The majority of killers have had one of the following happen: come from broken homes, suffer abuse and neglect, have had a relative incarcerated, and had a relative be a victim of a major crime. Many killers have had more than one or all happen to them. Low-income, high-crime neighborhoods are felon factories because people can't afford to leave, and contribute to the cycle of violence.
I don't think you can truly reform a murderer or rapist, but I believe it's possible to not create one based on positive life experiences and relationships.
I understand that well-being can be a bit of a nebulous term, but the extreme of death isn't. it is a pretty clear cut off there
whereas fairness is, in actually, impossible to achieve. There is no true way to value all effects of any action, and even so, one is subjective to their own lives. To use an extreme example (for illustrative purposes), the founding of the state of Israel came about, in part, as a global reaction to the Holocaust. Does this mean that the Jewish people owe Hitler and the Nazi party a debt?
Personally, I do not admire and respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him. I view him as petty and childish. One should be able to find fulfilment without reducing themselves to the level of those who have wronged them. It serves no purpose to react in such a way.
Like I said above innocent people get locked away in jail all the time, some already do get executed I'm sure time from time. Not much we can do to prevent that for the most part, do we simply let out everyone out of the prison because some might be falsely convicted? No. Why keep housing criminals when a good portion just reoffend, molest, kill or be hazardous to society overall. Why keep paying that cost, it's pointless.
Keeping them confined as animals is hardly any more civillized than executing them and only cost valuable resources and manpower that could be put to better use like feeding the poor or building shelters for those who can not afford homes. I rather see money go towards such things than housing the ills of society.
Because we don't have perfect information, and we don't know who will re-offend and who won't. If we follow your logic out, we should just execute everyone who commits a crime, because they're all irredeemable and will just re-offend.
please dont confuse me with supporting cade's absolutist stance here, but even though i dont agree with his stance, i think it can be stated in a more reasonable way.
for example:
the number of innocents that have been mistakenly executed or convicted = x
vs.
the number of innocents have been killed or injured by recidivist criminal behavior = y
if y > x, then cade's position is not totally unreasonable. if x > y then it is totally unreasonable.
that being said, i am willing to wager a large amount of money that y is significantly greater than x.
Not really a good analogy. People will be wrongly convicted sometimes. The problem with capital punishment is that you can't undo it.
One would think that capital punishment would be replaced with life in prison without parole.
Your analogy is better stated as:
the number of innocents mistakenly executed = x
the number of maximum-security inmates who escape and go on to kill someone = y
The majority of killers have had one of the following happen: come from broken homes, suffer abuse and neglect, have had a relative incarcerated, and had a relative be a victim of a major crime. Many killers have had more than one or all happen to them. Low-income, high-crime neighborhoods are felon factories because people can't afford to leave, and contribute to the cycle of violence.
I don't think you can truly reform a murderer or rapist, but I believe it's possible to not create one based on positive life experiences and relationships.
The Menendez brothers were upper-class, well to do, and wanted for nothing. The allegations they were abused were found to be baseless.
how would you respond to the statement that more innocents are killed by recidivist criminals than by the cp system?
IF this statement were shown to be true, my response would be that WHO is doing the killing is still relevant.
My government killing innocent people is NOT something I can easily abide.
Also, there are other ways to deal with recidivism without killing people. Life without parole keeps violent criminals from roaming the streets, and a wrongfully imprisoned man who is latter shown to be inocent could still be released. Worst case scenario, I would argue that living out your life in jail is better than having no life at all.
I don't see any evidence that we need our social understanding reinforced via punishment. Countries without the United States' draconian criminal penalties aren't experiencing more crime than we do. Society definitely needs an authority that can prosecute crimes; the idea that we need it to use punishment as a teaching tool isn't one I see being supported.
There are a whole host of reasons why those countries might be experiencing crime rates lower than ours, though for the sake of this discussion I'll allow that one of those reasons might, indeed, be a more enlightened or effective justice system. But even if it is, when they pass sentence against a murderer or rapist they still do so, at least partly, on the premise that the criminal will then suffer some hardship in response to the crime he committed, whether that takes the form of restricted freedom or loss of other liberties or what have you. That their setences are more lenient than ours does not suggest that the revenge impulse is not an inextricable part of their justice system; it just suggests that they've struck a different - and, quite possibly, better - balance between that impulse and the other organizational needs of that system. The criminal still has to pay the penalty, even in those more lenient societies, and if he didn't the public investment in the system would disappear.
and some countries with draconian criminal penalties definitely do experience less crime than us (e.g., notably singapore (and japan, which executes criminals as well)).
punishment (beyond rehabilitative purposes) racism, and rape are ALL on the same level.
