Lindsay Clancy -Mother of 3 kills her kids during psychotic episode

[Hayato]

The idea that if you kill bad people crime will be reduced or solved is very materialistic.

A couple of things could be taken into consideration.

A person is not his physical body. Destroying the physical body does not destroy the person.

There is no such thing as death. According to some spiritual literature the person after death does not become an angel, he is the same psychologically as when he was in the body. After his physical life has been cut short, he is filled with anger and revenge, because of it and influences vulnerable people to commit crimes.

Imagine a glass vial with a poisonous gas in it. By destroying the vial you do not destroy the gas, you release it and the gas can hurt a lot of people.

A much better option is to isolate the convict and give him physical work to keep him occupied, instead of executing him.

If murder solved anything we would be living in paradise by now.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Basman said:

With a high enough bar for evidence you should be able to determine guilt for capital. There's no doubt about Breiviks guilt, or the Columbine shooters, or Shoko Ashara (who did get capital) or various other murderers. Why do you act like there's any doubt that they didn't kill/injure 100s?

I asked you what the standard of evidence should be, but you didn't answer. I think you can't give any specifics, only a vague idea or ad hoc examples. If you don't have a specific objection or amendment to current standards of evidence, we would have to go with those current standards for what a realistic implementation would look like, and the wrongful conviction numbers for those are abysmal (apparently for every 9 people executed, 1 person is exonerated from the death row in the US).

But my bet is that even if you have some implementable incredibly high standard of evidence, the nature of law, the nature of the universe is such, that over enough stretches of time, you will get mistakes, you will get an imperfect picture, and you will of course get corruption, no matter how Scandinavian-ly brain damaged you want to be (corruption exists there too). And there isn't just an issue of determining whether something happened. It's determining whether they should deserve the death penalty for it, which itself can be an issue of contention (as seen in the Nathaniel Woods case in the video above).

Nevertheless, again, over far enough stretches of time (and with finite knowledge), I think you will end up with wrongful convictions (you could probably create an extension of Hume's problem of induction to argue for this). And then you are left with the inevitable conundrum of killing innocent people in order to simply induce an incremental feeling of justice for someone who may support the death penalty and perhaps some victims who are more likely to also support it in that case. And that conundrum presents the issue of creating the same kind of victims in order to soothe some other victims for those exact same crimes or simply bystanders, which is itself a self-perpetuating and self-defeating game.

Edited 10 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Schizophonia]

16 hours ago, Scholar said:

You are giving descriptive claims. Humans also evolved empathy and don't want defenseless people to get executed if they reach a certain level of development, that has nothing to do with ethical consistency. If you are going to be descriptive, everything that ever did exist and will exist has a cause and therefore is justified as it is, including the resistance towards the death penalty and all the arguments resulting from that.

 

You used animals as an example for the hypocrisy of humans in relation to propositional ethical systems. I pointed out to you that you used unethical behavior towards animals to justify unethical behavior towards humans.

Once again ethic is purely subjective; it's what you have absorbed from your upbringing, and it is so deeply ingrained in the subconscious that you are convinced it has an objective dimension.

But it isn't because otherwise, where would you find it? In the clouds, written in big letters between two constellations? No it’s just a story in your head.

I am in favor of the death penalty because it would help relieve prison overcrowding and prevent taxpayers from paying to support murderers.

Quote

You could have, instead, recognized that the behavior towards humans is unethical, therefore the behavior towards animals is equally unjustified. 

No because i dont care about killing a criminal or killing an animal to eat it and I have no desire to worry about it; that's not in my nature and it would be emasculating.

Quote

Under your view, if humans did not have a disinclination towards cannibalism, it would be perfectly ethical to do exactly as I described in my prior hypothetical.

Yes of course; because once again "fine" is simply an autorisation from your superego which you objectify out of a lack of awareness.

