones). There is nothing you can do to 'make it better', not even in a token manner. If you're a nihilist, well, it's the more expensive, labour-intensive path, requiring more effort. If nothing really matters, then why go to the extra effort? And if you're proposing we treat humans the same way we treat dogs, then you should be aware that the number of dogs we kill for 'malfunctioning' (biting) is a rounding error of all the dogs we intentionally kill. If we were to treat humans like dogs, then for each of us there'd be someone deciding whether or not a person was convenient to have around (not necessarily someone that we even knew existed). Then we'd either be given a lethal injection if the decider was nice, or be killed in a variety of increasingly unpleasant ways if the decider wasn't. We kill an awful lot of canines (and all common pets) just because we can't be bothered to keep them around, from abandoned pets to puppy farms to feral culls to just getting rid of a pet's unwanted litter. Given all that, it seems odd to make much of a fuss over a 'broken' animal. Final thought: > but I don't believe execution is suffering The act itself is largely not, but the lead-up to it is.

giucal 9y ago

Your own attitude towards life or criminals is not something worth considering when seriously pondering this question. Society is a collection of individuals; everyone has different opinions and feelings on almost anything: at least when we discuss such sensible matters, we should rationalize our arguments, stripping any trace of subjectivity. > I don't understand the great value placed on human life. Coming to the case, you may not value your life very much, but we can't say the same for the criminal who is facing a death sentence. Personally, I don't feel empathy for some criminals who consciously perpetrated atrocious crimes; I literally fail to care for them. Nevertheless, I can objectively understand that in a civilized country any human must be granted some undeniable rights. > I see no reason not to put down humans who have malfunctioned. Humans do not malfunction. Humans err, whether deliberately or not. They must have the right to redeem themselves. And even if they refused to, putting them to death would still be a miserable solution: it wouldn't mitigate the crime, nor would provide justice -- and I mean justice, not revenge. Indeed, it would be itself a crime. Edit: typos and form