Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Death 'Penalty' revisited.
I have only one question.
We bend over backwards to help people with sick bodies.
If we can cure them, we do, if they are contagious, we isolate them.
Killing them would be murder.
So why do you Americans murder your citizens who have sick minds?
What is the difference, ethically speaking?
We bend over backwards to help people with sick bodies.
If we can cure them, we do, if they are contagious, we isolate them.
Killing them would be murder.
So why do you Americans murder your citizens who have sick minds?
What is the difference, ethically speaking?
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
I really, really, really would like to hear a believer in the death penalty to explain the difference between killing people with sick minds and killing people with sick bodies?
Almost all contemporary neuro-scientists admit that the mind is a function of the brain, therefore it is physiologically determined.
When someone behaves in a destructive and self-destructive way, then there is a physiological reason that is a question of health.
So what is the difference?
Deterrence does not work.
Desire for vengeance?
Almost all contemporary neuro-scientists admit that the mind is a function of the brain, therefore it is physiologically determined.
When someone behaves in a destructive and self-destructive way, then there is a physiological reason that is a question of health.
So what is the difference?
Deterrence does not work.
Desire for vengeance?
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
I guess the sort answer is that SCOTUS has ruled the death penalty in relation to the 8th Amendment is constitutional.Ned wrote:I have only one question.
We bend over backwards to help people with sick bodies.
If we can cure them, we do, if they are contagious, we isolate them.
Killing them would be murder.
So why do you Americans murder your citizens who have sick minds?
What is the difference, ethically speaking?
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
What has that got to do with the difference, ethically and logically speaking?Ginkgo wrote:I guess the sort answer is that SCOTUS has ruled the death penalty in relation to the 8th Amendment is constitutional.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Nothing, but you are a constitutional republic.Ned wrote:What has that got to do with the difference, ethically and logically speaking?Ginkgo wrote:I guess the sort answer is that SCOTUS has ruled the death penalty in relation to the 8th Amendment is constitutional.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
Capital punishment is not about justice or deterrence but simply and purely about revenge.
I'm good with that.
My only beef: the state ought not be the one administering the punishment. The friends/family of the deceased should have the privilege/burden.
Seems to me: if you can't do the deed yourself then you shouldn't lobby for the death sentence.
I'm good with that.
My only beef: the state ought not be the one administering the punishment. The friends/family of the deceased should have the privilege/burden.
Seems to me: if you can't do the deed yourself then you shouldn't lobby for the death sentence.
Re:
That does not answer my 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?henry quirk wrote:Capital punishment is not about justice or deterrence but simply and purely about revenge.
I'm good with that.
Something I agree with wholeheartedly. That's one reason why I became a vegetarian.if you can't do the deed yourself then you shouldn't lobby for the death sentence.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Read Nietzsche on this.Ned wrote:I have only one question.
We bend over backwards to help people with sick bodies.
If we can cure them, we do, if they are contagious, we isolate them.
Killing them would be murder.
So why do you Americans murder your citizens who have sick minds?
What is the difference, ethically speaking?
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Well, I am not, but that's beside the point.Ginkgo wrote:Nothing, but you are a constitutional republic.Ned wrote:What has that got to do with the difference, ethically and logically speaking?Ginkgo wrote:I guess the sort answer is that SCOTUS has ruled the death penalty in relation to the 8th Amendment is constitutional.
You can still support it or fight against it, based on your conscience or on your logical mind that wants consistency.
So, 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?
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Ned wrote: So, 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?
This is one of the sticking points in the American Legal system. How do you tell when a person has a sick mind and when are they just committing an act that is disapproved by society. One of the reasons the insanity plea was removed or at least watered down was because so many sane people tried to abuse it to get away with a crime. The other difference is the perceived intention, with a sick body there is usually no intention to hurt others, in a sick mind there is usually an intention to hurt others. Being sick is not an acceptable excuse for hurting another person.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
doc, you miss my entire point.
According to modern neuro-science (and I could quote from half a dozen books), there is NO FREE WILL!!!
According to dozens of research papers, it is clinically proven that a person does not get aware of a decision that (s)he made until a fraction of a second after his body (brain) had already made the decision for him.
Cause-and-effect chain people!
I always knew that any time in my life I made a decision, countless factors in my body and brain MADE ME DECIDE the way I did.
The 'I' is an illusion, however a persistent one.
So, when someone behaves in a destructive way, the causes are entirely physiological.
Ergo: a sick mind.
