Death 'Penalty' revisited.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Because it's a backward, theocratic shit-hole populated by morons who can't think past their next cheeseburger.

[Wyman]

Ned-

You've failed to notice that I never denied your premise of a lack of free will, so I do not quite know why you're arguing the point or referring to supplemental literature.

Let me put it this way, since you ignored my first post (which is the only one that attempted to answer your OP):

You say that once we realize that we are but observers, not actors, on the stage of human drama, we will stop killing people with sick minds. Care to explain how the one proposition follows from the other, as that is the point I am disputing? I am saying that the opposite may follow - we'd not only kill people with sick minds, but perhaps people with sick bodies as well.

[Wyman]

Because it's a backward, theocratic shit-hole populated by morons who can't think past their next cheeseburger.

At least it gives you something to obsess over - imagine if you had to try and think of something else!

[Ned]

Ned-

You've failed to notice that I never denied your premise of a lack of free will, so I do not quite know why you're arguing the point or referring to supplemental literature.

Let me put it this way, since you ignored my first post (which is the only one that attempted to answer your OP):

You say that once we realize that we are but observers, not actors, on the stage of human drama, we will stop killing people with sick minds. Care to explain how the one proposition follows from the other, as that is the point I am disputing? I am saying that the opposite may follow - we'd not only kill people with sick minds, but perhaps people with sick bodies as well.

Oh, I see I misunderstood you. My apologies.

Of course, you may be entirely right, and the future may unfold in the opposite direction from what I am hoping for.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

[garygary]

According to modern neuro-science (and I could quote from half a dozen books), there is NO FREE WILL!!!

Concerning the original question, the above leads us to a dead end as was alluded to by Wyman.

If there is no free will, then the murderer had no choice but to kill his victim. If there is no free will, then the policy makers (which consists of individuals with no free will) in the state I live in had no choice but to kill the murderer.

Can't have it both ways... if murderers are not responsible for their choices, then the state is not responsible for its choices. You are slow to condemn the murderer, yet quick to condemn the state who kills. Seems inconsistent to me.

[Lawrence Crocker]

I take it that the initiator of the thread finds the following reasoning attractive:

1. Neuroscientists can sometimes find neurological causes for a given behavior
2. Therefore, they could probably do so in every case if only they had a better grasp of the of the neural architecture and better instrumentation.
3. Therefore, determinism is probably true at the neurological/behavioral scale.
4. Therefore, there is no free will.
5. Therefore, no one is ever responsible for causing another’s death.
6. Therefore, it is wrong capitally to punish anyone.

Notice that the move from (1) to (2) is a bold generalization. No one has ever seen determinism in looking at an fMRI or tracing a neural response chain. They have at most seen that one thing followed from another. Still, as that is their area of expertise, let us put Humean objections aside and accept their conclusion that there is causation. I am also willing, provisionally, to bow a second time to their expert intuitions that every case, even the ones they have no way at all of investigating yet, will turn out to be causally tight, and hence that determinism rules in our brains. (Probably most neuroscientists do not feel drawn upon to pontificate on the question of determinism. To look for causes you don’t have to know with certainty that there are causes. You looked for your keys in the drawer.)

The move from (3) to (4) is thought unsound by all compatibilists, a group that I suspect includes a majority of philosophers who are reasonably conversant with neuroscience and a very sizable number of those who work philosophically with the concepts of moral and legal responsibility.

If (5) is true because it follows from the above reasoning, than it must also be true that no one is ever responsible for shortchanging you at the newsstand, or for lying, or for overcooking the pasta.

If (6) is true as a result of the above reasoning, then it must be equally wrong to fine anyone for illegal parking, and is at the very least unjust to praise anyone for creating a great work of art or for committing an act of gratuitous kindness.

[Ned]

Weather you believe in determinism or free will, it still does not answer my original question:

What is the difference, ethically and logically speaking, between killing a human being with a sick body and killing one with a sick mind"? Why is one murder and the other isn't?

If you believe that murderous monsters have healthy minds, then you have a very strange definition of 'healthy'.

Now, if you want to talk religion and define the term 'evil' for me, I am all ears.

[henry quirk]

"What is the difference, ethically and logically speaking, between killing a human being with a sick body and killing one with a sick mind"?

If, in fact, I'm nuthin' but bio-automation then I have no choice in seeking revenge against those who steal from me, who injure me, who do me wrong (as my bio-robotic program assesses 'wrong'). Whether the one I seek to revenge myself on is sick or healthy is irrelevant; he or she did me wrong (as my program dictates) and he or she will pay the price (to the degree I can successfully force them to).

As the (cybernetic) scorpion said: 'it's my nature'.

Ethics and logic don't, of course, mean jack to me (since I ain't that kind of robot [I'm a meat-eatin' machine]).

[Wyman]

Weather you believe in determinism or free will, it still does not answer my original question:

What is the difference, ethically and logically speaking, between killing a human being with a sick body and killing one with a sick mind"? Why is one murder and the other isn't?

If you believe that murderous monsters have healthy minds, then you have a very strange definition of 'healthy'.

Now, if you want to talk religion and define the term 'evil' for me, I am all ears.

