When does someone deserve to die?

[Trailblazer]

Correct, in a roundabout sort of way. Firstly I believe no god exists. Therefore it would be inapplicable for a non-existent entity to have actual knowledge.

Secondly, even if we assume some gods exist, there is no reason to attribute any greater knowledge to them concerning events of whether or not a person ought tp die.

Thirdly, if we assume an all knowing personal god (as in God), we have no reason to doubt freewill which your belief excludes.

Lastly if we do assume that God exists and assume Determinism, the whole lot of it is void of meaning. This is not to say that existence is pointless, but rather to invoke solipsism and have the whole thing come crashing in ourselves.

Okay, if you do not believe in the Abrahamic God, I can understand why you said what you said..... Anything is possible for humans if there is no God, because it is just humans in charge.

I definitely believe in free will and that it is what causes everything to happen. God does not cause events, humans do, but God can override our free will choices which means that what we want to do and decide to do might not actually happen. Of course we can never know what God is doing so there is no point thinking about it... We should just make the best choices we can all the while realizing that it might not turn out as we want it to.

In short, everything is predestined but we create our own destinies by our choices and actions.

 

[oldbadger]

Try to be as comprehensive as possible.

When Fate and Chance so decides ......

 

[Curious George]

That's a different question entirely.

I am not so sure it is here.

Child Molesters/child killers are the only ones that deserve to have their life taken in my opinion.

Maybe serial killers/rapist fall into that category as well, though I can more easily forgive them, even though it's not easy.

But even soldiers (regardless of what side of the war they are on) don't deserve to die when killed in war. Sure they do die, in droves, but they don't deserve death. And it goes without saying that the civilians caught in the crossfire don't deserve death either, even though they also die in droves.

In the case of self defense. If an attacker is trying to kill myself or a family member and I am forced to kill the attacker in order to stop him/her. It's a terrible thing, I hope I'm never forced to make that decision. But if they have to die in order to stop them from harming myself or my family then so be it. They could avoid being killed by not attacking in the first place. So they are responsible for their own actions/death. But even they don't deserve to die.

So yes Child Molestors/Child Killers are the only ones I would ever say deserve to die.

"Ought" and "deserve" are completely different things.

Again, while I think that ought amd deserve are interchangeable in this context amd deserve adds an alliteration to the mix, let us assume you are correct. How would you answer the question: When ought someone die?

 

[Curious George]

OK.......... so that would include Judges and Juries of innocents found guilty of Murder and executed?

Nah......... looks wrong...

Good point.

 

[Curious George]

When Fate and Chance so decides ......

I disagree. However it does seem like this is a popular belief.

 

[oldbadger]

I disagree. However it does seem like this is a popular belief.

Tell Fate and Chance that, when your time comes......
Neither will listen to your disagreements.....

 

[Enoch07]

Again, while I think that ought amd deserve are interchangeable in this context amd deserve adds an alliteration to the mix, let us assume you are correct. How would you answer the question: When ought someone die?

Everyone of "ought" to die, hopefully not until the end of a long happy life (let's say 100 years).

I wouldn't wish the curse of immortality (of the physical body) on anyone. Nor would I wish the curse of someone's brain being preserved and used in an imortal body, like a cyborg if you will. Nor in any other way, like transferring the mind into a digital format able to be transferred like a computer program. I know that is kind of sci-fi(sh) but it's also a real possibility in the not so far away future. And I think it would be a terrible thing should it ever be accomplished.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I agree that the concept cannot in itself keep people alive. Though a sense of tragedy does seem to motivate action. My point was only that valuation of death- believing one ought or ought not have died--is not restricted to killing alone.

Ok.

I guess with what I am struggling in this concept is the question can we then say every death outside of the social contract ought to have occurred?

What you are doing there is you are extending the social contract to everyone. That is a good thing, but its a choice. Its not a fundamentally evident thing like gravity but rather a beautiful gesture on your part. Its the right way to go, but the 'Ought' is a choice. Societies have lived without seeing it that way. The society that values life more highly is superior, in my opinion, better.

I thought it was perfectly suitable for the reason that there is no disagreement. The killer in this equation truly believes that the abortion doctor values life less than other pro-life individuals do. It is this devaluation of those individuals that in part allow for the killing.