We don't kill sick people -- we try to cure them if we can or isolate them if we must.
Doing otherwise would be murder.
According to modern neuro-science (and I could quote from half a dozen books), there is NO FREE WILL!!!
According to dozens of research papers, it is clinically proven that a person does not get aware of a decision that (s)he made until a fraction of a second after his body (brain) had already made the decision for him.
Cause-and-effect chain people!
I always knew that any time in my life I made a decision, countless factors in my body and brain MADE ME DECIDE the way I did.
The 'I' is an illusion, however a persistent one.
So, when someone behaves in a destructive way, the causes are entirely physiological.
Ergo: a sick mind.
We don't kill sick people -- we try to cure them if we can or isolate them if we must.
Doing otherwise would be murder.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Tolstoi
Epilogue Chapter I - War and Peace
'If we concede that human life can be governed by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.'
You are claiming that there is no free will. Therefore, there is no moral responsibility for one's actions. Hence, there is no such thing as morality or ethics - only rationality (i.e. no moral 'ideals' or 'truths' or 'absolutes').
It is rational (arguably), for the betterment of a society as a whole to:
1) terminate the terminally ill early so as not to incur expenses
2) terminate the mentally ill for the same reason
3) terminate anyone who does harm to others and is likely to repeat his harmful behavior.
4) or as Dostoevsky pointed out, killing a mean rich old lady who no one likes in order to transfer her wealth to a brilliant young man who could do great things if only he had the financial backing
Of course, all these points would be argued in a society that believed life is governed solely by rationality and reason rather than moral absolutes. For instance, social contracts would most likely be entered into to spread the risks of failed health as we do now with insurance. But the arguments would not be utilitarian, not moral.
Epilogue Chapter I - War and Peace
'If we concede that human life can be governed by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.'
You are claiming that there is no free will. Therefore, there is no moral responsibility for one's actions. Hence, there is no such thing as morality or ethics - only rationality (i.e. no moral 'ideals' or 'truths' or 'absolutes').
It is rational (arguably), for the betterment of a society as a whole to:
1) terminate the terminally ill early so as not to incur expenses
2) terminate the mentally ill for the same reason
3) terminate anyone who does harm to others and is likely to repeat his harmful behavior.
4) or as Dostoevsky pointed out, killing a mean rich old lady who no one likes in order to transfer her wealth to a brilliant young man who could do great things if only he had the financial backing
Of course, all these points would be argued in a society that believed life is governed solely by rationality and reason rather than moral absolutes. For instance, social contracts would most likely be entered into to spread the risks of failed health as we do now with insurance. But the arguments would not be utilitarian, not moral.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
I and dozens of world class neuro-scientists.Wyman wrote:You are claiming that there is no free will.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Well, follow it to its logical conclusion.Ned wrote:I and dozens of world class neuro-scientists.Wyman wrote:You are claiming that there is no free will.
Re: Death 'Penalty' revisited.
Curved space-time has nothing compared to the mystery of the 'I' illusion.
On the illusional level, we think we decide and we are responsible, we are good and we are evil.
On another level (level of non-illusional reality) we do what we have to do, what we are are made to do.
Read some of the following books:
Douglas Hofstadter: "I am a Strange Loop"
Bruce Hood: "The Self Illuison"
D.F. Swaab: "We are Our Brains"
Sam Harris: "The Moral Landscape"
John Brockman: "This Idea Must Die"
...and many, many others, with the results of modern neuro-science.
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 stick to our illusions, because we cannot live without them.
However, after a few decades of scientific progress into understanding the human brain, we may actually realize that we are only observers, not actors on this stage of human drama.
And, when we do that, maybe we will stop murdering our citizens who are afflicted with sick minds.
The fact that most of the world has already made this step, is encouraging.
On the illusional level, we think we decide and we are responsible, we are good and we are evil.
On another level (level of non-illusional reality) we do what we have to do, what we are are made to do.
Read some of the following books:
Douglas Hofstadter: "I am a Strange Loop"
Bruce Hood: "The Self Illuison"
D.F. Swaab: "We are Our Brains"
Sam Harris: "The Moral Landscape"
John Brockman: "This Idea Must Die"
...and many, many others, with the results of modern neuro-science.
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 stick to our illusions, because we cannot live without them.
However, after a few decades of scientific progress into understanding the human brain, we may actually realize that we are only observers, not actors on this stage of human drama.
And, when we do that, maybe we will stop murdering our citizens who are afflicted with sick minds.
The fact that most of the world has already made this step, is encouraging.