Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
-
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6464
- Joined: 2007-09-14 11:46pm
- Location: SoCal
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Re-read it for comprehension. Point taken.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
I sorta get your point, so killing the Nazis was immoral but a necessary evil?My personal view on this is that taking a human life is always immoral, no matter the circumstances. Taking a human life should be discussed more on the grounds of practicality, rather than those of morality, that is, discussing when there's no better choice but to take a life, rather than if it is morally right to do so.
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
I actually deal with this indirectly in my prior posts in this thread, so when I reference them, I urge you to back and take a look at them.
Why? You have not justified the irrationality of this proposition at all.McC wrote: This, to me, is particularly completely irrational.
Why? It makes a good amount of sense if your goal is to maximize utility. (see above)That society is asked to support this individual is absurd.
WHat human rights? I always love how rights theorists assume that the notion of Rights is some sort of first principle that is so obvious they need not defend, when it is in fact very highly derived. From whence cometh these rights, and even if one were not "human" as you put it, why do they not apply?I extend this line of thinking to long/life imprisonment, as well. Society should not be called upon to uphold an individual guilty of wronging it in such a fashion. If you commit a heinous crime, you've waived your status as human, and therefore your entitlement to human rights.
You are a monster. Congrats.For individuals meeting this qualifier, I have a simple solution: pit fights. No, I'm not kidding.
And now you need to be placed in a padded cell. Who in their right mind would advertize, or want to watch such cruelty?Commercially-sponsored pit fights, broadcast on TV like sporting events, would attract immense audiences and prove highly profitable to advertisers. I suspect it would outshine the Superbowl for amount of money invested for ad placement.
This is so patently evil, that it does not even warrant a response. A group of people willing to engage in this level of cruelty is just as bad as the people they are torturing to death.Accepted combatants would be all those convicted of heinous crimes, released into an arena with the directive to kill the opponent. Weapons may or may not be present, depending on the level of security available. Last man standing gets to live to see the next pit fight. Under no circumstances should any eligible fighter receive any amount of care, be it basic (i.e. food, clothing, shelter) or medical (i.e. first aid), except that which is deemed necessary to get them to the next fight.
Guess what you sick, sadistic sack of human trash, staged animal fights are also illegal and considered unethical throughout the civilized world. Go do everyone a favor and rid yourself from the gene pool. Your existence is a crime against humanity, you sociopathic parasite upon human kindness.Is it barbaric? Sure. Is it morally repugnant? I would argue that, at worst, it's on par with staged animal fights. These people aren't human anymore, stop treating them as if they're somehow sacred, rather than sacks of meat.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Oh, Alyrium, you're so cute and predictable.
As for the rest of your rage-driven bile, I prefaced the post with as many disclaimers as seemed necessary. The fundamental line running through the idea is that these people are completely irredeemable and there is no ambiguity as to their guilt. Both of these absolute concepts are utter trash in the real world, but the premise of the thread is posing a what-if question, so I responded with a what-if answer. If you want to go off the deep end and assume that I would ever posit such a system in the real world, you go right ahead. I'll be over here, chuckling at the absurdity.
Quite so, which is why I mention that the morality of criminal fights would be on par. I did not delve into the morality of that kind of staged fight. I completely agree that such forced fights are outrageously inhumane where animals are concerned.Alyrium Denryle wrote:staged animal fights are also illegal and considered unethical throughout the civilized world.
As for the rest of your rage-driven bile, I prefaced the post with as many disclaimers as seemed necessary. The fundamental line running through the idea is that these people are completely irredeemable and there is no ambiguity as to their guilt. Both of these absolute concepts are utter trash in the real world, but the premise of the thread is posing a what-if question, so I responded with a what-if answer. If you want to go off the deep end and assume that I would ever posit such a system in the real world, you go right ahead. I'll be over here, chuckling at the absurdity.
-Ryan McClure-
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
And the "what if" answer itself is inherently unethical. Even if we had a perfect criminal justice system, and even if we are dealing with a prison population consisting of Jeffrey Dahmer clones, your proposal still reeks of sadistic crap which you have not bothered to justify.
