Capitol Punishment

[Koldo]

Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" and "Kritik der praktischen Vernunft" (there must be translations somewhere if you don't read German) build a very strong case why morals should be categorical (equal for everybody).

Oh, Kantian ethics!
Why would you bring it up on this topic? It holds no practical value nowadays. Essentially no one lives by the categorical imperative. What would be the point on lecturing me on that?

 

[Heyo]

Oh, Kantian ethics!
Why would you bring it up on this topic? It holds no practical value nowadays. Essentially no one lives by the categorical imperative. What would be the point on lecturing me on that?

Because Kant is very basic. It's like you don't discuss calculus with someone who doesn't understand addition or discuss evolution with someone who doesn't understand Linnaean taxonomy.

 

[England my lionheart]

I wouldn't know the alternative. I don't agree with suicide but if I picked the best of two evils I'd let the prisoner decide. Life or death.

Its not a good ending either way but at least the guilty is the one left with blood on their hands so to speak and not society imo.

 

[Valjean]

Intrinsic value to kill another person?? Please tell me that's not your value.

What does intrinsic value to kill mean?

I see intrinsic value in life, particularly sentient life. I also try to avoid harming sentient beings, or causing unnecessary suffering.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its not a good ending either way but at least the guilty is the one left with blood on their hands so to speak and not society imo.

Yeah. In a humane sense it lets the prisoner know he is human despite his actions. I'm sure not all people who kill others are crazy. They just made stupid decisions intentional or not.

 

[Valjean]

Because Kant is very basic. It's like you don't discuss calculus with someone who doesn't understand addition or discuss evolution with someone who doesn't understand Linnaean taxonomy.

I'm getting more a Nietzschian, master morality flavor from some in this thread.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah. In a humane sense it lets the prisoner know he is human despite his actions. I'm sure not all people who kill others are crazy. They just made stupid decisions intentional or not.

Most have impulse control problems, and murder, I've heard, has a very recidivism rate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Can you clarify:

"Some people are not worth keeping around for the safety of the population." Isn't a good way I'd see it. If you committed a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around? It's a moral situation not a legal one.

Exactly -- and you don't seem to see any intrinsic value to human life.

Are you talking to Shad??

'Cause that isn't a good way I'd see it going by his or her comment. I mean, if he (and you?) did a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around?

Intrinsic value to kill another person?? Please tell me that's not your value.

I think you're replying to Shad because if you're disagreeing with me, it sounds like you promote killing (capitol punishment) not against it.

What does intrinsic value to kill mean?

I see intrinsic value in life, particularly sentient life. I also try to avoid harming sentient beings, or causing unnecessary suffering.

Killing as an intrinsic value.

I think you're comment was meant for Shad. I agree with you.

 

[Heyo]

I'm getting more a Kantian, master morality flavor from some in this thread.

I'm not sure what you mean by master morality. Can you elaborate?
(I have a feeling this might be a critique on my discussion style. If it is, don't hold back. I can handle myself.)

 

[Valjean]

I'm not sure what you mean by master morality. Can you elaborate?
(I have a feeling this might be a critique on my discussion style. If it is, don't hold back. I can handle myself.)

Master–slave morality - Wikipedia

 

[Koldo]

Because Kant is very basic. It's like you don't discuss calculus with someone who doesn't understand addition or discuss evolution with someone who doesn't understand Linnaean taxonomy.

Unless calculus is outdated like kantian ethics, I don't get why you are using this comparison. Why would you use something outdated to explain the morality of an action?

 

[Shad]

The death penalty does not deter or prevent crime -- fact.

Assertion

The video shows an example of a successful, rehabilitative approach -- which does deter crime; an alternative to our punitive approach, which clearly doesn't work.

Which is about repeat offenders already in prison after their release not punishment for an existing crime. Try again.

It was not -- but isn't that what we're trying to deter? How is imitating the attitude or actions of murderer desirable -- especially when it fails at its express purpose?

Expect that they now new found "feelings" did not deter their own action in committing the crime that landed them in prison. Try again. You are conflating repeat offenders as if there are no first offenses. Try again.

"There are none so blind..."

Babble

 

[Shad]

But it's factually incorrect.

Assertion.

 

[Shad]

"Some people are not worth keeping around for the safety of the population." Isn't a good way I'd see it. @Shad. If you committed a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around?

They have already demonstrated they are dangerous to society. A serial killer is never going to be released. They are punished for their crimes and it is cheaper to boot. You just object that I made a judgement of a person and their actions while you refuse to do so. Your problem.

 

[Valjean]

Can you clarify:
Are you talking to Shad??

'Cause that isn't a good way I'd see it going by his or her comment. I mean, if he (and you?) did a heinous crime, do you deserve to be kept around?

I think you're replying to Shad because if you're disagreeing with me, it sounds like you promote killing (capitol punishment) not against it..

I believe I was. I was confused by the quotation formatting.

 

[Valjean]

Assertion

An assertion supported by the majority of relevant studies.

Which is about repeat offenders already in prison after their release not punishment for an existing crime. Try again.

Watch it again. There were two groups. The first were trustees in a pre-release prison. The second were in a regular maximum security facility.

Expect that they now new found "feelings" did not deter their own action in committing the crime that landed them in prison. Try again. You are conflating repeat offenders as if there are no first offenses. Try again.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here.

Babble

 

[Valjean]

Assertion.

Ignore the studies if you wish. You have a right to your opinion. I'm just saying it seems to be based on convention, resentment and emotion rather than facts.

 

[Valjean]

They have already demonstrated they are dangerous to society. A serial killer is never going to be released. They are punished for their crimes and it is cheaper to boot. You just object that I made a judgement of a person and their actions while you refuse to do so. Your problem.

What criteria do you use in assessing right and wrong?

 

[PureX]

Why would destroying the means of a crime not reduce the chance of recidivism?
Consider also, Killing isn't generic. It has a context. People act out their ego identities. If one destroys the possibility of a violent or anti-social role to play, the individual will, hopefully, be forced to adopt something more pro-social.

Why are these solutions absurd? Why is rendering someone physically incapable of their crime of choice absurd? Granted, it's different, but is it less draconian than killing the felon, or locking him up for life?

I'm not suggesting capital punishment for all murderers. Only for those who have shown by their actions that they have ab ongoing intent to kill.

 

[Valjean]

I'm not suggesting capital punishment for all murderers. Only for those who have shown by their actions that they have ab ongoing intent to kill.

Very good, then.
Wouldn't simply removing that intent be cheaper and easier than either execution or life imprisonment?