Slavery used to be considered normal, then with the evolution of the means of production it became obsolete and even dangerous because slaves tended to kill their owners and put their heads on pikes if they weren't treated well enough.
Centuries later, these reasons have permeated the collective unconscious and by extension your own so if you are asked why slavery doesn't exist, you will talk about "ethics."

Humans have a particular need for one another so cannibalism is rare, though it is still considered normal in certain tribe just as in the Far East cats and dogs are viewed less as pets and more as animals to be eaten.

Quote

By this logic if we lobotimize the subhuman class of individuals who become our milk-providers and we do the exact same thing to them, that wouldn't constitute rape or sexual exploitation. It would simply be reproduction, it just takes a few seconds after all.

 

Yes. Once again it’s nothing compared to plenty of other things in life; you are projecting your lack of resilience.

Vegans tend to be prone to depression and are therefore more likely to conclude (project) that the lives of farm animals are not worth living.

Edited 8 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Schizophonia]

3 hours ago, Hayato said:

The idea that if you kill bad people crime will be reduced or solved is very materialistic.

A couple of things could be taken into consideration.

A person is not his physical body. Destroying the physical body does not destroy the person.

There is no such thing as death. According to some spiritual literature the person after death does not become an angel, he is the same psychologically as when he was in the body. After his physical life has been cut short, he is filled with anger and revenge, because of it and influences vulnerable people to commit crimes.

Imagine a glass vial with a poisonous gas in it. By destroying the vial you do not destroy the gas, you release it and the gas can hurt a lot of people.

A much better option is to isolate the convict and give him physical work to keep him occupied, instead of executing him.

If murder solved anything we would be living in paradise by now.

Bukele has fixed his country's security situation through zero tolerance.

[Schizophonia]

13 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Using how we treat animals (as if it's grounded in some philosophically aware inquiry and conscious decision and not simply thousands of years of bronze age cultural manufacturing) as a standard for how we should treat humans, is more philosophically tone deaf than judging the soundness of metaphysical materialism based on the fact that probably most people in society seem to somewhat hold it.

The choice tacitly presented was between the consistent option of sparing both animals and criminals, and that of sparing no one (in absolute terms—though there are nuances, of course).

I chose the second option; it is a choice that is hard to debate because at its core it essentially comes down to a matter of personal preference.

[Basman]

5 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

I asked you what the standard of evidence should be, but you didn't answer. I think you can't give any specifics, only a vague idea or ad hoc examples. If you don't have a specific objection or amendment to current standards of evidence, we would have to go with those current standards for what a realistic implementation would look like, and the wrongful conviction numbers for those are abysmal (apparently for every 9 people executed, 1 person is exonerated from the death row in the US).

But my bet is that even if you have some implementable incredibly high standard of evidence, the nature of law, the nature of the universe is such, that over enough stretches of time, you will get mistakes, you will get an imperfect picture, and you will of course get corruption, no matter how Scandinavian-ly brain damaged you want to be (corruption exists there too). And there isn't just an issue of determining whether something happened. It's determining whether they should deserve the death penalty for it, which itself can be an issue of contention (as seen in the Nathaniel Woods case in the video above).

Nevertheless, again, over far enough stretches of time (and with finite knowledge), I think you will end up with wrongful convictions (you could probably create an extension of Hume's problem of induction to argue for this). And then you are left with the inevitable conundrum of killing innocent people in order to simply induce an incremental feeling of justice for someone who may support the death penalty and perhaps some victims who are more likely to also support it in that case. And that conundrum presents the issue of creating the same kind of victims in order to soothe some other victims for those exact same crimes or simply bystanders, which is itself a self-perpetuating and self-defeating game.

Whole ass of question begging. I gave you a reasonable common sense standard. I'm not repeating myself again. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Basman

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

Whole ass of question begging. I gave you a reasonable common sense standard. I'm not repeating myself again. 

"Common sense" does not hold up in court. "Breivik" is not very specific. You could give something like a statute or type of evidence. Or are you suggesting to build the entire dealth penalty framework on case law?