As for the rest of your rage-driven bile, I prefaced the post with as many disclaimers as seemed necessary. The fundamental line running through the idea is that these people are completely irredeemable and there is no ambiguity as to their guilt. Both of these absolute concepts are utter trash in the real world, but the premise of the thread is posing a what-if question, so I responded with a what-if answer. If you want to go off the deep end and assume that I would ever posit such a system in the real world, you go right ahead. I'll be over here, chuckling at the absurdity.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
For the sake of argument, let's assume that utilitarianism is your ethical system of choice. The guiding principle of utilitarianism, according to wikipedia, is "the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons." I'll go from abstract concepts to specific concepts.Alyrium Denryle wrote:And the "what if" answer itself is inherently unethical. Even if we had a perfect criminal justice system, and even if we are dealing with a prison population consisting of Jeffrey Dahmer clones, your proposal still reeks of sadistic crap which you have not bothered to justify.
- Removal of a irredeemable individual from society
- Ethical Utility
- Benefits: society
- Harms: individual, (potentially) friends of individual
- Net: Benefit (ethical)
- Conclusion: It is ethical to remove irredeemable individuals from society.
- Ethical Utility
- Incarceration of individual at society's expense
- Ethical Utility
- Benefits: society (removes individual from society)
- Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility), individual (forced incarceration)
- Net: Harm (unethical)
- Conclusion: It is unethical to incarcerate an individual at society's expense
- Ethical Utility
- Euthanizing of individual after an indeterminate period of incarceration at society's expense
- Ethical Utility
- Benefits: society (removes individual from society), individual (death is quick and painless)
- Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility, euthanasia chemicals), individual (forced incarceration, death)
- Net: Neutral
- Conclusion: It is neither ethical nor unethical to euthanize an irredeemable individual
- Ethical Utility
Now for my "proposal"
- Irredeemable individuals are pitted against one another in fights to the death while the combat is broadcast as a spectator sport, sponsored by commercial entities
- Ethical Utility
- Benefits: society (removes individual from society, tax refund), commercial entities (advertising time), economic entities (potential for new jobs)
- Indeterminate: society (questionable psychological impact of viewing), commercial entities (potential backlash for supporting the event)*
- Harms: individual(s) (psychological trauma, fighting to the death, etc.), commercial entities (cost of advertising)
- Net: Benefit (ethical)
- Conclusion: It is ethical to broadcast pit fights between irredeemable individuals in the interest of financial gain
- Ethical Utility
As a further caveat, I know I'm distilling utilitarianism as a philosophy down to ridiculous levels. I wanted a quick litmus-test version, though. Negative Utilitarianism is probably a better philosophical measure (or at least, more biased towards the individual in this case) overall. Do with it what you will. I'm not out to convince anyone of the "rightness" of this idea and don't particularly care to spend anymore time "justifying" something so patently absurd for so many reasons.
-Ryan McClure-
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist
Scaper - Browncoat - Warsie (semi-movie purist) - Colonial - TNG/DS9-era Trekker - Hero || BOTM - Maniac || Antireligious naturalist
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
First off your weighing of utility needs work. Second, utilitarianism is a maximization function. It is not enough that something have a positive balance of pleasure vs pain. It is required that the chosen action maximize utility, or have the Most Positive value.
Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.
This leads to your conclusion being incorrect.
Had you bothered reading the thread, I actually went into this exact scenario. Why? Because I am a utilitarian.
Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.
What happens when we assume things?
The rest of that section is dealt with above as well.
Might there be some economic benefit? Sure. But because Utilitarianism requires utility maximization, and that economic benefit can be had elsewhere to less detrimental effect, your proposal is rendered unethical.