You have taken an approach of making the determination subjective on am individuals beliefs about valuation of life. So my example took an example where from our perspective the valuation is off, but I am pretty sure there is no disagreement over the perspective of the killer, notwithstanding our leaving the beginning of life undefined.

It is pathetic that the best we can do is not to kill each other. Ok, so the killer believes the abortion doctor does not value life and kills the doctor to save lives. He is wrong in some contexts and right in others, but he is behaving indulgently. He believes his killing is justified, but you and I probably both know a major factor in why he really is killing. He's human, and humans are killers and are curious about murder. Its an experience, and letting our rage go feels right. He is not valuing those who value life, because he is indulging in his own murderous longings. Even if he feels like he is saving lives, he enjoys the killing. Such is the mental state of humans that we can misunderstand what drives us. We are killers, and thus the social contract is needed. Simply not killing other people is looked at like it makes us an advanced civilization. There is no such thing as an advanced human civilization. There are just civilizations.

 

[Curious George]

Everyone of "ought" to die, hopefully not until the end of a long happy life (let's say 100 years).

So rapists ought not die before then?

I wouldn't wish the curse of immortality (of the physical body) on anyone. Nor would I wish the curse of someone's brain being preserved and used in an imortal body, like a cyborg if you will. Nor in any other way, like transferring the mind into a digital format able to be transferred like a computer program. I know that is kind of sci-fi(sh) but it's also a real possibility in the not so far away future. And I think it would be a terrible thing should it ever be accomplished.

I am not necessarily asking who, but when.

If your answer is that no one ought die before "a long happy life (let's say 100 years). " then that is understandable, a little extreme, but understandable.

 

[Salvador]

My worst enemies all deserved to die; ,fortunately for me, they're all gone now. ....

 

[Curious George]

Ok.

What you are doing there is you are extending the social contract to everyone. That is a good thing, but its a choice. Its not a fundamentally evident thing like gravity but rather a beautiful gesture on your part. Its the right way to go, but the 'Ought' is a choice. Societies have lived without seeing it that way. The society that values life more highly is superior, in my opinion, better.

I do not think I am extemding the social contract to everyone here. I explicitly asked whether all death outside of a social contract ought to occur? what you are doing is elevating the idea of a social contract. Placing value on a social contract is no different than placing value on life. Holding that violating a social contract is the defining aspect of whether an action is able to be judged moral or immoral is asserting a universal moral (that it is immoral to break the social contract).

It is pathetic that the best we can do is not to kill each other. Ok, so the killer believes the abortion doctor does not value life and kills the doctor to save lives. He is wrong in some contexts and right in others, but he is behaving indulgently. He believes his killing is justified, but you and I probably both know a major factor in why he really is killing. He's human, and humans are killers and are curious about murder. Its an experience, and letting our rage go feels right. He is not valuing those who value life, because he is indulging in his own murderous longings.

Haven't you condemned him or her in the same manner as they have condemned the abortion medical staff? Or in the same manner as a mother killing to save the life of her son if she indulgently kills an attacker who aims to kill her son?

Even if he feels like he is saving lives, he enjoys the killing.

Based on what, can we speculate this?

Such is the mental state of humans that we can misunderstand what drives us. We are killers, and thus the social contract is needed. Simply not killing other people is looked at like it makes us an advanced civilization. There is no such thing as an advanced human civilization. There are just civilizations.

So when can we say someone is not valuing life in order to higher value the lives of those who do value life?

 

[Curious George]

My worst enemies all deserved to die; ,fortunately for me, they're all gone now. ....

Is that like Conanism?

What makes someone a "worst enemy?"

 

[Salvador]

What makes someone a "worst enemy?"

My worst enemies were those who mocked me and tried bullying me around in high school...

 

[Brickjectivity]

I do not think I am extemding the social contract to everyone here. I explicitly asked whether all death outside of a social contract ought to occur? what you are doing is elevating the idea of a social contract. Placing value on a social contract is no different than placing value on life. Holding that violating a social contract is the defining aspect of whether an action is able to be judged moral or immoral is asserting a universal moral (that it is immoral to break the social contract).

