2 ms·

Maybe not vengeance, but there is passionate cruelty in drowning an ant if you had a vision of the world where the ant was no longer dangerous. What's wrong wit

Maybe not vengeance, but there is passionate cruelty in drowning an ant if you had a vision of the world where the ant was no longer dangerous. What's wrong with indefinite imprisonment over death? Now you can figure out if you accidentally killed people, at least; you don't need abuse to accidentally put people to death. And on the matter of death penalty, does one lead with an attitude of "Why should we help unless we owe you?" Is that the right moral motivation for death penalty? I mean, that's the attitude of big business in commerce.

sershe 5y ago
I'd argue it's a minor component. Especially with something like a tick, that will go on to bite someone else. I am morally indifferent between life imprisonment and death, but life imprisonment costs more and can fail. On the other hand, the original comment framed death penalty as "hypocrisy" of "justice being about re-education"; I am saying justice doesn't have to be primarily about re-education, no supporter of death penalty argues that; there's no hypocrisy. I think the removal is the most important component. Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks. Again there is this framing about what is deserved and what is owed. This is in contrast to the framing of what is best for society — if your prevailing theory is that some people are safe and some people are dangerous (as opposed to some people are criminals and some people are owed), then those individuals who still have a good future story ought be candidates for rehabilitation. From this perspective, it is not a matter of what is a "perk" and what is owed, but rather what the state has to gain.
  - sershe 5y ago
    Well, is re-education better for society than removal? It's expensive and unreliable, whereas if you only consider the society of people whom we owe the respect of their negative rights (based on reciprocity), incarceration is cheaper and more reliable, and death penalty is cheaper and more reliable yet.

sershe 5y ago

I'd argue it's a minor component. Especially with something like a tick, that will go on to bite someone else. I am morally indifferent between life imprisonment and death, but life imprisonment costs more and can fail. On the other hand, the original comment framed death penalty as "hypocrisy" of "justice being about re-education"; I am saying justice doesn't have to be primarily about re-education, no supporter of death penalty argues that; there's no hypocrisy. I think the removal is the most important component. Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks.

threatofrain 5y ago
> Punishment and re-education should be prioritized depending on the crime, but in any case both are just nice, optional perks. Again there is this framing about what is deserved and what is owed. This is in contrast to the framing of what is best for society — if your prevailing theory is that some people are safe and some people are dangerous (as opposed to some people are criminals and some people are owed), then those individuals who still have a good future story ought be candidates for rehabilitation. From this perspective, it is not a matter of what is a "perk" and what is owed, but rather what the state has to gain.
- sershe 5y ago
  Well, is re-education better for society than removal? It's expensive and unreliable, whereas if you only consider the society of people whom we owe the respect of their negative rights (based on reciprocity), incarceration is cheaper and more reliable, and death penalty is cheaper and more reliable yet.