OMG it's the Yar rape reflex theory!!! You bastard.
Anyway, your second graph didn't say anything at all about capital punishment being legal or not, only about how often it was carried out. And it showed that in years where there were more murders, there were also more death sentences. The causation might work either way or not at all, but the common sense explanation is that when more people are murdering, you're more likely to see more of those murderers getting sentenced to death, which is why there are more death sentences when there are more murders.
Personally, I do not admire and respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him. I view him as petty and childish. One should be able to find fulfilment without reducing themselves to the level of those who have wronged them. It serves no purpose to react in such a way.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
Not really a good analogy. People will be wrongly convicted sometimes. The problem with capital punishment is that you can't undo it.
One would think that capital punishment would be replaced with life in prison without parole.
Your analogy is better stated as:
the number of innocents mistakenly executed = x
the number of maximum-security inmates who escape and go on to kill someone = y
I pretty much guarantee that x is greater than y.
but not all murderers and rapist are placed in maximum security prisons.
cade is arguing that all violent criminals be put to death. it is definitely possible that his methodology would result in less innocents dying.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
So you believe in vigilantism?
And you also don't see the difference between actions by a state and actions by an individual citizen?
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
I support Israel's responses when they are based in preventing future attacks.
I vocally oppose Israel's actions when they are based in nothing more than revenge or tit-fot-tat.
how would you respond to the statement that more innocents are killed by recidivist criminals than by the cp system?
IF this statement were shown to be true, my response would be that WHO is doing the killing is still relevant.
My government killing innocent people is NOT something I can easily abide.
Also, there are other ways to deal with recidivism without killing people. Life without parole keeps violent criminals from roaming the streets, and a wrongfully imprisoned man who is latter shown to be inocent could still be released. Worst case scenario, I would argue that living out your life in jail is better than having no life at all.
may i assume you are not a utilitarian?
i definitely think the identity of the actor is a big hang-up for most people (i.e., we become no different from the criminal), but i have never really understood why.
incarceration is effectively kidnapping and imprisonment by the government. forced labor is effectively slavery by the government. yes, the capital punishment is effectively murder by the government. but so what? so the government can kidnap, imprison for life and enact slavery (and kill in self defense) but not murder? i dont feel as if the line youve drawn really provides you with any kind of moral high ground.
furthermore, the truth is, whenever the government releases a criminal who ends up commiting another crime, it takes upon the role of enabler. that innocent could have been saved, but wasnt. i know it's not as bad as pulling the trigger, of course. but it's not great either.
i dont strongly disagree with your last paragraph. i just dont really see that much value in trying to keep certain people alive.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
Yes, I too am enamored by vindictive and spiteful people.
how would you respond to the statement that more innocents are killed by recidivist criminals than by the cp system?
IF this statement were shown to be true, my response would be that WHO is doing the killing is still relevant.
My government killing innocent people is NOT something I can easily abide.
Also, there are other ways to deal with recidivism without killing people. Life without parole keeps violent criminals from roaming the streets, and a wrongfully imprisoned man who is latter shown to be inocent could still be released. Worst case scenario, I would argue that living out your life in jail is better than having no life at all.
may i assume you are not a utilitarian?
i definitely think the identity of the actor is a big hang-up for most people (i.e., we become no different from the criminal), but i have never really understood why.
incarceration is effectively kidnapping and imprisonment by the government. forced labor is effectively slavery by the government. yes, the capital punishment is effectively murder by the government. but so what? so the government can kidnap, imprison for life and enact slavery (and kill in self defense) but not murder? i dont feel as if the line youve drawn really provides you with any kind of moral high ground.
furthermore, the truth is, whenever the government releases a criminal who ends up commiting another crime, it takes upon the role of enabler. that innocent could have been saved, but wasnt. i know it's not as bad as pulling the trigger, of course. but it's not great either.
i dont strongly disagree with your last paragraph. i just dont really see that much value in trying to keep certain people alive.
I'm not a pure utilitarian, but I think what you are missing is the immense value of human life.
Also the negative value of capital punishment, in how it causes human life to be devalued. When a madman kills another person, it is understood as being a wrongful act. When the government does it, you suddenly send the message that "sometimes, it is okay to kill", a message that I do not believe should be sent.
