The simple philosophical answer for me is: if you murder someone because of a past deed, or threats of a future deed, you’re denying human capacity to change. I personally feel, given the right circumstances, everyone has capacity to change, learn, grow, evolve. Pretty much every bad deed can be put down to humans being opportunistic, selfish, manipulative or backed into a corner. I imagine things would be very different if their needs were met and they were well educated. Most countries (at least in Europe) at least attempt to use the prison system for rehabilitation rather than expensive punitive measures and/or slavery.
Political answer: Trump should be in jail for many, many crimes, not dead.
And when the Justice system does nothing, then what? Let him round up the immigrants into camps and give trans people the death penalty? Let him install himself as a dictator and refuse to leave power? Let him kill a million in a pandemic, destroy the planet, and gut the education system robbing millions of their future?
Because he “might” change? Tell that to trans people.
I mean that’s the problem. I’m saying he should already be deep in jail. I’m not saying that because the justice system is failing/corrupt that everyone should just let it slide.
You’ve gone down the “if we can go back in time, do we kill baby Hitler” route, which I wasn’t really exploring.
Very much incorrect on one point. Humans are terrible because other humans are terrible to them at an early point in their life. It isn’t a flaw of being sentient.
Yes, childhood trauma can be the cause of a lot of mental health issues in adult life, but attributing it to all human shitty behaviour is a wide sweeping brushstroke.
Ask those terrible pressure in the world didn’t just appear by coincidence. Being terrible isn’t all of human nature, but it’s clearly an inextricable part of it.
I don’t think that there is a line we can draw, short of saying “no killing whatsoever,” that can’t be abused. If we say, “No killing unless they’re judged guilty,” then we leave it up to fallible lawmakers to make just laws, and fallible police and prosecutors to be honest and decent, and fallible jurors to try and turn this into a decision.
Or let’s say we make the rule, “Only fascists can be murdered.” But who decides if someone is a fascist? Is it someone who believes the ideology, or do they need power or authority to act on it as well?
Basically I don’t think there is a system of rules that could be implemented that would not kill innocent people as a byproduct, unless the rule is just “no killing.”
My personal opinion used to be “those who are beyond change, those who are so cruel, vindictive, undeniably atrocious, evil, maniacal ect. should be put to death, removed from the world they clearly shouldn’t be in”. After many long discussions with my closest friend I have come to believe that death is too light a punishment. Those who truly deserve the harshest judgment should live a long life, in complete isolation, devoid of all pleasure, entertainment, contact, ect. Take away all that humans crave besides basic human needs, let them truly suffer for their crimes.
Obviously, every individual instance of any crime should be dealt with by a fair and balanced jury, judge, defense, and prosecution, with as much fact and evidence as can be attained without prejudice or predetermined judgment based on personal biases.
I’m obviously long winded but am super happy with the engagement on my comment. I don’t like arguing but I love hearing others opinions! Thank you all!
That’s a rather fresh opinion with lack of better words. I cant say i agree but i am glad i asked, thanks.
Personally i feel conflicted about the morality of taking away freedoms. This is for both criminal and state.
Obviously some people have done crimes that destroyed any notion of mental freedom in their victims and it doesn’t feel just to allow those people to operate, but i acknowledge we are tapping into the same wrong “take away another freedoms” Its no avadada-Kedavra or imperio + rape, but its still an imperials curse nonetheless.
What i eventually settled on is that we have no choice then remove the freedom of clearly dangerous individuals. With those that have a path to redemption, basic human flaws are often fixable so we should go all in on those.
But for those that crossed the impossible to draw proverbial red line that redemption is no longer possible.
Our only single concern with them is their removal to keep everyone else safe. Technically that means putting them on their own self sufficient luxury island would be adequate as an ethical solution, we adress the single concern with no further harm but its not a very sensible idea in our economic context and i wouldn’t support it (give me the island instead). A walled facility providing basic needs will do as the best we can honestly offer… we should do more for homeless, partly unrelated sorry.
The easiest, most efficient way to remove them permanently is of course death. But then we do lower ourselves to take away all freedoms, knowing we could succeed the main tasks more ethically, shouldn’t we?