This is incorrect. Your argument implicitly assumes that the money gets thrown into a money pit such that it never re-enters circulation or sees the light of day again. This is not true. When looking at the marginal utility of incarceration, no individual actually suffers for it because the per capita costs of incarcerating criminals is negligible. Moreover, the prisons employ people, recirculating the costs into the economy in demand-side fashion. Mmm Tasty Tasty Liquidity. In the end, you harm the criminal and their family less than the other alternative (death penalty) the societal costs are roughly the same (as the prison system is pretty much a fixed cost anyway that does not scale linearly with the number of prisoners in prison at any one time and the number of people that commit death penalty crimes are a small fraction of the prison population)Incarceration of individual at society's expense
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society)
+ Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility), individual (forced incarceration)
+ Net: Harm (unethical)
o Conclusion: It is unethical to incarcerate an individual at society's expense
Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.
This leads to your conclusion being incorrect.
Had you bothered reading the thread, I actually went into this exact scenario. Why? Because I am a utilitarian.
See above section about the faulty assumption that leads to your faulty conclusion.* Euthanizing of individual after an indeterminate period of incarceration at society's expense
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society), individual (death is quick and painless)
+ Harms: society (decrease of societal resources to maintain facility, euthanasia chemicals), individual (forced incarceration, death)
+ Net: Neutral
o Conclusion: It is neither ethical nor unethical to euthanize an irredeemable individual
Moreover, you assume that benefit and harm are was. IE that the individual in society is harmed in equal proportion to the person being killed. This is patently ridiculous.
What happens when we assume things?
The rest of that section is dealt with above as well.
Your indeterminate part is bullshit. Having televised death-matches is certainly going to have harmful secondary effects. As will backlash. Why? Because do not live in ancient Rome. There will be psychological trauma to people that watch that shit, and clean up after it. Study after study have shown that people do not actually respond well to horrific violence.* Irredeemable individuals are pitted against one another in fights to the death while the combat is broadcast as a spectator sport, sponsored by commercial entities
o Ethical Utility
+ Benefits: society (removes individual from society, tax refund), commercial entities (advertising time), economic entities (potential for new jobs)
+ Indeterminate: society (questionable psychological impact of viewing), commercial entities (potential backlash for supporting the event)*
+ Harms: individual(s) (psychological trauma, fighting to the death, etc.), commercial entities (cost of advertising)
+ Net: Benefit (ethical)
o Conclusion: It is ethical to broadcast pit fights between irredeemable individuals in the interest of financial gain
Might there be some economic benefit? Sure. But because Utilitarianism requires utility maximization, and that economic benefit can be had elsewhere to less detrimental effect, your proposal is rendered unethical.
Then you should not have made a proposal you could not defend, shitbrick.Personally, I think most of this country would find such a spectacle appealing rather than revolting. This is based on naught but anecdotal evidence, so any requests to back it up will be met with a hearty "f u dummy" -- I don't know, and no survey has been conducted, so I can't say with any measure of certainty.
Actually you didnt even do that. You bastardized and raped it. Jeremy Bentham would be rolling in his grave.As a further caveat, I know I'm distilling utilitarianism as a philosophy down to ridiculous levels.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employmentBroomstick wrote:You do not mention the increased utility brought about by the employment of people needed to build and maintain said prison. A certain number of people derive their livelihood from working as prison guards and support staff. So while there is a certain drain on resources in housing prisoners there is a return to the economy when prison staff buy food, housing, and other items with their paychecks.Alyrium Denryle wrote:Also: the cost to society of maintaining the criminal is probably not sufficiently high to justify the harm done to them and their families from the standpoint of a utilitarian ethical system. Argument from marginal utility. It costs a few thousands of dollars (the max I think I have ever seen was 30k) per year to maintain a lifer. I am not sure how those figures are calculated, but I would hazard most of those are fixed costs and related to maintaining the prison itself (IE. the only costs involved with the prisoner an sich is food and other disposables and per year that does not tally to 30k.) spread out over the political body which has jurisdiction (the state we shall assume) the marginal loss in utility is minuscule.
No. In 1984 they only watched less than 20% of the society and intemitantly. I want 100% in public locations.Not to derail the thread any, but... what? Do you mean that you support a Big Brother state, and that somehow the cost of capital punishment is an argument in favor of said state? I'm trying to see where you are coming from here, because I certainly don't subscribe to your philosophy if that is the case. IMO, we have enough problems with state abuse already without opening that particular can of worms.