I take it that you are not a utilitarian either. Revenge has no utility for society as a whole, as it only adds to the disutility that has been caused by an incident.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
So you believe in vigilantism?
And you also don't see the difference between actions by a state and actions by an individual citizen?
no, i think vigilantism unfortunately leads to bad results. but that doesnt mean i respect someone who just turns their cheek to my past injuries. in fact, it's just the opposite. if my wife was raped and jesus told me to turn the other cheek, i would punch him in the mouth. if my friend told me that, we wouldnt be friends anymore. do you disagree?
the actions of a state are simply the collective actions of a group of individuals (or their representatives). there is a difference of course, but it's much less than you seem to imply, especially if the state officials are elected.
no, i think vigilantism unfortunately leads to bad results. but that doesnt mean i respect someone who just turns their cheek to my past injuries. in fact, it's just the opposite. if my wife was raped and jesus told me to turn the other cheek, i would punch him in the mouth. if my friend told me that, we wouldnt be friends anymore. do you disagree?
the actions of a state are simply the collective actions of a group of individuals (or their representatives). there is a difference of course, but it's much less than you seem to imply, especially if the state officials are elected.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
So you believe in vigilantism?
And you also don't see the difference between actions by a state and actions by an individual citizen?
no, i think vigilantism unfortunately leads to bad results. but that doesnt mean i respect someone who just turns their cheek to my past injuries. in fact, it's just the opposite. if my wife was raped and jesus told me to turn the other cheek, i would punch him in the mouth. if my friend told me that, we wouldnt be friends anymore. do you disagree?
the actions of a state are simply the collective actions of a group of individuals (or their representatives). there is a difference of course, but it's much less than you seem to imply, especially if the state officials are elected.
Just a hunch here, how do you feel about income taxes?
He is correct about this. Or, at least, he's pointing out a very real dual nature of morality and ethics and the individual vs. society. If someone wrongs you badly, it isn't exactly "immoral" when you go after them in return. But at the same time society as a whole has an interest in preventing you from doing just that.
incarceration is effectively kidnapping and imprisonment by the government. forced labor is effectively slavery by the government. yes, the capital punishment is effectively murder by the government. but so what? so the government can kidnap, imprison for life and enact slavery (and kill in self defense) but not murder? i dont feel as if the line youve drawn really provides you with any kind of moral high ground.
All of those except murder can be at least partially compensated for if the individual is found to have been innocent or if the punishment did not fit the crime. Death then, would be the exception since nothing we do can bring back the dead.
All of those except murder can be at least partially compensated for if the individual is found to have been innocent or if the punishment did not fit the crime. Death then, would be the exception since nothing we do can bring back the dead.
Nothing you do will give me back the five years I lost to incarceration, either. Nothing you do will let me see my son born or teach him to ride a bike. Etc.
I'm certainly not a turn the other cheek person. It's just that consider my justice complete when someone who wrongs me regrets having done it.
The ideal is for them to regret it because they have become a better person and know it was wrong.
But I'd also say that if all I can get is for the thought of crossing me to inspire pants-shitting terror, that's what I'll take.
I support reformation for moral reasons, which I've detailed multiple times in this thread, AND for practical ones.
Besides, there is a fundamental difference between someone who commits a crime and someone who now believes crime to be wrong. I'd argue that the original criminal is as dead in such a case as they would be if executed.
All of those except murder can be at least partially compensated for if the individual is found to have been innocent or if the punishment did not fit the crime. Death then, would be the exception since nothing we do can bring back the dead.
Nothing you do will give me back the five years I lost to incarceration, either. Nothing you do will let me see my son born or teach him to ride a bike. Etc.
missing his birth but attending his graduation is still better than missing both.
As evidence, I'll cite my grandfather, who had a heart attack the day after I was born, and missed my bris because of it. On my 21st birthday (which he saw as a significant event) he turned to me and said "I may have missed your bris, but at least I'm here today, and that make up for it."
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but that's still more than you have.
I'm not a pure utilitarian, but I think what you are missing is the immense value of human life.
Also the negative value of capital punishment, in how it causes human life to be devalued. When a madman kills another person, it is understood as being a wrongful act. When the government does it, you suddenly send the message that "sometimes, it is okay to kill", a message that I do not believe should be sent.