I absolutely understand your perspective of punishment but personally i feel nothing for a person who cannot reach or interact with anyone getting punished. Punishment to me requires reason like eventually growth.
What i eventually settled on is permanent jail, naturally being provided with just the basics we can economically spare and then provide the freedom for the detained to chose for death. And i feel many in this situation, with no hope of shortening of sentence or pardon would chose to die.
Providing the most clean/efficient way to remove monster from society. In personal theory.
Factual Practice is this is an ugly gritty topic with no easy answers.
I truly believe that spending your life in solitary confinement with no access to anything but your thoughts would be FAR worse than putting them to death. Let them stew in what they have done for as long as possible. It cost less than execution thanks to the ridiculous appeal process afforded to death row inmates.
In an attempt to answer your questions:
1.a. see above
1.b. regardless of reason, assassination has generally turned out badly. I love the time travel joke about killing Hitler but a different guy does the same thing.
2. The one to be executed losses their right to appeal and prove their innocence, as we know there have been many people wrongfully executed. They murderer of said death row inmate just becomes one. Loes loes
3.a.currently the president can legally have his political rival assassinated, or so I’m told, and this is far too much power for anyone to weild.
3.b. I don’t really see the death penalty as just
4. Yes every case needs to be evaluated separately. Assassinating a brutal dictator to bring people democracy, probably could have been done without murder. A woman being assaulted who accidentally shoots and kills her attacker, totally justified, panic reaction, give them therapy. A psycho who totrues, kills and eats babies, death by 1000 cuts.
I hope this helps, I hope my answers are sufficient and understandable. I’m happy to clarify if needed
Just a quick question on the topic of not wishing him dead. This is more a curiosity on my end in context of the legal death penalty.
Are you firmly against the idea of taking a life even if they are abhorrent. Or is the issue with the lawlessness of a public assassination?
Would it make a difference if someone gets a legal death penalty but then get murdered illegally.
Does it make it justice if the assassin was on paper technically legal and in line of that, what makes the death penalty objectively just?
Does “your” moral reasoning of murder always come down to individual cases and subjective gut feelings.
You dont have to answer all or any of these, someone else may give their opinion. But a philosophical one not a political one if possible.
The simple philosophical answer for me is: if you murder someone because of a past deed, or threats of a future deed, you’re denying human capacity to change. I personally feel, given the right circumstances, everyone has capacity to change, learn, grow, evolve. Pretty much every bad deed can be put down to humans being opportunistic, selfish, manipulative or backed into a corner. I imagine things would be very different if their needs were met and they were well educated. Most countries (at least in Europe) at least attempt to use the prison system for rehabilitation rather than expensive punitive measures and/or slavery.
Political answer: Trump should be in jail for many, many crimes, not dead.
And when the Justice system does nothing, then what? Let him round up the immigrants into camps and give trans people the death penalty? Let him install himself as a dictator and refuse to leave power? Let him kill a million in a pandemic, destroy the planet, and gut the education system robbing millions of their future?
Because he “might” change? Tell that to trans people.
I mean that’s the problem. I’m saying he should already be deep in jail. I’m not saying that because the justice system is failing/corrupt that everyone should just let it slide.
You’ve gone down the “if we can go back in time, do we kill baby Hitler” route, which I wasn’t really exploring.
Very much incorrect on one point. Humans are terrible because other humans are terrible to them at an early point in their life. It isn’t a flaw of being sentient.
Yes, childhood trauma can be the cause of a lot of mental health issues in adult life, but attributing it to all human shitty behaviour is a wide sweeping brushstroke.
More so than the prior comment? Hurt people hurting people has a whole lot of research supporting it?
More what than which comment? I don’t really understand your comment. I didn’t dismiss the concept of childhood trauma.
Ask those terrible pressure in the world didn’t just appear by coincidence. Being terrible isn’t all of human nature, but it’s clearly an inextricable part of it.
