zurew

You don't need to assume virtue signaling all the time, you can explain most of our reasoning in other ways. Also your point about double standard doesn't stand, would you want to create a system based on your personal grudges and feelings? Its not a double standard, its to be reasonable about it and not being taken away by emotions and creating a system based on hurt. Again, just because something is controversial and edgy, doesn't indicates, that automatically thats the best option, if the reasoning leads elsewhere, then we should chose that option. That message doesn't work based on stats. In fact I saw the opposite, countries that use death penalty has bigger murder rates compared to countries that don't use death penalty. https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-states

@Leo Gura Do you see a good future art market when it comes to VR?

Agreed.

I think if you manage to get to a utopistic world, then just then we can start to confidently say, and see if there are really people who are unchangeable. I think its easy to assume, that there are people who are untreatable, when we are living in a society where most of the core problems are not addressed at all.

Nope, I don't think so, its not impossible to imagine that two tier 2 person disagree on certain things (btw I don't consider myself one). I think most of the abusing and violence can be seriously lowered by changing the prison system - take a look at the scandinavians. I also think that your principle could be seriously misused by prison guards who are jerks (we know from stats that when you get into a hierarchically upper position, a lot of people will start to act like jerks and start to misuse their power) and some of them will force out certain reactions from the prisoners that wouldn't have happened otherwise, so you will end up killing prisoners who shouldn't have been killed otherwise. I think the more reasonable way would be looking at stats and addressing at least the top 3 reasons why a person become a toxic, violent criminal.

I think stage yellow person wouldn't support death penalty, however if we focus on the point of this thread, then I think this thread's goal was more about trying to find hypothetical scenario where taking a super controversial position would be an overal good for society, but tier 1 people wouldn't take that position because of their morals, even though they would know beforehand, that taking that particular position would be a global benefit overall.

I think if there would be a weird hypothetical where the guards would benefit from a murderer you still wouldn't care about that part, I think you would still try to execute that murderer, is that true, or giving the guards a hard time is really a point that changes your opinion on this matter? Lets say only sociopathic guards will work with these murderers, how do you get around that?

So right now you have a point about workers being harmed by toxic human behaviour. How do you get around this question: Why shouldn't we kill people in mental asylums - they are giving people all sorts of bad vibes, unpredictable behaviour , probably a lot of anxiety and sadness as well.

You have this reasoning against innocent people dying , do you think your argument is strong? We need to be aware of what bullets we need to bite here.

Why shouldn't we kill them, if we are basing our moral system on money?

If we go with standard death penalty, then the economic part won't work either. It has a negative effect on the economy, because its much more expensive.

If we are talking about democracy, then society.

I mean morals are changing as we get more and more knowledge about stuff. A lot of past morals are hinging upon outdated knowledge.

But this argument is very vague. What does he mean by quality of life? Also if he really wants a developed country, then why would he be so fixated on groups, and not on individuals? Every group of people have developed and underdeveloped people ,so why focus on groups and races, when development is not inherent or exclusive to races? Why would you assume that white European's are exceptional compared to other people? This whole idea and ideology is based on a big assumption ,that haven't been proven yet, just assumed. I would like to hear an ability or trait that is exclusive to white Europeans, that contributes to their supposed superiority, and what no other race or group of people have. This is another thing that needs to be established and not just assumed. Yeah men and women are different but thats not necessarily indicates that man is more capable to understand and to run a country, that part needs to be established with reasoning and arguments. What is an inherent benefit to dictatorship, that couldn't be achieved with democracy otherwise?

Do you prefer authorianism, if your answer is yes, why?

Imo most imprisoned people are already jacked when they go there, and also most people there, are bored and they don't have much things to do , so they start to train, because it can build their survival rate there.

Thats not the case imo, the current point is to try to serve justice, but the current system has some holes in it , so the justice service is not perfect at all. If what you say would be the reason why we imprison people, then prisons would be vastly different, they would be similar to a Scandinavian prison, because statistically people there coming out as a better person and as a more well person who can function in society better. - So one could argue that they learn their lesson there better.

Do you have the exact same take as Leo or your view a little bit differ from it?

Now thats a completely different viewpoint, and I think thats a more reasonable principle to build from.

Yeah but that position's logical extension, is that we need to kill everyone, because then no one will be capable to suffer anymore. Optimizing everything and using the prevention of suffering as a main rule could lead to absurd conclusions. There needs to be other principles that can overwrite the 'ending of a living creatures suffering'.

Okay I Will clarify my position. I don't agree with Nick's values and takes.

Thats exactly why we shouldn't sentence in an easy going way without doing the necessary investigation(s) first.

I was being sarcastic.

Its not about not being able to stomach these things, its more about thinking this issue through multiple perspectives and seeing all the problems and ramifications in each and every argument. If you do that, then I think you would agree, that in current times (not in an utopistic world) death penalty is worse than life imprisonment. Just because something is edgy and hard to stomach doesn't necessarily indicates, that thats the right thing from all the alternative choices. I agree that even the most ridiculous option should be ideally thought through to get a more holistic view on things, but I think if the edgy option is worse than a different alternative one, then we need to be honest and choose the best from all the alternatives.