9 ms·

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arg

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, but this sort of remark is why the left and intellectuals more widely fail at winning politically. Rather than use arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals, you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms, thereby failing to actually influence policy (in this case a matter of life and death). If the death penalty debate were framed more around "innocent people get killed" and less around more nebulous value-judgement based arguments (which, though valid, divide pretty neatly along partisan and class lines), perhaps the death penalty in the US would have gone long ago.

wideareanetwork 5y ago
I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.
- tompccs 5y ago
  > Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point... Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes. But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
- reedf1 5y ago
  An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  That means you are more interested in stating what you believe than winning an argument that will save innocent lives?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
- escape_goat 5y ago
  That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.
tchalla 5y ago
Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  I'm curious, what do you think those would be?
- mattmanser 5y ago
  Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower. Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
- olivierduval 5y ago
  Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"... ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws" And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life". Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ? I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
  - 5y ago
rswail 5y ago
This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes. Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.
- Hard_Space 5y ago
  I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases. EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
  - rmcpherson 5y ago
    “We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
    - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
      Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.
mettamage 5y ago
Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions. GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong. I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
- ehnto 5y ago
  The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view. You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
  - true_religion 5y ago
    It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right? If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.
pydry 5y ago
I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go. Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-persuade-people-with-facts/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...
antman 5y ago
Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery. Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes. Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.
watwut 5y ago
The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well. Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ufo 5y ago
Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada. Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
  - thraxil 5y ago
    Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
- jkingsbery 5y ago
  Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-statements/opinion-polls-death-penalty-support-and-religion https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable. The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion. Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.
lostlogin 5y ago
Why do you think that the left and intellectuals ‘more widely fail at winning politically’? I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.
- heyparkerj 5y ago
  I think it would be fair to interpret that as "failing to change as many minds as they could"
posterboy 5y ago
> arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands. The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.
Blumfid 5y ago
I don't want to kill someone. I don't know if or why a person became a murderer. It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed. It could be a medical issue. A biological one. It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview. We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.
- samatman 5y ago
  That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal. If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad. I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can. This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
  - Blumfid 5y ago
    I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer. I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists. So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future. Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone? Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions) Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer? There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.

wideareanetwork 5y ago

I’m not trying to win an argument, just stating what I believe.

tompccs 5y ago
> Even discussing other factors arguments and considerations dilutes the core point... Fair enough, I understand that those are your beliefs (they are mine too) but you'd be surprised how poorly they hold up in the real world against the testimonies of victims of some truly horrific crimes. But from the sound of it you would prefer to weaken the case for abolishing the death penalty for the sake of making a more general point around the sanctity of life that, in the long run, will achieve...what exactly?
reedf1 5y ago
An argument is what it will boil down to because there will be a group of people who don't believe that it is "inhuman and barbaric". For the record - I agree with you, but I also recognize there are people who do not agree with us.
tomjen3 5y ago
That means you are more interested in stating what you believe than winning an argument that will save innocent lives?
pessimizer 5y ago
That's not really what "justification" is. I go through life assuming that only my mother and other loved ones care what I believe as such. Other people care about the arguments that I can make, with a bonus if I can make them using premises that they already accept.
escape_goat 5y ago
That's fair enough, but he's pointing out the consequences of your beliefs. The crux of the objection is that you position yourself in opposition to the discussion of any other justification for abolishing the death penalty; it is not that the death penalty must be abolished, but that it must be abolished for a specific correct reason. This presents a relationship between the death penalty and your beliefs where it seems to your audience that you wish to abolish the death penalty not due to any urgency regarding its consequences, but because of your insistence on imposing your will on others.

tchalla 5y ago

Let's assume the "innocent people get killed" argument abolishes death penalty today. What are the second-order effects of that argument which can be detrimental to the society that you can think of?

fighterpilot 5y ago
I'm curious, what do you think those would be?
mattmanser 5y ago
Well, none, we have plenty of evidence that there's none. Almost all the countries that have implemented it have lower homicide rates than the US. Usually significantly lower. Obviously there's probably also various other reasons for that too, like they usually also have heavily restricted gun ownership, but there's certainly no evidence that abolishing the death penalty has adverse effects.
olivierduval 5y ago
Actually, the counter-argument is "innocent people get killed by already convincted murderer that went out of jail"... ECONOMICS: Another counter-argument is "the society pay for the whole life of the jailed murderer, so it's a cost paid by the society for something that broke society laws" And then another argument is "a murderer may prefer to be killed than to be kept in jail for the rest of his life". Actually, there's a whole philosophical debate around all this: what is the role of the sanction ? Is it revenge from breaking society laws ? Is it revenge from the victim ? Can someone that broke society laws (even in murder case) be changed by the jail time and come back to the society as a good citizen or are some crimes the mark that this people are forever lost to the society ? I'm against the death penalty. I'm french so we don't have it since 1980. And we don't really have "forever jail": it's 20 years I think and can even be shortened if prisoner show in jail that he's ready to come back to society (except if it would be a trouble for the society). As a consequence, there's from time to time a convicted criminal, out of jail after a reduced time, that kill/rape someone again. And each time, there's a public discussion about this...
- 5y ago

rswail 5y ago

This "debate" has been over in all other nations that the US likes to be compared for years. It is similar to the "tough on crime" incarceration "debate" in the US, where perverse incentives and political expediency has led to the US being the highest-per-capita incarcerator in the world. Framing the death penalty debate around "innocent people get killed" will not change the partisan/class perceptions. The US criminal justice system requires root-and-branch reform, starting with issues around policing, cash bail, school-to-prison pipelines, and unfair drug and "victimless" crimes. Australia has been going through a similar debate and is at a similar point, without the death penalty, but dealing with the systemic racism and other class related issues.

Hard_Space 5y ago
I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'. I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.' For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases. EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).
- rmcpherson 5y ago
  “We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.

mettamage 5y ago

Sure, from a persuasion point of view I agree. But from a "trying to understand another human" point of view, I'd recommend you to read the Wikipedia page on ethics [1]. My own education on the topic: a course in college (as a business student) and watching some of the Harvard lectures on ethics [0]. IMO ethics courses teaches people to gain a more fine-grained vocabulary on explaining their own positions and understanding other's positions. GP clearly uses a deontological line of thinking on this matter. Something that GP considers to be "inhuman and barbaric" invokes a line of thinking in where he/she believes one ought to not do a certain action, because it simply is wrong. I'm not the best at explaining deontological ethics, nor are the people who think like this. My point is: a lot of thought has gone into the types of statements that GP makes, and IMO it's worth thinking about. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

ehnto 5y ago
The trap you are both falling into is the thought that political discussions centre around trying to understand the other persons point of view. It is almost always the other way around, one person trying to persuade an unwilling party that they are wrong. So as the poster said, as right as you are, you would still lose the political argument if that was how you tried to argue for your view. You can be correct all day long and change nothing, or you can be persuasive and meet them in their thought bubble to coerce them toward aligning with your views. You can't just pop their world view with statements of fact, because they may very well think your fact is wrong. In this case not everyone believes the death penalty is immoral, so if your only argument is "the death penalty is immoral" you will change nothing.
- true_religion 5y ago
  It’s all good and well to try and persuade someone, but like the GP sometimes I like to simply state my ideological viewpoint. The problem with narrowly arguing based on someone else’s ideals, is that any agreement isn’t a true meeting of the minds. For example people, once tried to end the deal then penalty by talking about to pain involved in hanging. Proponents agreed and eventually came up with the electric chair, then lethal injection. No pain, no problem right? If we talk about innocents killed, proponents will add stricter guidelines, and allow for more appeals, or even say that the crime must have been videotaped in front of a crowd of witnesses. We might end up with a death penalty that applies to the likes of Derek Chauvin alone, but it’ll still be a death penalty.

pydry 5y ago

I don't think anybody really supports/opposes the death penalty because of a rational analysis of facts and statistics. It's usually an emotive decision - the notion that "revenge must be taken" or that "life is sacrosanct". These are pretty core parts of people's identity and it is hard for them to let go. Either way, stories (e.g. miscarriages of justice by an uncaring state) are likely a more effective way to convince in this controversy, not statistics: https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-persuade-people-with-facts/ https://digest.bps.org.uk/2016/02/23/why-is-it-so-hard-to-pe...

antman 5y ago

Society, businesses and families fail when there is no ground truth, right or wrong, historical knowledge and are based on the most recent FUD or feelgoodery. Arguments and negotiations need to have common grounds on how thing are interpreted. Else the most immoral person flourishes. Me following this US debate from the other side of the world I mostly see it framed as “the innocent people getting killed” and not the “immoral to kill” debate as per this article. I don’s see it getting anywhere.

watwut 5y ago

The left is getting more votes and it seems like leftist ideas do well in polls. So when it comes to ability to convince people about issues, they actually do well. Also, I don't really see equivalent expectation routinely placed on right - they are not expected to proactively make compromises on their own heads before they even state position.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ufo 5y ago

Framing this as a left vs right issue is an USA-centric way to frame the question. Consider how the US is basically the only country in the american continent that still goes ahead with capital punishment. Most other countries in the continent, from all kinds of political orientations, have either banned capital punishment outright or haven't executed anyone in more than a decade.

