4 ms·
Why? What's unusual about considering applying a permanent, definite solution to a problem that one wants to both eliminate and disincentivize? I suppose I'll
by archontes 4y ago
Why? What's unusual about considering applying a permanent, definite solution to a problem that one wants to both eliminate and disincentivize?
I suppose I'll venture a guess: considering ending a life as a solution to a problem places a certain measurable value on the life and compares it to the value of solving the problem. Perhaps you find other peoples' valuations strange. For my part, I think that there are a few things that are valuable including people's ability to generally live their lives, but also the ability to live in a society that isn't likely to kill you on a whim. But, imo, it's pretty easy to weigh the cost of things that are threats to those very things, e.g. a murderer.
- RedditKon 4y agoIt's partially because we should always act with a degree of caution and skepticism when the government can sentence people to die for betraying the government. With a country like modern day Germany it seems easier to determine who the "good" vs "bad" guys are. But take the current situation in Iran as a counter example - there I think we'd all agree that it's decidedly less obvious that the government should have the ability to kill people who disagree.
- nautilius 4y agoSome people like to not hand over complete sovereignty over their bodies to their state and live in freedom instead. Oh, and the disincentivizing effect of the death penalty is a long refuted myth.
- archontes 4y agoLive in freedom... the state of nature, so to say?