5 ms·

Any society that feels it needs to publicly torture its citizens as punishment is simply barbarism.

by underseacables 6y ago

mensetmanusman 6y ago
I wonder which country hasn’t had public executions in the last 250 years...
- sheepdestroyer 6y ago
  Why 250? It seems arbitrarily far in the past. As a way to compare societies and their values, it seems to me best to exclude the distant past when everyone was basically unaware of their neighbors, and use something like "since tv in most homes", or better yet, "since internet available to most". There's far less excuses in today's globalized world to justify cultural relativism.
  - telotortium 6y ago
    > There's far less excuses in today's globalized world to justify cultural relativism. I look forward to a rigorous justification from first principles for the moral values of Western secular humanism.
    - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
      I will not entertain that "no public execution > public executions", or "no street gay flogging > street gay floggings", need to be rigorously justified from first principle.
danans 6y ago
I think that could be even further generalized to: > Any society that feels it needs to torture is simply barbarism.
betwixthewires 6y ago
Do you believe that locking people in a cage for years of their life, separating them from their families, and putting them in an environment where they must be afraid perpetually or hone criminal skills to protect themselves to be humane? Not being hyperbolic, just detailed.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  > Not being hyperbolic Perhaps not, but this is a classic display of 'whataboutism.' It is entirely possible to have an opinion about the public torture of citizens as punishment without having to weigh in on the morality of incarceration.
  - im3w1l 6y ago
    Well crimes must have consequences, so we should compare different possibilities and see which has more benefits and less drawbacks.
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    I didn't frame my question as in opposition to your statement. Basically it boils down to "what else do you feel is barbaric?"
    - hntrader 6y ago
      Some form of prison is necessary, and it serves three purposes: - rehabilitation - deterrence - protecting society from the criminally inclined Every society, including the most liberal, have found some type of prison to be necessary. It is not inherently barbaric, and it's the minimally barbaric option when dealing with a murdered for example. Public torture doesn't fulfill all three objectives, especially not the third, and is therefore a non-starter. Note that this is distinct from claiming support for a specific instance of a prison in a specific country, which may well be barbaric.
      - betwixthewires 6y ago

Any society that feels it needs to publicly torture its citizens as punishment is simply barbarism.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

I wonder which country hasn’t had public executions in the last 250 years...

sheepdestroyer 6y ago
Why 250? It seems arbitrarily far in the past. As a way to compare societies and their values, it seems to me best to exclude the distant past when everyone was basically unaware of their neighbors, and use something like "since tv in most homes", or better yet, "since internet available to most". There's far less excuses in today's globalized world to justify cultural relativism.
- telotortium 6y ago
  > There's far less excuses in today's globalized world to justify cultural relativism. I look forward to a rigorous justification from first principles for the moral values of Western secular humanism.
  - sheepdestroyer 6y ago
    I will not entertain that "no public execution > public executions", or "no street gay flogging > street gay floggings", need to be rigorously justified from first principle.

danans 6y ago

I think that could be even further generalized to: > Any society that feels it needs to torture is simply barbarism.

betwixthewires 6y ago

Do you believe that locking people in a cage for years of their life, separating them from their families, and putting them in an environment where they must be afraid perpetually or hone criminal skills to protect themselves to be humane? Not being hyperbolic, just detailed.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> Not being hyperbolic Perhaps not, but this is a classic display of 'whataboutism.' It is entirely possible to have an opinion about the public torture of citizens as punishment without having to weigh in on the morality of incarceration.
- im3w1l 6y ago
  Well crimes must have consequences, so we should compare different possibilities and see which has more benefits and less drawbacks.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  I didn't frame my question as in opposition to your statement. Basically it boils down to "what else do you feel is barbaric?"
  - hntrader 6y ago
    Some form of prison is necessary, and it serves three purposes: - rehabilitation - deterrence - protecting society from the criminally inclined Every society, including the most liberal, have found some type of prison to be necessary. It is not inherently barbaric, and it's the minimally barbaric option when dealing with a murdered for example. Public torture doesn't fulfill all three objectives, especially not the third, and is therefore a non-starter. Note that this is distinct from claiming support for a specific instance of a prison in a specific country, which may well be barbaric.
    - betwixthewires 6y ago