When does someone deserve to die?

[Curious George]

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.

Lol, alright so let me see if I have this right? No one should die unless they have lived a full happy life (100 years) or they are rapists. Everyone else ought to live. Every life lost before such a time by non-rapists is a tragedy.

Is that correct?

 

[Curious George]

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.

But this doesn't extend to the pro-life terrorist? Why?

 

[Curious George]

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.

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

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.

So could we paraphrase by saying someone ought to die when the group agrees they ought to die?

 

[Brickjectivity]

So could we paraphrase by saying someone ought to die when the group agrees they ought to die?

I think that would be the same as saying that everyone ought to.

But this doesn't extend to the pro-life terrorist? Why?

'Terrorist' creates fear and indulges their rage.

 

[Curious George]

I think that would be the same as saying that everyone ought to.

'Terrorist' creates fear and indulges their rage.

Try not to latch too hard onto "terrorist," the word choice exists because we insist there is a difference, not because there is one beyond what the courts say. We can no more say that the terrorist indulges themselves based on being a terrorist than qe can say the mother indulges by virtue of motherhood.

 

[Enoch07]

Lol, alright so let me see if I have this right? No one should die unless they have lived a full happy life (100 years) or they are rapists. Everyone else ought to live. Every life lost before such a time by non-rapists is a tragedy.

Is that correct?

Meh more or less. Child rapist, serial killers, and genocidal dictators (Hitler), I can't think of anything worse. Can you?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Try not to latch too hard onto "terrorist," the word choice exists because we insist there is a difference, not because there is one beyond what the courts say. We can no more say that the terrorist indulges themselves based on being a terrorist than qe can say the mother indulges by virtue of motherhood.

Its a difficult call, and I think people constantly deceive themselves.

 

[Curious George]

Meh more or less. Child rapist, serial killers, and genocidal dictators (Hitler), I can't think of anything worse. Can you?

Personally?
If we are generating a list of worst of the worst:
I would add child rapists to rapists as an ubrella category. I suppose torturers as well. Then premeditated murderers. That probably rounds put the worst of the worst.

 

[Koldo]

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

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

Do you mean judges and juries that were responsible for an innocent's death ? People with blood on their hands so to say ?

Absolutely! You should sentence someone to death if and only if you are willing to put your life on the line. In other words, if you were mistaken you deserve to die.

If however you are talking about judges and juries that were responsible for putting real monsters down then no. They were doing a favor to society. That's what I would call just murder.

 

[Curious George]

Do you mean judges and juries that were responsible for an innocent's death ? People with blood on their hands so to say ?

Absolutely! You should sentence someone to death if and only if you are willing to put your life on the line. In other words, if you were mistaken you deserve to die.

If however you are talking about judges and juries that were responsible for putting real monsters down then no. They were doing a favor to society. That's what I would call just murder.

Now that is an extreme thought that would have people shirking their civic duties.

Let us think about that for a moment. As a juror, you are charged with determining the facts of a case. Sure it is the ultimately the determination of those facts that cause the sentence, but death doing determining the facts to the best of your ability when charged to do so?

Worse still, no appeals court would overturn a death sentence because they would be sentencing 12 innocents to death by doing so.

That is just impractical judicial planning.

 

[Koldo]

Sure

Killing for the sake of killing or because one finds it fun.
Killing as a natural result of not caring about the consequence of your actions.
Killing an innocent person that has not killed anyone else.
Those are all examples of what I would regard as unjust killing.

 

[Koldo]

Now that is an extreme thought that would have people shirking their civic duties.

Let us think about that for a moment. As a juror, you are charged with determining the facts of a case. Sure it is the ultimately the determination of those facts that cause the sentence, but death doing determining the facts to the best of your ability when charged to do so?

I can't make sense of what you meant in the bolded sentence.

Worse still, no appeals court would overturn a death sentence because they would be sentencing 12 innocents to death by doing so.

That is just impractical judicial planning.

I don't regard them as innocents if they have innocent blood on their hands.
Regardless, the question was more about who deserves to die rather than about what people, out of all the ones that deserve to die, we should or could, for practical reasons, kill.

 

[oldbadger]

Killing for the sake of killing or because one finds it fun.
Killing as a natural result of not caring about the consequence of your actions.
Killing an innocent person that has not killed anyone else.
Those are all examples of what I would regard as unjust killing.

Well you had better make no mistakes or accidents yourself.

 

[Koldo]

Well you had better make no mistakes or accidents yourself.

As a result of not caring about the consequence of my actions ?
Sure, I always care about the consequence of my actions.

 

[Curious George]

I can't make sense of what you meant in the bolded sentence.

I was half asleep, there is an extra "doing."

But they are only doing what we asked them to do. You are suggesting they ought to die for believing wrong.

I don't regard them as innocents if they have innocent blood on their hands.
Regardless, the question was more about who deserves to die rather than about what people, out of all the ones that deserve to die, we should or could, for practical reasons, kill.

You are absolutely correct, in fact I don't think you ecen suggested they shpuld necessarily be killed. But it wasn't too far of an assumption. Your view is just extreme so i commented.

 

[oldbadger]

As a result of not caring about the consequence of my actions ?
Sure, I always care about the consequence of my actions.

The day that you have an accident, any accident, which might have hurt somebody, or did hurt somebody, then you'll understand that accidents can be caused accidentally by all types of caring people.

So long as you never get into power we'll all be safe from having to read the weekly execution lists.

 

[Koldo]

The day that you have an accident, any accident, which might have hurt somebody, or did hurt somebody, then you'll understand that accidents can be caused accidentally by all types of caring people.

So long as you never get into power we'll all be safe from having to read the weekly execution lists.

I know accidents can happen. What I was trying to explain is that when someone doesn't care about the consequences of one's own actions and they lead to someone else's death that is what I would call unjust killing. If, however, you were merely involved in an accident that resulted in someone else's death I wouldn't call that an unjust death. I would call it **** happens.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Paraphrasing Gandalf in LOTR here: Many die that deserve live, and can I give it to them? Then who am I to answer the opposite question.

The only answer I can seriously give is "when they sincerely wish to." In Canada, we now allow physician assisted death for terminal cases with serious suffering. I do not find that problematic. I find the death penalty very problematic.

 

[Bird123]

And how does one ascertain such timing?

One needs to acquire a much much wider view. Mankind carries such a narrow view. I work on mine every day.

 

[Curious George]

One needs to acquire a much much wider view. Mankind carries such a narrow view. I work on mine every day.

Me: when ought someone die?
You: when it's time.
Me: when is it time?
You: Man doesn't know.

Is that about right?