The argument in favor is all criminal cases, not just capital crimes. It becomes insanely har to commit crimes if the police can just look it up. If we get sophisticated enough AIs, we can catch people in the act. Next- ID chips.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_ManIf I may ask that you elaborate? I am unfamiliar with that method.
The story is about unintended consequences (making misdeminors capital crimes), but people have a viseral fear of being organ harvested. Could be wrong about that though.
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Oh, and a red herring to!Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.Alyrium Denryle wrote:What a wonderful strawman you have constructed. Oh, and a red herring to!Maybe we should just break windows so that the window manufactors have more employment
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.
Of course in economic terms, the proverbial window will break. Therefore you need to have someone there to fix broken windows. You may not be creating wealth, but you are serving a useful function and creating demand (via employment) for other goods and services which do.
Last edited by Alyrium Denryle on 2009-01-28 07:56pm, edited 1 time in total.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Except that assumes that the given individuals would not get jobs otherwise. In the case of prison guards, we are taking them away from other vocations hence lowering utility for society. It is a net utility cost for society as well, not to mention occasionally for the prison guards.Alyrium Denryle wrote:In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Edited my above post with this argument for the sake of post-count-economy. However...Samuel wrote:Except that assumes that the given individuals would not get jobs otherwise. In the case of prison guards, we are taking them away from other vocations hence lowering utility for society. It is a net utility cost for society as well, not to mention occasionally for the prison guards.Alyrium Denryle wrote:In terms of utility it is no different from any other job. That was the point she was making. We were not discussion economic theory, but Utilitarianism.Except it isn't. Broomstick was saying that putting people in prison is good because it leads to more jobs. Prison guards are a net loss to society- just like breaking windows to ensure people can have more jobs which benefits individuals but is also a net loss to society. This is basic economic theory.
You are equating economic utility, with ethical utility. The two are different things. See above for the rest.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
- Formless
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
- Location: the beginning and end of the Present
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?No. In 1984 they only watched less than 20% of the society and intemitantly. I want 100% in public locations.
The argument in favor is all criminal cases, not just capital crimes. It becomes insanely har to commit crimes if the police can just look it up. If we get sophisticated enough AIs, we can catch people in the act. Next- ID chips.
Granted, if the information were allowed to be free (I.E. allow the populace to see surveillance recordings as well in cases of police abuse of power etc.), then the system would be more fair. But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.
And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden? Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.
And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race? Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.
The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.
Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
I am aware they are different. However, when possible we try to maximize economic utility as well because it has ethical utility. Guarding prisoners has no gain in economic utility- however, even building a bridge to nowhere has an ethical utility gain as people stand to benefit from it and it makes their lives easier.Edited my above post with this argument for the sake of post-count-economy. However...
You are equating economic utility, with ethical utility. The two are different things. See above for the rest.
Except you are counting it as a boon. If you kill the prisoners, you can still employ the guards, so you count count their employment as a benefit of life-long imprisonment.Of course in economic terms, the proverbial window will break. Therefore you need to have someone there to fix broken windows. You may not be creating wealth, but you are serving a useful function and creating demand (via employment) for other goods and services which do.
As opposed to simply infiltrating opposition organizations with FBI agents or driving dissidents out of the country? We can already do that- this just makes it easier.And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?
The ultimate power is life and death, not information.The government ALREADY has that power as by definition a government is a body that has the exclusive right to force in an area.But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.
Correct.And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden?
I'm pretty sure privacy has no utility value while being free from fear does. As it is, why should you be worried that the government can see you on dates, shopping or the like? If reality TV has shown us anything, it is that people are amazingly unconcerned sharing this with millions of strangers.Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.
The same could be said for any other agenda. Do you have a point?And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race?
That and the fact that the drugs black men use have higher sentances than the ones white guys use. But even with lower poverty, crime will remain. In fact, crime helps contribute to poverty- stores in poor neighborhoods have to charge higher prices to cover for theft.Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.
We do both, duh! See: geoengineering.The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.
Because being safe and secure has a high utility value and this goes a long way to achieving that.Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.
