5 ms·

Some societies have determined that some people have commited such abominable deeds that they simply no longer have a right to live. Doesn't sound very barbaric

by vadfa 5y ago

Some societies have determined that some people have commited such abominable deeds that they simply no longer have a right to live. Doesn't sound very barbaric to me.

tluyben2 5y ago
It is if people are innocent and in a lot of cases you simply cannot be 100% sure. That is enough for it to be barbaric.
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  So what if you are 100% sure and the bar is absolute certainty vs. reasonable certainty
  - ginko 5y ago
    It'd argue the state should still not stoop down to the level of they people they're killing.
    - jackorange 5y ago
      If someone is intent on committing crime. Say a serial killer who has killed many people, then while incarcerated continues attempting to attack and kill guards and other inmates, you would say this person should not be killed? I feel that your view is not realistic. The goal of executing criminals is not to punish them like "haha, we got you", it's to physically prevent them from continuing to cause chaos.
      - ginko 5y ago
        So put them into high security or solitary confinement. You call that unrealistic, but it's handled like that in tons of places all over the world.
        jackorange 5y ago
        In high security and solitary confinement there are guards that will have to deal with them, and the inmates are afforded rights like visitation or recreation where they can gain contraband, make shanks, extort and assault inmates and other guards. Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards. Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again. There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions. Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
        vadfa 5y ago
        That costs A LOT of money.
        avh02 5y ago
        Yet is cheaper than processing for the death penalty https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      That feels kind of silly to me. If there were no state, and a rando came in and murdered a few people, then your gaggle of humans tracked them down and captured them; killing them seems like a reasonable action. Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to. The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.
      - ginko 5y ago
        This argument is so weird to me I don't even know where to start. Are you saying that because a murderous mob would just kill someone the laws in large organized states should also be based on mob justice?
        spywaregorilla 5y ago
        I'm not saying murderous mob. I'm saying group of humans. They don't need to be a mindless ravenous horde. They don't need to kill him on the spot. I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you. It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child. The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.
SiempreViernes 5y ago
If you decide that anything some society has determined to be acceptable, you'll not find very many things to call barbaric. Certainly you'll find no cultures which engage in barbaric behaviour, which is ironic since the original meaning was basically "anyone who isn't Greek". To hold that no culture is barbaric can be seen as a very enlightened position, but it is of course also a position that does not provide any moral guidance at all with respect to established customs, such as for example Kaluli manhood rituals where the young boys must ingest the sperm of their elders by the Anus (a practice much reviled by the nearby Etoro who instead prescribe oral ingestion).
dane-pgp 5y ago
Some other societies determined that disabled people are a drain on their limited resources and "simply no longer have a right to live". That still sounds barbaric to me. The fact that a majority might decide to not grant fundamental rights to a minority doesn't make their killings any less barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life
- Ekaros 5y ago
  How many millions or billions or trillions should we spend to extend let's say clinically brain-dead person's life? Is there no limit when we should stop? Should we take the money away from some other things like welfare, or food from the starving? Just so we can keep single brain dead person a live for a few more days? Even if that would cost millions?
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    The question is not "how many trillions should we spend on keeping someone alive" but "how much money should we spend on deliberately, actively killing someone", to which the answer is "zero". (I don't mean to downplay the fact that there are difficult questions for working out how much money a government should invest to add one quality-adjusted life-year to their citizens, or how to calculate QALYs in the first place, but governments do manage to do that and these questions are not the level that political controversies generally focus on. Also, I'm completely ignoring the issue of national defence here, as people can disagree on military posture based on other considerations).
- falcolas 5y ago
  Conflating convicted murderers with disabled people is exceptionally disingenuous.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    I'm "conflating" them because they share the same essential characteristic of being human beings.

by vadfa 5y ago

Some societies have determined that some people have commited such abominable deeds that they simply no longer have a right to live. Doesn't sound very barbaric to me.