I take it that you are not a utilitarian either. Revenge has no utility for society as a whole, as it only adds to the disutility that has been caused by an incident.
i will certainly agree that i dont see immense value solely in human life (i.e., i have no qualms with pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient or for lack of a better term, a "vegetable"). do we agree on this point or no? because i think this may be something important.
within my morality, i certainly do believe it is sometimes okay to kill a human. i have killed and often support animal killers. but humans are very, very different from most animals. as such, i have never killed a human.
however, when does a person stop being worthy of "human privilege" and instead deserve to be treated no differently from an animal? i would suspect your answer to be "never." but my answer is "almost never." and that almost makes all the difference i guess.
no, i am not a utilitarian but i am most definitely in the camp with darthmix regarding the utility of revenge / vengeance / justice / fairness. i would agree also that vigilantism has extreme disutility for society as a whole and though i am not utilitarian, i wholeheartedly disagree with it.
that being said, utility is of course not my ultimate goal.
He is correct about this. Or, at least, he's pointing out a very real dual nature of morality and ethics and the individual vs. society. If someone wrongs you badly, it isn't exactly "immoral" when you go after them in return. But at the same time society as a whole has an interest in preventing you from doing just that.
Isn't exactly immoral? What? Of course it is immoral!
An understandable and expected human weakness, thus forgivable, maybe yes but since when did revenge stop being immoral?
Just a hunch here, how do you feel about income taxes?
i pay them. i wish they were lower and i dont think theyre perfect. if youre wondering whether im a libertarian or not, im not. i think they are stupid.
that being said, i somewhat agree with eljeffe (i think?) on the taxation system. a high flat tax (45+%) with a large exemption ($40,000) i think would be able to ensure that:
1) the poor would not have to pay more taxes;
2) rich people would not be able to use loopholes to minimize their tax burden; and
3) we could save money on administrative expenses.
no, i think vigilantism unfortunately leads to bad results. but that doesnt mean i respect someone who just turns their cheek to my past injuries. in fact, it's just the opposite. if my wife was raped and jesus told me to turn the other cheek, i would punch him in the mouth. if my friend told me that, we wouldnt be friends anymore. do you disagree?
the actions of a state are simply the collective actions of a group of individuals (or their representatives). there is a difference of course, but it's much less than you seem to imply, especially if the state officials are elected.
You're so macho. We're all impressed.
i think youve dodged the issue and personally, i dont understand the desire for snide remarks.
the question posed is how far you do press your moral high ground? does turn the other cheek apply to friends and family? as yar states in a later post, there is a contradition in how we expect our friends to act and how we expect society as a whole to act. why?
missing his birth but attending his graduation is still better than missing both.
I almost forgot that trying to follow a coherent set of points with you is like watching Memento.
Yes, obviously, one is not as bad as the other. As would the crimes that led to such sentences also be of progressive degrees. The point is that the argument that capital punishment can't be undone isn't really all that special, you can let an innocent out of prison early but you can never give them back the years you took from them, either.
i think youve dodged the issue and personally, i dont understand the desire for snide remarks.
the question posed is how far you do press your moral high ground? does turn the other cheek apply to friends and family? as yar states in a later post, there is a contradition in how we expect our friends to act and how we expect society as a whole to act. why?
Because we can't just have individual citizens running around being cowboys and whoopin ass when they get pissed off. You don't get to be the arbiter of who gets punished in what way because you're hardly impartial. That's why we, as a society, have decided on neutral parties, like the Justice system, to deal with our problems in an orderly way.
Just something I'm noticing in all of this debating, I don't know if this is painfully obvious and thus not worth mentioning, but it seems like there are two main systems of thought going on here which are leading to some issues:
-Individual morality
-State morality
The two sometimes line up but often don't. Yar's comment that
If someone wrongs you badly, it isn't exactly "immoral" when you go after them in return. But at the same time society as a whole has an interest in preventing you from doing just that.
touches on that. There is a distinct difference in my mind between what is "moral" for an individual and what is "moral" for a state. It seems like some of you are talking about one and some of you are talking about the other, which is leading to a lot of the argument. Some of you think they are the same, some of you don't.
Just something I noticed.
Edit: For example: murder by an individual is probably not acceptable to most people, but murder by a state (death penalty) more people support.
missing his birth but attending his graduation is still better than missing both.
I almost forgot that trying to follow a coherent set of points with you is like watching Memento.
Yes, obviously, one is not as bad as the other. As would the crimes that led to such sentences also be of progressive degrees. The point is that the argument that capital punishment can't be undone isn't really all that special, you can let an innocent out of prison early but you can never give them back the years you took from them, either.
How do you believe that you have the authority to judge who is worth of living?