- Akkleptos
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 643
- Joined: 2008-12-17 02:14am
- Location: Between grenades and H1N1.
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Firstly, I just want to point out that many of the arguments against the death penalty I've seen here are seriously flawed because of one simple thing: considering all human lives to have an equal intrinsical value, when the lives of murderers, child abusers, et al are clearly NOT worth the same as the lives of good doctors, children with a future to look forwards to, struggling hardworking single parents, et al. So, yes, irredeeemable criminals are still human, but it doesn't follow that their lives are worth exactly the same as those of valuable members of society. Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a dispute over a traffic accident resolved irrefutably via consulting the adequate street camera video log.
As seen in, um, The Running Man?Alyrium Denryle wrote:Your indeterminate part is bullshit. Having televised death-matches is certainly going to have harmful secondary effects. As will backlash. Why? Because do not live in ancient Rome. There will be psychological trauma to people that watch that shit, and clean up after it. Study after study have shown that people do not actually respond well to horrific violence.
I don't see how that could be such a big deal, unless you're planning on burying a murder victim in your garden, or rape your date, or buying illegal porno, etc.Formless wrote:And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden? Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.
Personally, I wouldn't mind having a dispute over a traffic accident resolved irrefutably via consulting the adequate street camera video log.
Life in Commodore 64:
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
Don't like what I'm saying?
Take it up with my representative:
Take it up with my representative:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Pretty much, yeah. My point is that, regardless of how necessary putting someone down might be, the act of taking a life cannot ever be seen as something morally acceptable. Since the OP was about the morality of the death penalty, my opinion is that it is inherently immoral, but in certain situations, necessary, hence my point that it should be discussed due to its necessity rather than it's morality.hongi wrote:I sorta get your point, so killing the Nazis was immoral but a necessary evil?My personal view on this is that taking a human life is always immoral, no matter the circumstances. Taking a human life should be discussed more on the grounds of practicality, rather than those of morality, that is, discussing when there's no better choice but to take a life, rather than if it is morally right to do so.
No matter how you try to twist it, killing is wrong, and this wrongness is one of the basic tennets of human society, that's why it is one of the most heinous crimes. Even a soldier killing an oppossing soldier is doing something morally wrong, regardless of how necessary it was.
In fact, many of the posters on this thread are discussing about how practical it would be to abolish the death penalty in certain cases, even though morality and practicallity get a bit mixed up in some of the posts.
Am I implying that the justice system is immoral? Actually, I'm suggesting that the justice system should be amoral.
unsigned
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
If I were a deontologist you might have a point. But suffering is suffering no matter where it comes from. So against my argument, you dont. Unless I want to delve back into the deontological argument against the death penalty derived from philosophical naturalism... And even then you dont have a point against my argument.Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.
Certainly economic utility has an ethical utility, but in this case the marginal cost is minuscule (really equivalent to the initial damage of the crime...)I am aware they are different. However, when possible we try to maximize economic utility as well because it has ethical utility. Guarding prisoners has no gain in economic utility- however, even building a bridge to nowhere has an ethical utility gain as people stand to benefit from it and it makes their lives easier.
The point at the very least is that it is not a harm to employ them in that manner vs other forms of employment. The harm done by maintaining prisoners ("draining society") is negated by the fact that the money goes back into the system. So barring the crimes never having been committed in the first place (analogous to the baseball not having hit the proverbial window), not killing said prisoners is the best option.Except you are counting it as a boon. If you kill the prisoners, you can still employ the guards, so you count count their employment as a benefit of life-long imprisonment.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Are we talking about the same thing? I was objecting to you find it as a benefit to that option compared to other options.Certainly economic utility has an ethical utility, but in this case the marginal cost is minuscule (really equivalent to the initial damage of the crime...)
Work-hours and cash are two different things.The harm done by maintaining prisoners ("draining society") is negated by the fact that the money goes back into the system.
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
When you compare it to other options, on analysis, the drain to society from supporting the criminals is canceled out by the paying of monies to others. It is a transfer payment. If you dont support them, the same people get employed elsewhere and are still paid. It neutralizes.Are we talking about the same thing? I was objecting to you find it as a benefit to that option compared to other options.