The difference is that one causes great harm to the community and the other does not. Suppose we are entering into a social contract. Stipulate that we don't know yet what our lot in life will be, genetically speaking (i.e. we might be psycho killers and/or sickly people, we don't know yet). We will set up laws we think will benefit either ourselves or the community as a whole or both. You say, 'I want the death penalty for sick people.' Me, knowing that everyone gets sick once in a while will object, based on weighing the probability of me getting sick and the severe consequences (execution) against the benefit of such a law to the community. Most rational people would vote against such a law - although you are free to argue on utilitarian grounds.

Now, with respect to the death penalty for psycho killers - stipulating that they are 'sick' or defective people - the cost/benefit analysis will be different then the case of executing sick people. First, the probability that I will be a psycho killer is low; the potential harm to the community by psycho killers is great (death to innocent people); and the benefit to the community of prohibiting execution is arguably outweighed by the former two considerations.

This is a formula used in tort law for evaluating the utility of certain laws, stated explicitly by Judge Learned Hand, I believe - that is PL>B,
where B is the cost (burden) of taking precautions, and P is the probability of loss (L). L is the gravity of loss. The product of P x L must be a greater amount than B to create a duty of due care for the defendant.

[Ned]

OK, Wyman, you explained it legally, very clearly.

However, ethically or even logically I still don't see the difference.

At our level of our technological civilization it is perfectly feasible to sequester citizens who are considered a serious danger to society.

They can even be put into induced coma, until a cure is found (or until we realize that some of them are innocent). The danger of escape is negligible, without advanced medical expertise.

There are health risks involved with patients who are contagious with a deadly virus. Quarantine procedures are designed exactly for that.

Should we start killing people who are infected with the Ebola virus?

I think not.

[Wyman]

OK, Wyman, you explained it legally, very clearly.

However, ethically or even logically I still don't see the difference.

At our level of our technological civilization it is perfectly feasible to sequester citizens who are considered a serious danger to society.

They can even be put into induced coma, until a cure is found (or until we realize that some of them are innocent). The danger of escape is negligible, without advanced medical expertise.

There are health risks involved with patients who are contagious with a deadly virus. Quarantine procedures are designed exactly for that.

Should we start killing people who are infected with the Ebola virus?

I think not.

You'll have to explain the distinctions between legal, ethical and logical reasoning. We would only kill someone with a virus if no other option, such as quarantine, were available. I can't think of any actual circumstances other than perhaps whether to save a pregnant woman or her undelivered baby. Usually, she would decide, but I suppose if she were unconscious and the doctor said 'It's her or the baby', then someone else would have to decide. So theoretically, yes, we could start killing sick people. In practice, I don't see it happening.

At least that's what I take to be the logical conclusion of utilitarianism, which is what I take to follow from a belief in determinism.

[Ned]

You'll have to explain the distinctions between legal, ethical and logical reasoning.

That's easy enough.

Legal is supposed to strike a balance between an individual(s)' and society's interest, according to a written legal code.

Logical wants to be consistent in similar situations, according to some accepted premise.

Ethical wants to be just, in the sense that we don't want to hurt anyone who doesn't deserve to be hurt. The good old "do unto others as you would others do unto you (should you have been walking in the same shoes)" principle.

[henry quirk]

Ned,

If we're all bio-automata (illusory selves riding along and fooled by our meat cars [organic bits]), then of what use it is to talk about justice?

If the bad guy does what he does cuz he has no choice, then those who would execute him have no choice either.

You're fence-sittin’ and I'd like you to come down offa it and plant your feet firmly.

We choose, are autonomous, have agency (and are responsible for ourselves), or, we're determined organic machinery and aren't responsible for jack.

Which is it?

[Ned]

Ned,

If we're all bio-automata (illusory selves riding along and fooled by our meat cars [organic bits]), then of what use it is to talk about justice?

If the bad guy does what he does cuz he has no choice, then those who would execute him have no choice either.

henry, I said in a previous post the following:

On one level, everything I write here will influence some minds, in however a small way, and that is why I am writing these things.

On another level: I have no choice writing these, and you have no choice being influenced by it -- things just happen and we can observe them, but can change nothing.

We think and argue, using the assumption of having a free will to decide.

This is an illusion we can not live without, or we would be paralyzed into total passivity.

Based on this illusion, we judge each other and act 'purposefully' to attain maximum well being and cause minimal harm (most of us, anyway).

Tucked away at the back of our minds lurks the disturbing thought that there must be a long line of causes, both physical and mental (that is the brain and the genes and other contributing physiological factors) that caused us to judge this way, and to act that way.

Those of us, who are aware of this duality of human existence tend to be more patient, more compassionate, more tolerant than those who are unaware.

So, you are right: the criminal does what he is made to do by his circumstances and past history, the judge does the same, the executioner (murderer) likewise.

We observe these things and argue about them and the world just rolls along on its rails.

So, I can't help having my opinions and acting on them, just as you can't either.

So what?

I don't see any problems, any contradiction at all.

[henry quirk]

Being a laissez faire kinda guy (live and let live): I'm not inclined to disabuse you of your self-assessment (that you're a toaster).

As you were...