What has imbued you with that authority?
i have no authority to judge anyone. but i do have a voice in the running of this state and this country and i voice it with as much logic, reason and emotion as i can muster. often people disagree with me.
my state disagrees with me about gay marriage (they dont allow it).
it also effectively disagrees with me about the death penalty (they allow it but havent used it since 1976).
im not really sure what that means. i see no objective truth or morality so i just do what i can.
Posts
I don't think you can truly reform a murderer or rapist, but I believe it's possible to not create one based on positive life experiences and relationships.
whereas fairness is, in actually, impossible to achieve. There is no true way to value all effects of any action, and even so, one is subjective to their own lives. To use an extreme example (for illustrative purposes), the founding of the state of Israel came about, in part, as a global reaction to the Holocaust. Does this mean that the Jewish people owe Hitler and the Nazi party a debt?
Personally, I do not admire and respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him. I view him as petty and childish. One should be able to find fulfilment without reducing themselves to the level of those who have wronged them. It serves no purpose to react in such a way.
why is it still completely unreasonable? im actually really interested.
my personal stance is not the same as cade's.
although i dont adopt utilitarianism, i do see some merit in it. also, i can always argue within it, cant i?
Not really a good analogy. People will be wrongly convicted sometimes. The problem with capital punishment is that you can't undo it.
One would think that capital punishment would be replaced with life in prison without parole.
Your analogy is better stated as:
the number of innocents mistakenly executed = x
the number of maximum-security inmates who escape and go on to kill someone = y
I pretty much guarantee that x is greater than y.
IF this statement were shown to be true, my response would be that WHO is doing the killing is still relevant.
My government killing innocent people is NOT something I can easily abide.
Also, there are other ways to deal with recidivism without killing people. Life without parole keeps violent criminals from roaming the streets, and a wrongfully imprisoned man who is latter shown to be inocent could still be released. Worst case scenario, I would argue that living out your life in jail is better than having no life at all.
and some countries with draconian criminal penalties definitely do experience less crime than us (e.g., notably singapore (and japan, which executes criminals as well)).
Anyway, your second graph didn't say anything at all about capital punishment being legal or not, only about how often it was carried out. And it showed that in years where there were more murders, there were also more death sentences. The causation might work either way or not at all, but the common sense explanation is that when more people are murdering, you're more likely to see more of those murderers getting sentenced to death, which is why there are more death sentences when there are more murders.
I thought I cured you of this inherent contradiction. "Fairness" can't possibly have any meaning other than as defined by well-being.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
but not all murderers and rapist are placed in maximum security prisons.
cade is arguing that all violent criminals be put to death. it is definitely possible that his methodology would result in less innocents dying.
i wonder what the utilitarians would say.
And you also don't see the difference between actions by a state and actions by an individual citizen?
I support Israel's responses when they are based in preventing future attacks.
I vocally oppose Israel's actions when they are based in nothing more than revenge or tit-fot-tat.
may i assume you are not a utilitarian?
i definitely think the identity of the actor is a big hang-up for most people (i.e., we become no different from the criminal), but i have never really understood why.
incarceration is effectively kidnapping and imprisonment by the government. forced labor is effectively slavery by the government. yes, the capital punishment is effectively murder by the government. but so what? so the government can kidnap, imprison for life and enact slavery (and kill in self defense) but not murder? i dont feel as if the line youve drawn really provides you with any kind of moral high ground.
furthermore, the truth is, whenever the government releases a criminal who ends up commiting another crime, it takes upon the role of enabler. that innocent could have been saved, but wasnt. i know it's not as bad as pulling the trigger, of course. but it's not great either.
i dont strongly disagree with your last paragraph. i just dont really see that much value in trying to keep certain people alive.
nah, i've always felt your position was semantic and somewhat specious. apologies :P
I'm not a pure utilitarian, but I think what you are missing is the immense value of human life.
Also the negative value of capital punishment, in how it causes human life to be devalued. When a madman kills another person, it is understood as being a wrongful act. When the government does it, you suddenly send the message that "sometimes, it is okay to kill", a message that I do not believe should be sent.
I take it that you are not a utilitarian either. Revenge has no utility for society as a whole, as it only adds to the disutility that has been caused by an incident.
no, i think vigilantism unfortunately leads to bad results. but that doesnt mean i respect someone who just turns their cheek to my past injuries. in fact, it's just the opposite. if my wife was raped and jesus told me to turn the other cheek, i would punch him in the mouth. if my friend told me that, we wouldnt be friends anymore. do you disagree?
the actions of a state are simply the collective actions of a group of individuals (or their representatives). there is a difference of course, but it's much less than you seem to imply, especially if the state officials are elected.
we can only hope.