This leaves only the suffering of the criminal as something to consider.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
It's better to think in terms of rule rather than act utilitarianism. The act may reduce utility overall, but the having the (enforced) rule in place gives enough utility to outweigh performing the act. If in fact having capital punishment deters crime, then the utility to society gained from the deterrent is greater than the utility lost by the murderer's family and friends.
That of course, depends on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, of course. My personal support for capital punishment when guilt is assured is much less rational. Sometimes, I read a description of a crime and think, "I hope hell exists, so this fucker can burn."
That of course, depends on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, of course. My personal support for capital punishment when guilt is assured is much less rational. Sometimes, I read a description of a crime and think, "I hope hell exists, so this fucker can burn."
- Alyrium Denryle
- Minister of Sin
- Posts: 22224
- Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
- Location: The Deep Desert
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Rule utilitarianism is extensionally equivalent to act utilitarianism.Ericxihn wrote:It's better to think in terms of rule rather than act utilitarianism. The act may reduce utility overall, but the having the (enforced) rule in place gives enough utility to outweigh performing the act. If in fact having capital punishment deters crime, then the utility to society gained from the deterrent is greater than the utility lost by the murderer's family and friends.
That of course, depends on whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent, of course. My personal support for capital punishment when guilt is assured is much less rational. Sometimes, I read a description of a crime and think, "I hope hell exists, so this fucker can burn."
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Factio republicanum delenda est
- Formless
- Sith Marauder
- Posts: 4142
- Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
- Location: the beginning and end of the Present
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
Irrelevant. I'm talking about the potential for abuse, not what we already do to enforce our laws.Samuel wrote:As opposed to simply infiltrating opposition organizations with FBI agents or driving dissidents out of the country? We can already do that- this just makes it easier.And you don't understand the potential for abuse in this system because...?
Irrelevant. They are still held accountable when they misuse that power, which is the concern I was citing. History suggests that if you let a government have too much power over you, the government tends to misuse it. Does the phrase "secret police" ring any bells? Or the phrase "who guards the guards?"The ultimate power is life and death, not information.The government ALREADY has that power as by definition a government is a body that has the exclusive right to force in an area.But as it is you are giving the government the ultimate power to enforce its agenda, even if said agenda isn't necessarily lawful or ethical. And don't tell me that that can't happen, there are too many historical precedents of totalitarian governments doing similar things to throw out the possibility.
Besides, as this thread has shown, the government only has the right to kill in limited circumstances.
And why, exactly, does the government have that right?Correct.And that isn't taking into account privacy laws. Yes, you did say public spaces, but at what point do you cross the line? Should my front porch be considered a public space, so the government can watch me water my garden?
Being free from fear? You know who else used that rational for breaking privacy laws, right? (not to mention a whole slew of other offenses) I'm not like those people morons on "reality" tv. I'm much more paranoid.I'm pretty sure privacy has no utility value while being free from fear does. As it is, why should you be worried that the government can see you on dates, shopping or the like? If reality TV has shown us anything, it is that people are amazingly unconcerned sharing this with millions of strangers.Does the utility/benefit of having any and all crimes recorded outweigh the social concerns of being spied on whenever you are out of the house? Like, how many people are going to be comfortable going on dates, buying entertainment, doing whatever when the government can see what you are doing at all times? Privacy extends outside your home, after all.
Say I am planning on doing something that breaks taboo, but otherwise is neither against the law nor unethical. Say for sake of argument that I am gay (though I am not) and am going to come home with my husband. Remembering that the concern is with the potential for abuse and government corruption, they now know that I am gay and can use that information to oppress me. They would not be able to do that without that information. This may not be a reality right now, but it is a possibility that you would introduce.
That your plan would be ungodly expensive when the money could be far better spent. Priorities, in other words. Yours suck.The same could be said for any other agenda. Do you have a point?And, really, what is the point in expending all these resources on creating a Digital Nanny state anyway when the same resources can be put to better use getting rid of poverty, fixing the environment, putting people into space, and damn well every other thing that is high on the agenda for the human race?
Irrelevant. Crime may remain, but at a reduced rate. Since reducing poverty is a noteworthy goal itself, your money is better used getting rid of poverty than putting cameras on every street corner. Your solution merely means more convictions. My way actually reduces crimes. After all, even with universal surveillance of public places, crime will still happen too. We both know there are people stupid/desperate enough to try it.That and the fact that the drugs black men use have higher sentances than the ones white guys use. But even with lower poverty, crime will remain. In fact, crime helps contribute to poverty- stores in poor neighborhoods have to charge higher prices to cover for theft.Especially poverty, since crime is mostly an expression of social ills created by it? There is a reason the majority of convicts are from poor backgrounds, after all. A reason black people are disproportionately represented in the American prison system.
Assuming that we have the money to do both. Do you understand how expensive your solution would be? Not only do you have to install and maintenance your cameras and other surveillance equipment, you also have to pay people to watch it for crimes. That does not leave much money for more fruitful or necessary projects.We do both, duh! See: geoengineering.The problem with your "perfect solution to crime", as I see it, is that you are trying to attack the outcome of the problem rather than the root of it, thinking that a high tech brute force solution will solve all ills when it creates problems as well.
At the expense of the populations privacy and security from totalitarian movements in your government. Why must we assume that the government wants the best for all its citizens at all times?Because being safe and secure has a high utility value and this goes a long way to achieving that.Please, tell me how this is a good idea. I really want to hear it.
That was a bad example on my part. See the one above (the "if I were gay" argument). Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government? They can now identify you at will, and oppress you at their leisure. I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place. I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.Akkleptos wrote:I don't see how that could be such a big deal, unless you're planning on burying a murder victim in your garden, or rape your date, or buying illegal porno, etc.
Frankly, this proposal reminds one of the "bear patrol" from the Simpsons. Stew on that for a second.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
They can already abuse power and get the same results- aren't you aware that the FBI infiltrated many "subversive" organizations? Not just the KKK, but antiwar movements and the like. All this will do is make their job easier- it doesn't give them the power to start arbitrarily arresting people.Irrelevant. I'm talking about the potential for abuse, not what we already do to enforce our laws.
What power? I haven't given the government any more power than they already have except with ID chips.Irrelevant. They are still held accountable when they misuse that power, which is the concern I was citing. History suggests that if you let a government have too much power over you, the government tends to misuse it. Does the phrase "secret police" ring any bells? Or the phrase "who guards the guards?"
Secret Police are for political crimes which I haven't suggested.
Who guars the guards refers to the abuse of power. Great, what power?
No, the thread was about morality of the death penalty.Besides, as this thread has shown, the government only has the right to kill in limited circumstances.
Because that presumes that individuals have a right to privacy. They don't.And why, exactly, does the government have that right?
FDR. Great- however, we don't base laws on your personal desires, but the groups. And as a group people get acclimated to being watched very easily, even when it is an actual human being. A camera is even easier. Or do you notice everytime you enter a 7/11?Being free from fear? You know who else used that rational for breaking privacy laws, right? (not to mention a whole slew of other offenses) I'm not like those people morons on "reality" tv. I'm much more paranoid.
I wanted to put cameras in homes... where? Strawman. As it is, how do you think the government arrested people for sodomy back in the day?Say I am planning on doing something that breaks taboo, but otherwise is neither against the law nor unethical. Say for sake of argument that I am gay (though I am not) and am going to come home with my husband. Remembering that the concern is with the potential for abuse and government corruption, they now know that I am gay and can use that information to oppress me. They would not be able to do that without that information. This may not be a reality right now, but it is a possibility that you would introduce.
Which is why the English have managed to partially adopt it, right?That your plan would be ungodly expensive when the money could be far better spent. Priorities, in other words. Yours suck.
So if a person knows they will be caught, they commit crimes anyway? Right... criminals are that stupid you know.Your solution merely means more convictions.
Yeah it will happen- once for each case, not again and again.After all, even with universal surveillance of public places, crime will still happen too. We both know there are people stupid/desperate enough to try it.
Well, aside from making programs to search through the files, you could just look them up when crimes occur.Not only do you have to install and maintenance your cameras and other surveillance equipment, you also have to pay people to watch it for crimes.
Being a member of the Nazi party or communists isn't illegal in the US.At the expense of the populations privacy and security from totalitarian movements in your government. Why must we assume that the government wants the best for all its citizens at all times?
As for assuming the best, I'm not. I just believe the police have a vested interest in reducing the crime rate.
Than they get you with an informant and you get tortured.Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government?
... the crime rate where I live is significantly greater than 0%. We had over 100 murders here last year.I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place.
Show how this makes things possible that can't occur normally. It just makes survillence easier.I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.
You watch that show too much?Frankly, this proposal reminds one of the "bear patrol" from the Simpsons. Stew on that for a second.
- Akkleptos
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 643
- Joined: 2008-12-17 02:14am
- Location: Between grenades and H1N1.
- Contact:
Re: Is the death penalty moral/ethical?
I see your point. But, in my opinion, if you live in a corrupt and totalitarian government, you're in for quite a nasty ride anyway, Orwellian surveillance or not. In the 1984 examples, the problem is that the government considers it a crime to even think against the official doctrine and the regime. You don't need a 24/7, 100% coverage of public areas for it to become a nightmare, as demonstrated by Cambodia's pretty low-tech Khmer Rouge regime, or Castro's Cuba, North Korea, the USSR... Meaning that the surveillance is not the problem, but how the regime will use it. I'm with Samuel on this one.Formless wrote:That was a bad example on my part. See the one above (the "if I were gay" argument). Or, what if you are a protester against a corrupt, totalitarian government? They can now identify you at will, and oppress you at their leisure. I'm not talking about risks coming from competent governments here, because they should have little need for such stringent measures in the first place. I'm talking about the risks of abuse this plan introduces.
On whether death penalty is moral, I think LordOskuro has a very good point we shouldn't overlook:
Once again, I come to the conclusion that the morality of it comes second to the matter of it being pratical.LordOskuro wrote:My point is that, regardless of how necessary putting someone down might be, the act of taking a life cannot ever be seen as something morally acceptable. Since the OP was about the morality of the death penalty, my opinion is that it is inherently immoral, but in certain situations, necessary, hence my point that it should be discussed due to its necessity rather than it's morality.
To the same effect:
What if the criminals are executed in a painless way? Suffering might be more or less the same (is it, really? is the suffering of the mother of a murdered child the same as the suffering of the psycho criminal that killed the same child?), but I think it's possible that both morality AND practical thinking could agree that eliminating such a vicious killer would be in society's best interest (so, moral AND practical). One could bend over backwards on the moral implications on human rights, ethics, etc., but still society would be better off without him.Akkleptos wrote:Firstly, I just want to point out that many of the arguments against the death penalty I've seen here are seriously flawed because of one simple thing: considering all human lives to have an equal intrinsical value, when the lives of murderers, child abusers, et al are clearly NOT worth the same as the lives of good doctors, children with a future to look forwards to, struggling hardworking single parents, et al. So, yes, irredeeemable criminals are still human, but it doesn't follow that their lives are worth exactly the same as those of valuable members of society. Failure to acknowledge this simple fact is terribly short-sighted, to say the least.Alyrium Denryle wrote:If I were a deontologist you might have a point. But suffering is suffering no matter where it comes from. So against my argument, you dont. Unless I want to delve back into the deontological argument against the death penalty derived from philosophical naturalism... And even then you dont have a point against my argument.
Yet again, if you don't want to execute criminals that arguably deserve it (the very issue being debated), I have to insist we take a look at the Ludovico Technique. It's what you use when all other psychological methods fail. Operant conditioning doesn't fail.
Life in Commodore 64:
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
10 OPEN "EYES",1,1
20 GET UP$:IF UP$="" THEN 20
30 GOTO BATHROOM
...
Don't like what I'm saying?
Take it up with my representative:
Take it up with my representative: