Death penalty

Remove all ads!

Following Laches and agreeing fully with him, good is not relative or changable through society. It is something constant, but hard to grasp as the physical nature of light, which is nearly impossible, I gather.

The canning in Singapore is a good example, that around the world, all societies seem to have agreements, completly independent from eachother, on the basic principles of right and wrong and punishment. Changes over time seem to be a more important factor, then "strangeness". The canning in Singapore, as far as I know, is a relict from the British Empire, which canned in its colonies till the 20th century. Maybe a need to get those subordinates in line ? On the other hand, in foreign cultures like China and Japan, theft is illegal, I guess.

And the muslim sucide bomber is a good example. As the Quaran comes from the same place, where the Bible comes from, it's not surprising, that both have the same attitude versus murder and suicide. But somehow, societies seem to have some "blackouts" sometimes. -> Desperate times scream for desperate measures. Not that I want to support Suicide-Bombers. But, it is not uncommon, in my view, that a society seems to have a giantic blackout, Germany 1933-45, home of Kant and Goethe, seems to the best example for that.

Society may be wrong, sometimes.

 

@Laches – Your “yellow” analogy is fine if you are using it to support your position that “good” is an absolute. The problem is that yellow does exist; it exists simply as our visual interpretation of a particular range of wavelength of light. The fact that different people may see this wavelength in different ways is irrelevant; the wavelength still exists as an absolute. So, if one accepts that there is an ultimate “good”, then your analogy is excellent. However, since this debate all about whether that ultimate good actually exists, your analogy falls apart because one could just as easily argue that different people view “good” in different ways because there is no absolute “good”.

As I said before, I believe that “good” and “morals” is partly a function of a society’s evaluation of its standards against those of other societies. I also think that individuals evaluate in part what is good and morally right based on how they would like to be treated – “do unto others…” While this may lead to some general agreement as to "right" vs "wrong", different people have different personal desires and standards, and therefore there are no absolutes.

 

Well, universal good would mean that some things are for all humans alike. And both examples you give, BTA, are for me indicies, that all societies share similarities and all societies try to make life better for all of them.

To kill the virgin to gain rain is rational good. If it is true, that the dead of the virgin will bring rain and that rain will save the whole society from starvation, it would make sense to kill her. One person has to die, so the rest can live.

Infact, many European nations still hold some old customs dear, which started the same way. In Zürich, we burn a puppet, when the winter ends. The way the puppet burns, tells how the summer is going to be. A burning puppet which defeats winter.

Obviously, the change comes, when the relation between dead of the virgin and rain is questioned. When the dead of the virgin does not bring rain, it does not make sense to kill her. Because her dead will not guarantee the survival of the society as a whole.

But the thinking -> We give something, then we get something (-> Virgin -> rain), can be found all over the world in every society at a certain stage. It is "good" as far as knowledge allows to perceive good.

 

Well, it would be good if we had an ethnologist here on the boards to answer that queston. My guess is, coincidence. By the way, if I am not mistaken, aztecs did have human sacrifice. Mexico, I guess they were.

So, why some humans and other only things and animals ? Coincidence I guess. If the cow was enogh, than it was enough. If the cow was answered with dryness, let's try a human. That's my explanation try, I have no knowledge but those things at all. Another version would be, after a war with neighbours, why not kill the prisoners and look what the god give. In this case, war-like tribes would have a higher chance to have human sacrifice, then tribes which do not have any war. And, I think, there is a minimum size of society necesseray, because human sacrifice needs plenty of humans. One won't be missed in a bigger society, in a small society, one human life is crucial for the whole group.

But coincidence again, I searched for explanations on human sacrifice and that's what I found: BBC:

Altuistic suicide. Dam, that word made into my word-hitlist.

 

I think we are getting to much into detail.

Could anyone please answer a simple question: Is killing a human being right or wrong?

[ June 26, 2003, 15:15: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Not at all. All you've shown is that someone is wrong. That's one of the reasons I like the color analogy, it is possible to be color blind.

Another reason I like the color analogy is that some people like different colors more than others. But, they still are capable of recognizing them and admit they exist. Another example I like is the ability of some people to tell a fine wine. I can't, to me it's all swill. Some people though can taste a wine and with accuracy tell you the age and area of origin. They can tell you the quality of the wine. They are taking an experience anyone can have, tasting wine, but they are getting from it something that not everyone is capable of.

The point of that last bit came to mind because of the whole 'rain god' talk. One society dances for rain for their crops so the people can eat. Is that good? I'd say it's not good or bad, it is possible for something not to have a moral property. Another society kills a virgin so that it will rain. Is that good or bad? Well, I'd say it is bad to kill someone like that and it was bad to kill someone like that back then too but I would also say that look why they were doing it -- for the rain so that the many others could eat and hence live. This utilitarian thought of maximizing the good seems to be present in both societies don't ya think? Seems imporant to me.

 

BTA: You failed. I wanted a simple answer. It is a very elemental question, because you can reduce this topic on a very elemental level.

Heck, the whole "Thou shalt not kill" thing is even implemented in our genes. Every higher species on earth has a stopping mechanism that prevents killing members of the same species. Humans have it, too, but our brains get mixed up in the respectable process.

EDIT: Okay, I took out the "yes or no"-stuff. I should try harder to concentrate.

[ June 26, 2003, 15:17: Message edited by: Fabius Maximus ]

 

Ai yi yi! This excuses every evil that has ever existed, since society/government has usually been at the root of large-scale evil. It forgives everything from the Spanish Inquisition, to slavery, to the Holocaust.

I calculate ethics the exact opposite way: if it's morally acceptable for an individual to do, i.e. we think that the world would benefit if all individuals under the same circumstances would act exactly the same way (this is a boiled-down version of the Kantian approach Laches referred to), then it is a morally acceptable action for a society as well.

I think this is what this thread has really come down to, and what we are arguing about at this point is whether a society has the right to do something (i.e. kill) that we don't think private individuals have the right to do. I'd say absolutely not, but there is no point someone with my point of view arguing with someone with BTA's point of view, because we're starting with such totally different assumptions and values that there is no way to resolve the difference, short of moving to different planets. And since he's in California and I'm in Canada, I'd say we've pretty much done that already.

 

@ Fabius Maximus

Your question:

How do you answer that "yes" or "no"?

 

I've been one of the only people backing you on support of the death penalty, but that statement I can't agree with. I remember a concept that I learned in a law class called universalization. Basically, it equates to the Kintian concept mentioned earlier. If everyone in society was to follow a specified course of action, would it equal an overall good or bad for the society? Whenever you consider things that are currently considered "good" in a society (such as terrorism), I'd have to say an unequivical bad.

While I still do not feel that this removes the death penalty as a means for punishing criminals, it is not because of the reasons you gave.

The death penalty is implemented to prevent the innocent citizens of a society from violent offenders. This is the nobility in the punishment. Is it morally wrong? Possibly, but it is a necessary evil. Regardless, the executed forfeited their right to life when they stole the life of another.

 

You mean Canada is an independent state and not part of the USA ?

Which makes it circular. Europeans don't need the capital punishment to achieve the same goal ? Necessary evil ?

 

OK, seems it's to time to partake of this discussion.

While I'm not an enthusiast of legally killing people, I still believe in some cases it's necessary. There are some people that need to be isolated and it's unfair to use tax money to support them. Here in Poland one prisoner costs more money than four retired people get. The choice is obvious for me... Although I would restrict death penalty to full evidence and cases of sheer thoughtless bestiality.

Example includes: a few days ago some lad from the neighbourhood went to a sport equipment shop. As he left he was approached by a few other lads of his age. They offered him some cheap mobile phone to buy or similar and he went with them. Not so far from the shop they made their goals clear: forced him to go with them to the forest and started beating him up. At some point one of the thugs opposed the further tormenting of the victim and the rest refused, saying that they had to kill him lest he could recognise them in future. However, the least malicious one told the victim to run away quickly and so he did unstopped. Finally he was taken to the nearby hospital. Eye surgery was required, flesh was torn out of his back and replacement was needed, he also suffered brain concussion.

It wasn't even for money or revenge. They didn't know him nor did they want his money. They just wanted to hurt someone.

There's no way they get more than 8 years under our law, especially because the victim hasn't died (not that they would get much more if he had). However, if it depended upon me, I would have them executed and I'm not sure if I would stick to hanging or wouldn't make a public fair of it.

 

Different societies and it's different views and "freedom fighters/Patriots" is an interseting sub-topic, I think.

One society calls some "heros", "patriots", the other "Criminals".

To Chevalier. The cost issue is here again. As Laches numbers somewhere very high on the threat states, the costs for a murder trial are dam high. Higher then keeping someone in prison for life. The same would, no doubt, apply to any country which would resurrect capital punishment. That means for the example with the senior-citizens and their pesnions, that it would still cost way more then they get.

Only 8 years ? I think you need a reformation of the penalties in the penal-code. Let me guess, if they would have stole money, it would be a way higher possible penalty.

 

A bit lower only if maximum is concerned. But generally sentences for thefts are more severe than for assault and battery or even homicide sometimes. Ah, and shoplifting is a greater crime than mugging.

This way some people who would be executed in the US are given ridiculously short prison terms or even suspended sentences here.

 

Ok, now i done some studies,

Determining what is right or wrong has been always difficult. Think about it, is stealing really wrong? Laws restricted us from stealing but throughout our history, we have seen people stolen stuff/information and we celebrate their success (like Robin Hood). What makes an action right? What makes it wrong?

There are a few suggestion for criterion of rightness. None of them is right and none of them is wrong. Depends on where you stand, you can find a way to justify death penalty or not.

Divine Command Theory
- An action is right because God like it.
- God likes right actions so we behave that way. (But this doesn't explain why God likes right action and why are such actions are right.)

Deontological Theory
- Non-consequentualist
- Regardless of the consiquences, it is our duty to obey and carry out these enthical conducts.
- Like lying is wrong, therefore, we cannot lie ever regardless of the situation.

Teleological Theory
- Consequentualist
- If lying would produce greater amount of happiness, then it is ok to lie.

Psychological Egoism (Social Contract Theory)
- Right or wrong are determined socially. Prior to establishment of such contract, there is no right or wrong.
- We act and react for survival purposes. There is nothing wrong about that. But if we are free to do what ever we want for survival, it would be chaotic. So we establish a contract between ourselves. I don't harm you and you stay away from me.
- We act to promote our own self interest.

Ethical Egoism
- We should act to promote our own interest.
- All these ethical codes are here because if we follow them, we will be benefits more.

Vitue Ethnics Theory
- We just imitates what those "moral" people did. Something like, "What would Jesus do under these circumstances?".