3 ms·

What a weird argument for the death penalty. If you worry about this aspect surely you can just ask the convict if they prefer to stay in prison or if they pref

What a weird argument for the death penalty. If you worry about this aspect surely you can just ask the convict if they prefer to stay in prison or if they prefer to die. And not in a philosophical thought experiment way, but in the most direct way possible: “You have been found a very bad egg by the rules of the area you are in. We decided to never let you out again. Since this decision you have been in this facility for x days. Do you want to die today or do you want to die in a future uncertain date?” And see what that particular person thinks instead of some armchair philosopher on some random website.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
"You have been found a very bad egg by the rules of the area you are in." If a person is being sentenced to death, this is a ridiculous statement and it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad. You don't get the death penalty for stealing purses at Walmart, protesting in the streets, or even killing somebody. You get it for unspeakable crimes that are far more broadly condemned than just the "rules of the area." You get it for bombing planes, child molestation, genocide. People that society should not pity as having a good heart in there somewhere. These are people, who, frankly, we shouldn't sympathize with. We shouldn't feel bad that they are being put to death as if that is some miscarriage of justice. We should put them to death humanely, quickly upon conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and resign that justice has been done the same way you would a rabid dog. You don't hate the dog or seek revenge upon it, but you know it must be done for the safety of everyone.
- krisoft 5y ago
  > it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad. No betrayal there. That is my worldview. Cultures through history varied a lot on which crimes were deemed worthy of capital punishment. Even now as we speak there are people who has been sentenced to death because someone saw them tear pages out of a book. Where I am from that is either not a crime or minor property damage. So clearly we as humans can’t agree on what is “objectively bad”. Even if we argue that those other cultures got it wrong and we have it right on who is objectively bad our processes are not deterministic. The same person if tried again with a different jurry might get acquited. Not always, and not and not every case, but often enough to undermine the notion that we are dealing with some kind of objective badness. > it must be done for the safety of everyone The idea that we have these dangerous criminals who cannot be contained safely in any other way than by killing them is a comic book plotpoint not reality. We have the technology and the resources to keep any humans safely contained if we choose to. We can even do this in a non-cruel way if that is what we want to do.
- sofixa 5y ago
  You're assuming that the person was rightfully convicted, under an article implying potentially redeeming evidence was overlooked in a case that ended up with a death sentence.
beerandt 5y ago
Well now you're just devising your own methods of psychological torture.

gjsman-1000 5y ago

"You have been found a very bad egg by the rules of the area you are in." If a person is being sentenced to death, this is a ridiculous statement and it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad. You don't get the death penalty for stealing purses at Walmart, protesting in the streets, or even killing somebody. You get it for unspeakable crimes that are far more broadly condemned than just the "rules of the area." You get it for bombing planes, child molestation, genocide. People that society should not pity as having a good heart in there somewhere. These are people, who, frankly, we shouldn't sympathize with. We shouldn't feel bad that they are being put to death as if that is some miscarriage of justice. We should put them to death humanely, quickly upon conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and resign that justice has been done the same way you would a rabid dog. You don't hate the dog or seek revenge upon it, but you know it must be done for the safety of everyone.

krisoft 5y ago
> it betrays your worldview. It implies that they are only being put to death because of the rules that somebody came up with, rather than for having done things that are objectively, unspeakably, bad. No betrayal there. That is my worldview. Cultures through history varied a lot on which crimes were deemed worthy of capital punishment. Even now as we speak there are people who has been sentenced to death because someone saw them tear pages out of a book. Where I am from that is either not a crime or minor property damage. So clearly we as humans can’t agree on what is “objectively bad”. Even if we argue that those other cultures got it wrong and we have it right on who is objectively bad our processes are not deterministic. The same person if tried again with a different jurry might get acquited. Not always, and not and not every case, but often enough to undermine the notion that we are dealing with some kind of objective badness. > it must be done for the safety of everyone The idea that we have these dangerous criminals who cannot be contained safely in any other way than by killing them is a comic book plotpoint not reality. We have the technology and the resources to keep any humans safely contained if we choose to. We can even do this in a non-cruel way if that is what we want to do.
sofixa 5y ago
You're assuming that the person was rightfully convicted, under an article implying potentially redeeming evidence was overlooked in a case that ended up with a death sentence.

beerandt 5y ago

Well now you're just devising your own methods of psychological torture.