tluyben2 5y ago

It is if people are innocent and in a lot of cases you simply cannot be 100% sure. That is enough for it to be barbaric.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
So what if you are 100% sure and the bar is absolute certainty vs. reasonable certainty
- ginko 5y ago
  It'd argue the state should still not stoop down to the level of they people they're killing.
  - jackorange 5y ago
    If someone is intent on committing crime. Say a serial killer who has killed many people, then while incarcerated continues attempting to attack and kill guards and other inmates, you would say this person should not be killed? I feel that your view is not realistic. The goal of executing criminals is not to punish them like "haha, we got you", it's to physically prevent them from continuing to cause chaos.
    - ginko 5y ago
      So put them into high security or solitary confinement. You call that unrealistic, but it's handled like that in tons of places all over the world.
      - jackorange 5y ago
        In high security and solitary confinement there are guards that will have to deal with them, and the inmates are afforded rights like visitation or recreation where they can gain contraband, make shanks, extort and assault inmates and other guards. Inmates will pretend to or legitimately damage the cell or themselves to get guard attention and then assault the guards. Study these issues further and you will find it's not simply a matter of putting someone in a single cell by themselves and now that's it, they can never harm anyone again. There are elaborate criminal schemes that occur inside of correctional institutions. Eventually, society will have exhausted every recourse in attempting to accommodate this person, and I say not to be sarcastic, but to present you something to think about, would you welcome a known serial killer into your home since you are so against killing them and there's no place left to put them? How much do you expect others to suffer and sacrifice for one criminal and your own perceived social justice?
      - vadfa 5y ago
        That costs A LOT of money.
        avh02 5y ago
        Yet is cheaper than processing for the death penalty https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/ https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalt...
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    That feels kind of silly to me. If there were no state, and a rando came in and murdered a few people, then your gaggle of humans tracked them down and captured them; killing them seems like a reasonable action. Does the existence of an organized state really feel like it changes the ethics of the situation? I don't think so. Does the existence of prisons change the ethics? I don't think so either. Further I'd argue that the state going against the will of the people is unethical and an abuse of power. Lastly, murder as the ultimate sin seems like a pretty western religious oriented perspective. I don't think it holds as much weight as it used to. The only compelling reason in my opinion that capital punishment is unethical is that our criminal justice system is so shit.
    - ginko 5y ago
      This argument is so weird to me I don't even know where to start. Are you saying that because a murderous mob would just kill someone the laws in large organized states should also be based on mob justice?
      - spywaregorilla 5y ago
        I'm not saying murderous mob. I'm saying group of humans. They don't need to be a mindless ravenous horde. They don't need to kill him on the spot. I'm saying this is probably the conclusion that rational humans would come to if an outsider arrived, killed people, and left. They should be killed, because, even ignoring themes of justice, he's a huge outlier threat. The entire pretext that killing him is morally outrageous is not a given at all. On some level if you're gonna play ball at the extreme ends of crime, then you should be willing to accept that you're gonna fucking die if society manages to stop you. It doesn't strike me as morally problematic to say "if you rape and murder child then we'll kill you", and then kill someone who rapes and murders a child. The problem, again, with both our justice system and mob justice that makes these not good is that they're easily manipulated, inaccurate, and emotionally swayed. And historically super racist if you care to bring that into the discussion.

SiempreViernes 5y ago

If you decide that anything some society has determined to be acceptable, you'll not find very many things to call barbaric. Certainly you'll find no cultures which engage in barbaric behaviour, which is ironic since the original meaning was basically "anyone who isn't Greek". To hold that no culture is barbaric can be seen as a very enlightened position, but it is of course also a position that does not provide any moral guidance at all with respect to established customs, such as for example Kaluli manhood rituals where the young boys must ingest the sperm of their elders by the Anus (a practice much reviled by the nearby Etoro who instead prescribe oral ingestion).

dane-pgp 5y ago

Some other societies determined that disabled people are a drain on their limited resources and "simply no longer have a right to live". That still sounds barbaric to me. The fact that a majority might decide to not grant fundamental rights to a minority doesn't make their killings any less barbaric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unworthy_of_life

Ekaros 5y ago
How many millions or billions or trillions should we spend to extend let's say clinically brain-dead person's life? Is there no limit when we should stop? Should we take the money away from some other things like welfare, or food from the starving? Just so we can keep single brain dead person a live for a few more days? Even if that would cost millions?
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  The question is not "how many trillions should we spend on keeping someone alive" but "how much money should we spend on deliberately, actively killing someone", to which the answer is "zero". (I don't mean to downplay the fact that there are difficult questions for working out how much money a government should invest to add one quality-adjusted life-year to their citizens, or how to calculate QALYs in the first place, but governments do manage to do that and these questions are not the level that political controversies generally focus on. Also, I'm completely ignoring the issue of national defence here, as people can disagree on military posture based on other considerations).
falcolas 5y ago
Conflating convicted murderers with disabled people is exceptionally disingenuous.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I'm "conflating" them because they share the same essential characteristic of being human beings.