Asking whether the death ought to occur is extending it. I am saying that by default there is no question. I am saying that you choose whether there ought to be death outside, that it is a choice not an automatic. When you ask the question you begin to value those lives. To many people there is no question.

Haven't you condemned him or her in the same manner as they have condemned the abortion medical staff? Or in the same manner as a mother killing to save the life of her son if she indulgently kills an attacker who aims to kill her son?

I have not condemned him but all of us together. War would not be possible if people did not desire killing. Often though the murderer sees their killing as justified, but their reasoning can be very skewed. They kill over snoring, believing that the snorer forced them to commit murder or that they had to kill over bad cooking. The reason is an excuse. The same goes for the soldier who fires the weapon. Part of them may be reticent, part of them may be afraid, but part of them wants to see that bullet fly. Look at the example you provided: a man who kills and tells himself he isn't a murderer. That's very human. Its evidence that deserving to die is a derived concept. The man reasoned that the abortion staff deserved to die, but this was just part of his skewed thinking to allow himself to indulge his rage.

Based on what, can we speculate this?

I refer to the previous paragraph. People desire to kill. War and murder are the evidence, plus there are many examples of the lame excuses people contrive. They really believe their own lame excuses, too.

o when can we say someone is not valuing life in order to higher value the lives of those who do value life?

When they indulge themselves in killing. When they are not being forced to act. It is only in rare cases that this can happen, and even in those cases part of the person is gratified by the doing. A person who kills another person may use a justification, but they cannot eliminate that part of themselves which likes it.

 

[Curious George]

My worst enemies were those who mocked me and tried bullying me around in high school...

That deserves death?

 

[Curious George]

Asking whether the death ought to occur is extending it. I am saying that by default there is no question. I am saying that you choose whether there ought to be death outside, that it is a choice not an automatic. When you ask the question you begin to value those lives. To many people there is no question.

You are also suggesting that it is inherently wrong to break a social contract once ypu are involved in one.

I have not condemned him but all of us together. War would not be possible if people did not desire killing. Often though the murderer sees their killing as justified, but their reasoning can be very skewed. They kill over snoring, believing that the snorer forced them to commit murder or that they had to kill over bad cooking. The reason is an excuse. The same goes for the soldier who fires the weapon. Part of them may be reticent, part of them may be afraid, but part of them wants to see that bullet fly. Look at the example you provided: a man who kills and tells himself he isn't a murderer. That's very human.

That may be well true for some but to extend that to and assume that of all humans seems extreme.

Its evidence that deserving to die is a derived concept. The man reasoned that the abortion staff deserved to die, but this was just part of his skewed thinking to allow himself to indulge his rage.

One could argue that all ethics are derivative. I am simply trying to understand the consistency in your derivation.

 

[Curious George]

When they indulge themselves in killing. When they are not being forced to act. It is only in rare cases that this can happen, and even in those cases part of the person is gratified by the doing. A person who kills another person may use a justification, but they cannot eliminate that part of themselves which likes it.

When are they being forced to act?

 

[Enoch07]

So rapists ought not die before then?

They (at the very least child rapist) deserve to die before then, imo.

They rob people of a happy childhood/life early on in a person life. So therefore their own life ought to be forfeited. So that they cannot repeat their actions and continue the cycle.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You are also suggesting that it is inherently wrong to break a social contract once ypu are involved in one.

Asking the question when death is deserved we run into this problem. It seems, to me, apparent that we can't trust ourselves individually to think clearly when it comes to killing. Sometimes we just see red. There's no way to really be sure that the contract shouldn't be extended.

That may be well true for some but to extend that to and assume that of all humans seems extreme.

Does it seem extreme? That is a question for neuroscientists and psychiatrists or quantitative social scientists.

One could argue that all ethics are derivative. I am simply trying to understand the consistency in your derivation.

To ask when someone deserves to die we would have to know why we or anyone deserves to live, but there is no reason why any of us deserves that. Its a choice, and you just choose to value being alive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

When are they being forced to act?

I think when they are overwhelmed with fear. Parents afraid for their own children might be compelled for example. Sometimes when you can't think clearly you can be compelled to act.