I don’t think that there is a line we can draw, short of saying “no killing whatsoever,” that can’t be abused. If we say, “No killing unless they’re judged guilty,” then we leave it up to fallible lawmakers to make just laws, and fallible police and prosecutors to be honest and decent, and fallible jurors to try and turn this into a decision.
Or let’s say we make the rule, “Only fascists can be murdered.” But who decides if someone is a fascist? Is it someone who believes the ideology, or do they need power or authority to act on it as well?
Basically I don’t think there is a system of rules that could be implemented that would not kill innocent people as a byproduct, unless the rule is just “no killing.”
My personal opinion used to be “those who are beyond change, those who are so cruel, vindictive, undeniably atrocious, evil, maniacal ect. should be put to death, removed from the world they clearly shouldn’t be in”. After many long discussions with my closest friend I have come to believe that death is too light a punishment. Those who truly deserve the harshest judgment should live a long life, in complete isolation, devoid of all pleasure, entertainment, contact, ect. Take away all that humans crave besides basic human needs, let them truly suffer for their crimes.
Obviously, every individual instance of any crime should be dealt with by a fair and balanced jury, judge, defense, and prosecution, with as much fact and evidence as can be attained without prejudice or predetermined judgment based on personal biases.
I’m obviously long winded but am super happy with the engagement on my comment. I don’t like arguing but I love hearing others opinions! Thank you all!
That’s a rather fresh opinion with lack of better words. I cant say i agree but i am glad i asked, thanks.
Personally i feel conflicted about the morality of taking away freedoms. This is for both criminal and state.
Obviously some people have done crimes that destroyed any notion of mental freedom in their victims and it doesn’t feel just to allow those people to operate, but i acknowledge we are tapping into the same wrong “take away another freedoms” Its no avadada-Kedavra or imperio + rape, but its still an imperials curse nonetheless.
What i eventually settled on is that we have no choice then remove the freedom of clearly dangerous individuals. With those that have a path to redemption, basic human flaws are often fixable so we should go all in on those.
But for those that crossed the impossible to draw proverbial red line that redemption is no longer possible.
Our only single concern with them is their removal to keep everyone else safe. Technically that means putting them on their own self sufficient luxury island would be adequate as an ethical solution, we adress the single concern with no further harm but its not a very sensible idea in our economic context and i wouldn’t support it (give me the island instead). A walled facility providing basic needs will do as the best we can honestly offer… we should do more for homeless, partly unrelated sorry.
The easiest, most efficient way to remove them permanently is of course death. But then we do lower ourselves to take away all freedoms, knowing we could succeed the main tasks more ethically, shouldn’t we?
I absolutely understand your perspective of punishment but personally i feel nothing for a person who cannot reach or interact with anyone getting punished. Punishment to me requires reason like eventually growth.
What i eventually settled on is permanent jail, naturally being provided with just the basics we can economically spare and then provide the freedom for the detained to chose for death. And i feel many in this situation, with no hope of shortening of sentence or pardon would chose to die.
Providing the most clean/efficient way to remove monster from society. In personal theory.
Factual Practice is this is an ugly gritty topic with no easy answers.
I truly believe that spending your life in solitary confinement with no access to anything but your thoughts would be FAR worse than putting them to death. Let them stew in what they have done for as long as possible. It cost less than execution thanks to the ridiculous appeal process afforded to death row inmates.
In an attempt to answer your questions: 1.a. see above 1.b. regardless of reason, assassination has generally turned out badly. I love the time travel joke about killing Hitler but a different guy does the same thing. 2. The one to be executed losses their right to appeal and prove their innocence, as we know there have been many people wrongfully executed. They murderer of said death row inmate just becomes one. Loes loes 3.a.currently the president can legally have his political rival assassinated, or so I’m told, and this is far too much power for anyone to weild. 3.b. I don’t really see the death penalty as just 4. Yes every case needs to be evaluated separately. Assassinating a brutal dictator to bring people democracy, probably could have been done without murder. A woman being assaulted who accidentally shoots and kills her attacker, totally justified, panic reaction, give them therapy. A psycho who totrues, kills and eats babies, death by 1000 cuts.
I hope this helps, I hope my answers are sufficient and understandable. I’m happy to clarify if needed