Y_Y 5y ago
Referring to "the American continent" is a very South American thing to do. I think in the US they consider themselves to be sharing a continent with just Mexico and Canada. Furthermore I think you don't go far enough. Around the world, abolishing the death penalty seems to be a mark of high development, apart from Japan (and arguably China and India) there aren't any highly developed nations that are still killing people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- qwytw 5y ago
  Stretching the definition of "high development" here a bit (but since you're considering China and India) Belarus still has the death penalty (they were executing at least 1 almost every year until 2020).
- thraxil 5y ago
  Not getting into anything else, but I will remark that I got in trouble in 5th grade (in a US school) and a letter sent home to my parents about my bad attitude and showing of disrespect towards my teacher after she asserted that Mexico was in "South America" and that "North America" consisted exclusively of the USA and Canada. I argued with her and neither of us would back down. It was the first time I'd ever been in any kind of trouble. My parents were proud and took me out for ice cream. US public schools have some decent teachers but also some really ignorant ones.
jkingsbery 5y ago
Even in the US, "left vs right" on the death penalty is an oversimplification. A pretty good summary can be found here: https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-statements/opinion-polls-death-penalty-support-and-religion https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/religious-st... ... Anecdotally, as a religious person, I'd say that most Catholics I know either oppose the death penalty or would want it to be much more limited than it is now.

UncleOxidant 5y ago

> you would rather retain the moral high-ground by refusing even to debate on their terms Everyone has a moral high-ground that isn't debatable. The right does this as well for it's issues such as abortion. Left or Right, everyone thinks there is some moral high ground that's not debatable. Everyone has some line that they don't think should be crossed.

lostlogin 5y ago

Why do you think that the left and intellectuals ‘more widely fail at winning politically’? I’m not even sure what that is intended to mean - specifically the bit about intellectuals.

heyparkerj 5y ago
I think it would be fair to interpret that as "failing to change as many minds as they could"

posterboy 5y ago

> arguments that are amenable even to people who disagree on the fundamentals Now I'm not sure what you think fundamental, but I am pretty sure that "murder" is a something the other side understands. The irony in this is iron clad. It is also hyperbole, because this is an internet comment, not a political debate.

Blumfid 5y ago

I don't want to kill someone. I don't know if or why a person became a murderer. It could be their upbringing which should be the responsibility of the society and clearly the society failed. It could be a medical issue. A biological one. It could be that the murderer did nothing wrong in their worldview. We have to understand this as a society. We have to teach it if people don't understand it.

samatman 5y ago
That's fine, just understand that your moral intuition isn't universal. If there were some device (which doesn't exist and maybe can't) which simply lights up with perfect accuracy when pointed at someone who tortured someone before murdering them, I would support instant execution of that person by firing squad. I'm not willing to accept a 4% error rate however. I'm not sure how low it would have to go, but it's lower than it plausibly can. This isn't some kind of lack of "understanding" on my part, and you're not going to "teach" me to feel the same way about this issue as you do. We have different values. So you'll have to content yourself with my being on the same side of the policy question for different reasons.
- jjk166 5y ago
  I don't know how anyone can acknowledge that moral intuitions aren't universal while simultaneously believing their moral intuition can be used to justify the death penalty.
- Blumfid 5y ago
  I thought about this topic for decades now.when I was 16 I thought you should murder a murderer. I thought a lot about moral and ethics, the balance between being right and no right exists. So I do believe your thinking can and might change in the future. Your torture example still ignores the history of the torturer. Would you like to be killed after this from a society which had it easier and better then you and did not help you? Is that really fair to anyone? Do you believe in a god? Would you assume jesus would let you in after that? (I'm not religious, I do think so that either it's a good god and it doesn't matter believing in her but your actions) Do you believe that we are in a simulation? What if you wake up in your next life as a murderer? There are so many potential thoughts which we haven't thought through that removing a murderer from society to prison is the best choice we have as long as it is a prison who tries to rehabilitate a person.