Philosophy Now Forum

For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
It is currently Wed May 22, 2013 1:22 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 2015
Location: Thin Air
There is no cruelty: you become weaker and weaker, faint and die.
I did fasting for health reasons for about four days and stopped because I felt that I was starving (I have BMI of 17).

What is terrible is the death sentence by the guillotine as described by Albert Camus in "The Stranger".

A humane death penalty by starvation accomplishes that the murderer does not get a second chance to murder someone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland
I think the death penalty in any form is inhumane but if you are committed to it I can't see what is humane about prolonging the process in this way. I would doubt that the pain associated with organ failure let alone excessive hunger and thirst is not painful anyway.

But yes, the person doesn't get a second chance to kill. Neither do they get a second chance to present new evidence to a jury.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 2015
Location: Thin Air
If there is doubt we have the principle: in dubio pro reo.

We have DNA proof today.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 1041
Wootah wrote:
Quote:
Please explain what you mean by "justice" here.


Person A does something wrong to person B and we want a means of redress for that wrong. This is called justice.


Why is it important to have redress for a wrong? I am not being facetious here, I think it is important to have an answer to that question to understand what is meant by justice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Posts: 10396
duszek wrote:
This is an ugly joke. ...
Maybe, but funny in English :lol:
Quote:
I meant that you should do a proper operation, an amputation using an anasthetic.
Why do you think this will stop the person. Do you assume that they rape purely for sex? As many sexual attacks involve instruments so why would this person not transfer to attacks with such things, especially since, I guess, they're going to feel prety bad about being castrated no matter how nicely its done. Is the eunuch a less cruel or less violent person? Just asking.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 1041
Arising_uk wrote:
Is the eunuch a less cruel or less violent person? Just asking.


This would depend on the extent to which testosterone production is taken over by the adrenal gland.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Posts: 2015
Location: Thin Air
A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.
Look at an ox who pulls a plough and a bull in a Spanish arena.
Or a stallion and a castrated horse.

I am not an endocrynologist though.
I know it is a very harsh treatment. So I would use it only in very harsh cases, like Michael Ross and others like him.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Wed Aug 25, 2010 6:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 2287
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland
duszek wrote:
If there is doubt we have the principle: in dubio pro reo.

We have DNA proof today.


There is often more doubt that we sometimes imagine. Anyone convicted of a crime and subsequently exonerated should have, when first convicted, been considered to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

DNA evidence is actually better at excluding suspects but even if we accept that it's infallible it's not impossible for samples to become contaminated, DNA planted and in the case of a rape case it only verifies whether two people had sex. It doesn't say anything about whether the sex was consensual.

I consider the point moot though. Even if there was absolutely no doubt I'd still be against the death penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 1041
duszek wrote:
A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.


Read a bit of Chinese or Ottoman history. Court eunuchs were very enterprising, especially if it came to gaining more power.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Mon Aug 30, 2010 6:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:03 am
Posts: 1041
duszek wrote:
A man without testicles is much less enterprising, as far as I know.


Read a bit of Chinese or Ottoman history. Court eunuchs could be very enterprising.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: cultural immunity
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:26 am
Posts: 1216
Location: Elsewhere
ala1993 wrote:
This is a link to a story, on the BBC website, about a Saudi man who after having paralysed another man in a fight is possibly due to be 'medically paralysed' himself as a punishment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11045848

My questions are: to what extent should a nation be able to decide, independently of global opinion and influence, what constitutes an appropriate punishment within the law. It would seem that the concept of universal human rights is incompatible with that of national sovreignty (apologies if that's misspelt, by the way!) but can the two be reconciled? Is it possible to argue that the law in certain nations is 'barbaric' or 'medieval' without bringing along notions of imperialism and euro-centrism? Lastly, what should we do - if anything - as regards to this specific case (linked above)?
Is medically paralyzing, blinding more barbaric or medieval than medically killing someone, as is practised by some world powers?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group