3 ms·
Right, and there's no qualitative difference between killing someone and locking them up. You've convinced me that I'm wrong.
by bklaasen 11y ago
Right, and there's no qualitative difference between killing someone and locking them up. You've convinced me that I'm wrong.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoYour argument against capital punishment was that the role of an actor was irrelevant to the morality of the action. It's entirely correct to apply that logic to other types of action. There may be plenty of valid arguments against capital punishment. Yours was not one of them.
- bklaasen 11y ago> the role of an actor [is] irrelevant to the morality of the action [carried out by the state] That's precisely what I'm saying. You disagree, but that does not render my argument invalid.
- koenigdavidmj 11y agoThen we're back to the beginning. Here is a syllogism that you just said you agree with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Killing is immoral for a regular joe on the street. 3. Therefore, killing is immoral for the government. However, you don't seem as comfortable with: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Demanding someone's money by force (e.g mugging) is immoral. 3. Therefore, it is immoral for the government to issue a fine. Or this one: 1. An action is immoral without regard to the actor. 2. Kidnapping someone and holding them for years is immoral for a regular joe. 3. Therefore, imprisonment is immoral for the government. You could also remain consistent by saying that armed robbery and kidnapping are moral. It's up to you. EDIT: Typo and punctuation.
- LordKano 11y agoPrecisely! It's snarky and sounds witty on its surface but completely falls apart upon examination. The other argument that I find troubling is the one where they claim that execution is too cruel but life imprisonment is acceptable because the guilty party suffers more.