Just a hunch here, how do you feel about income taxes?
He is correct about this. Or, at least, he's pointing out a very real dual nature of morality and ethics and the individual vs. society. If someone wrongs you badly, it isn't exactly "immoral" when you go after them in return. But at the same time society as a whole has an interest in preventing you from doing just that.
All of those except murder can be at least partially compensated for if the individual is found to have been innocent or if the punishment did not fit the crime. Death then, would be the exception since nothing we do can bring back the dead.
The ideal is for them to regret it because they have become a better person and know it was wrong.
But I'd also say that if all I can get is for the thought of crossing me to inspire pants-shitting terror, that's what I'll take.
I support reformation for moral reasons, which I've detailed multiple times in this thread, AND for practical ones.
Besides, there is a fundamental difference between someone who commits a crime and someone who now believes crime to be wrong. I'd argue that the original criminal is as dead in such a case as they would be if executed.
missing his birth but attending his graduation is still better than missing both.
As evidence, I'll cite my grandfather, who had a heart attack the day after I was born, and missed my bris because of it. On my 21st birthday (which he saw as a significant event) he turned to me and said "I may have missed your bris, but at least I'm here today, and that make up for it."
Anecdotal evidence, I know, but that's still more than you have.
i will certainly agree that i dont see immense value solely in human life (i.e., i have no qualms with pulling the plug on a brain-dead patient or for lack of a better term, a "vegetable"). do we agree on this point or no? because i think this may be something important.
within my morality, i certainly do believe it is sometimes okay to kill a human. i have killed and often support animal killers. but humans are very, very different from most animals. as such, i have never killed a human.
however, when does a person stop being worthy of "human privilege" and instead deserve to be treated no differently from an animal? i would suspect your answer to be "never." but my answer is "almost never." and that almost makes all the difference i guess.
no, i am not a utilitarian but i am most definitely in the camp with darthmix regarding the utility of revenge / vengeance / justice / fairness. i would agree also that vigilantism has extreme disutility for society as a whole and though i am not utilitarian, i wholeheartedly disagree with it.
that being said, utility is of course not my ultimate goal.
What has imbued you with that authority?
An understandable and expected human weakness, thus forgivable, maybe yes but since when did revenge stop being immoral?
i pay them. i wish they were lower and i dont think theyre perfect. if youre wondering whether im a libertarian or not, im not. i think they are stupid.
that being said, i somewhat agree with eljeffe (i think?) on the taxation system. a high flat tax (45+%) with a large exemption ($40,000) i think would be able to ensure that:
1) the poor would not have to pay more taxes;
2) rich people would not be able to use loopholes to minimize their tax burden; and
3) we could save money on administrative expenses.
Are you an anarchist?
Your views on government seem interesting.
i think youve dodged the issue and personally, i dont understand the desire for snide remarks.
the question posed is how far you do press your moral high ground? does turn the other cheek apply to friends and family? as yar states in a later post, there is a contradition in how we expect our friends to act and how we expect society as a whole to act. why?
Yes, obviously, one is not as bad as the other. As would the crimes that led to such sentences also be of progressive degrees. The point is that the argument that capital punishment can't be undone isn't really all that special, you can let an innocent out of prison early but you can never give them back the years you took from them, either.
No he's worse than all of those, he's a lawyer.
-Individual morality
-State morality
The two sometimes line up but often don't. Yar's comment that
touches on that. There is a distinct difference in my mind between what is "moral" for an individual and what is "moral" for a state. It seems like some of you are talking about one and some of you are talking about the other, which is leading to a lot of the argument. Some of you think they are the same, some of you don't.
Just something I noticed.
Edit: For example: murder by an individual is probably not acceptable to most people, but murder by a state (death penalty) more people support.
But you can still give them SOMETHING.
Capital punishment has no recourse.
i have no authority to judge anyone. but i do have a voice in the running of this state and this country and i voice it with as much logic, reason and emotion as i can muster. often people disagree with me.
my state disagrees with me about gay marriage (they dont allow it).
it also effectively disagrees with me about the death penalty (they allow it but havent used it since 1976).
im not really sure what that means. i see no objective truth or morality so i just do what i can.
one of these things is not like the other :whistle: