Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.
Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.
No they are not both diseases. psychopathy is not caused by infection or is it communicable. They have no basis for comparison. Also do you know anything at all about rabies progression? Its about the worst disease you can have if you have gone passed the point of no return to treat it.
Not all diseases are communicable or infectious. Psychopathy is a serious neurological pathology that robs humans of anything resembling humanity. That makes it a hell of a lot worse than rabies to my mind, but of course that’s debatable. Regardless, I’m not sure how ranking one horrible affliction against another makes much difference for this analogy.
You’re right, none of us know anything. We can presume no facts, nor make even the most salient observations. All social science is false, and nihilists like you are right about everything.
I would not say there is specifically an upside to keeping a serial killer alive, but there are many downsides to the death penalty both ethically and in practice, not the least of which is the chance that you would execute an innocent person. For those of us who are anti-death penalty, that is usually where we’re coming from.
I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
It’s important not to conflate moral facts with practical policy. Most of your arguments focus on how people should be treated, whereas the relevant question is how governments should behave and why. These are very different things.
Regardless of what people deserve, no government should go around killing its own citizens. That is because killing as a punishment makes a spectacle of death. It is profoundly unhealthy for any civil society to revel in death. That’s the answer. It has nothing to do with what serial killers deserve. They do not matter.
Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.
A serial killer can be removed from society and prevented from having an opportunity to kill. “Putting him down” is just you stooping to his level out of misguided self-righteousness
A rabid animal is suffering from the final hours of a horrible communicable disease that is 100% fatal. It’s in horrible pain, out of its mind, and you are doing a mercy to end its misery
Listen, if you want to keep a psychopath alive in your basement for some unknown reason, well, as long as he doesn’t get out and maul anyone that’s fine by me. But you’re insane if you think normal people should spend their hard-earned money contributing to that exercise in immiseration.
I don’t want someone to kill me; therefore I believe it is also not okay for me to kill someone else. It’s just the golden rule. I am not a student of ethics or philosophy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of course, given that my life would no longer be worth living.
This is the golden rule in action, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
Nah I think not killing innocent people is a pretty strong argument, death being a spectacle doesn’t really matter to me- someone killing someone is much worse than the part where they post it on LiveLeak
Since human beings are also just animals, I assume you have some non-arbitrary reason for favoring one species over another?
Keep in mind that speciation is technically arbitrary, and that we can just as easily decide that you and I are not the same species. Go ahead, explain to me why I’m entitled to farm and eat you. I can’t wait to hear this.
“Murder” is an illegal killing. I don’t oppose murder; I oppose immoral killing. That’s different.
If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.
An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.
What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species? Moral philosophers consider this question fairly settled, so let me know if you have some novel insights.
What is the upside of keeping serial killers alive pray tell? I genuinely don’t get it.
How often people are wrongly convicted is the only reason I need to not want the death penalty to be used.
What is the upside of allowing the government to kill citizens?
I’m actually shocked the “limited small govt” crowd isn’t anti death penalty given it provides a legal avenue for state sanctioned murder.
Feels like they’d be against that sort of thing.
trust me a lot of them are
Idk what’s the upside of killing rabid dogs? Most dogs are better than most humans, so how does the math work out there?
thats a mercy killing. rabies is fatal and the end is horrible.
Rabies and psychopathy are diseases. The prognosis is terminal in both cases, and death would be a mercy. Rabies is also far less harmful than psychopathy, because it results in less collateral damage. After all, psychopathy is responsible for almost every evil you can see in the world today from famine to poverty and war.
Again, there is an argument against the death penalty but protecting psychopaths ain’t it.
No they are not both diseases. psychopathy is not caused by infection or is it communicable. They have no basis for comparison. Also do you know anything at all about rabies progression? Its about the worst disease you can have if you have gone passed the point of no return to treat it.
Not all diseases are communicable or infectious. Psychopathy is a serious neurological pathology that robs humans of anything resembling humanity. That makes it a hell of a lot worse than rabies to my mind, but of course that’s debatable. Regardless, I’m not sure how ranking one horrible affliction against another makes much difference for this analogy.
I can agree with that. Its just not a good analogy because again they are just not really comparable things.
Do you formulate your opinions based on reasons you can articulate or is this just a fleeting thought you’re having?
I don’t know, I think presuming you know the reasons and effects of things has led to some pretty harmful outcomes over the years.
You’re right, none of us know anything. We can presume no facts, nor make even the most salient observations. All social science is false, and nihilists like you are right about everything.
Individuals can, “collectives” cannot.
A lot of it
I am not a nihilist.
Your words say one thing, but your other words say another.
I would not say there is specifically an upside to keeping a serial killer alive, but there are many downsides to the death penalty both ethically and in practice, not the least of which is the chance that you would execute an innocent person. For those of us who are anti-death penalty, that is usually where we’re coming from.
I’m against the death penalty, and I know the best argument against it, something nobody in this thread has even approximately articulated.
Currently, as far as I know, there is only one strong argument against the death penalty, and it has to do with moral proscriptions against treating the death of a person as a spectacle, which I notice nobody mentioned.
it isn’t a deterrent,
It is cheaper to let them rot in prison for life,
nobody wants to make the drugs involved for the ‘humane way’ so it is really difficult to obtain enough where it is used,
it is fundamentally inhumane to kill someone that knows it’s coming (mental torture),
risk of executing an innocent, and as already stated
it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing.
That killing serial killers causes them harm isn’t a particularly compelling point, since we disagree over whether harming them is, in fact, good.
This is a good point and one I would explore further. However, it leaves open exceptions where the evidence is overwhelming.
Killing isn’t always bad. Killing innocent creatures is bad. Killing serial killers is tantamount to putting down rabid animals.
And you trust the state to make that decision? Or a jury?
So you’re dishonest. Got it.
No, I am genuinely against the death penalty.
It’s important not to conflate moral facts with practical policy. Most of your arguments focus on how people should be treated, whereas the relevant question is how governments should behave and why. These are very different things.
Regardless of what people deserve, no government should go around killing its own citizens. That is because killing as a punishment makes a spectacle of death. It is profoundly unhealthy for any civil society to revel in death. That’s the answer. It has nothing to do with what serial killers deserve. They do not matter.
A serial killer can be removed from society and prevented from having an opportunity to kill. “Putting him down” is just you stooping to his level out of misguided self-righteousness
A rabid animal is suffering from the final hours of a horrible communicable disease that is 100% fatal. It’s in horrible pain, out of its mind, and you are doing a mercy to end its misery
Listen, if you want to keep a psychopath alive in your basement for some unknown reason, well, as long as he doesn’t get out and maul anyone that’s fine by me. But you’re insane if you think normal people should spend their hard-earned money contributing to that exercise in immiseration.
I don’t want someone to kill me; therefore I believe it is also not okay for me to kill someone else. It’s just the golden rule. I am not a student of ethics or philosophy but it seems pretty straightforward to me.
In the event that I were guilty of causing great harm to innocent people, then I should be killed. Not in revenge, but as a matter of course, given that my life would no longer be worth living.
This is the golden rule in action, which is about how you would want to be treated in similar circumstances.
Nah I think not killing innocent people is a pretty strong argument, death being a spectacle doesn’t really matter to me- someone killing someone is much worse than the part where they post it on LiveLeak
If you’re so against killing innocents, I assume you’re vegan. Or… is your morality as twisted and inconsistent as I suspect?
Or I care about human life and not chicken life?
So your morality is arbitrary, and at least we can both agree that the chicken has more reason to live than you do.
Yours isn’t? Where does it come from?
You’re clearly not trolling
This is literally nihilism.
I’m genuinely happy to discuss metaethics, but I’m getting a sense that you don’t actually care about ethics very much, given your nihilism.
Because that makes the state a serial killer. In fact, the state has murdered far more people than even the most prolific serial killer.
Whether or not they are innocent is often an afterthought. A way too late afterthought.
Yet being suspicious of the state makes you a radical or a narcissist
It’s cheaper
killing people is bad
killing innocent people is bad*
who gets to decided who is innocent?
Are you serious with this question?
it’s a rhetorical question.
deleted by creator
If you hate killing so much, you must be vegan, right? Or do you kill some non-human animals but not other non-human animals?
2, 3
Now that we can agree about your hypocrisy, there’s not much left to discuss.
What? I care about human lives, I don’t really care about the lives of other animals
Since human beings are also just animals, I assume you have some non-arbitrary reason for favoring one species over another?
Keep in mind that speciation is technically arbitrary, and that we can just as easily decide that you and I are not the same species. Go ahead, explain to me why I’m entitled to farm and eat you. I can’t wait to hear this.
Do you have a non-arbitrary reason for opposing murder?
“Murder” is an illegal killing. I don’t oppose murder; I oppose immoral killing. That’s different.
If you simply claimed that you’re against pointless killing I wouldn’t consider that arbitrary, since I share your strong intuition that causing meaningless suffering is deeply wrong. That is, in fact, precisely why I find it confusing that you would violate this intuition.
An arbitrary moral distinction would be like claiming that you are against ending innocent lives, unless they’re a different race, gender, species, nationality, or color than you, given that none of these factors have any moral relevance.
What is the moral significance of a creature’s nationality or species? Moral philosophers consider this question fairly settled, so let me know if you have some novel insights.