Ok, so now imagine the opposite scenario.
Imagine you had the chance to save the life of one infant, but in order to do so thousands of other adults, children, and infants would die in horrible agony, would you choose to save that child?
Do murderers deserve to die?
- Thread starter Arnie
- Start date
Ok, so now imagine the opposite scenario.
Imagine you had the chance to save the life of one infant, but in order to do so thousands of other adults, children, and infants would die in horrible agony, would you choose to save that child?
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
Certainly not, once again. My point being that only I can decide whether I can give my life for a moral cause, and as such, cannot decide whether someone else could or should do the same.
I would do my best to save the child but apparently you can't do either.
Then you've just contradicted yourself and are a moral hypocrite because you just allowed the child to die that you refused to let die in the first scenario for more or less the same reasons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
How does that make me a hypocrite? I've stated that I cannot decide whether someone should or should not die, making both those potential situations impossible.
I know a bit about killing......killing should be the last resort, when there are no other options left to the individual.....with regard to State Death Penalties, there are always other options that would stop the killing of those three innocents...so the moral question is not whether killing one to save many is moral, but is killing simply as a punishment a morally right thing to consider.
Ethically the question is not whether the Murderer has the opportunity to kill again, as incarceration would negate that as effectively as killing him, but is it ethical to prosecute an 'eye for an eye' and call that moral justice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
If someone raped and/or murdered the loved one of a normal family man. It went to court and they were found innocent. Even though it was 100% definite they did it. let's call it a technicality that got the offender off.
The family man then takes things into his own hands, and kills the offender. It was premeditated, Undeniably murder.
Would the people who are pro death penalty see it fitting that the family man should die?
The family man then takes things into his own hands, and kills the offender. It was premeditated, Undeniably murder.
Would the people who are pro death penalty see it fitting that the family man should die?
Its an ethical discussion from a hypothetical ethical dilemma, something which I will admit I understand little of, but the two scenarios are considered direct opposites of on other.
If you wouldnt save the child in the second scenario, then you would be in favor in the child dying in the first.
If you refuse the child dying in the first scenario, then you are in favour of saving it in the second.
Your answers to each scenario contradict each other, showing that you have a hypocritical moral understanding.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
I see what you mean, but I have stated that I would not be able to make that decision, invalidating both situations.
And in fact, I stated that I wouldn't save the child, but nor would I kill the thousands of people.
And in fact, I stated that I wouldn't save the child, but nor would I kill the thousands of people.
Unfortunately you should never take the law into your own hands.
If it was 100% definite the first person did the crime, but they were found innocent, then the fault lies in the jurisdiction.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
The law exists so that those who are not in the legal system do not have to take the law into their own hands, which could result in ridiculous crap going down.
Then you dont understand the ethics of killing / murder.
Wanting a murderer executed for his crime is not an inhumane decision, nor one based on revenge or pleasure, to a lot of people it would simply be ethically correct, and it is to me.
If I had the choice to kill a convicted murderer, judging that if I didnt he would take another innocent life, would I do it? Ethically speaking I would.
if I had to save the life of one person, but doing so would mean the death of two others, would I do it? Ethically speaking, I would not.
Last edited:
No he hasn't, he has made an ethical decision that he can only sacrifice his own life to save others, he cannot take the life or lives of others according to his personal morality.
I am different.
I could kill the single innocent child to end the deaths of millions.....I suspect that it would adversely affect my own state of mind in doing so, maybe even to the point that I couldn't live with the act itself, however I would still do it.
However, I would not save the life of a single child if in doing so it caused the death of thousands of other innocent people.....you have to weigh up the relative value of saving one life against the loss of thousands, and so for that same reason that I would take one life to save millions, I would not take thousands to save one.......
Unless that Child was my Son.....then I would burn the world to save him.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
Exactly, and if that's a fault then I am fraught with them.
In which case he shouldnt judge others who would be willing to take a life to save more, as is applicable to the case of wanting a person who is proven with 100% accuracy to have killed someone to be executed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking
But we're not realistically talking about saving lives are we? We're talking about punishing people for the sake of public satisfaction. Those who are up for the death penalty are certainly not going to be the same people who are released despite being murderers.
I believe that there is a chance that anyone who purposely murders another person has the capacity to carry that out again.
I change my opinion of child rapists now though. They shouldnt be executed, they should be castrated.
Its not about the sake of public satisfaction to me, if I know the guilt 100% of a murderer, then I believe it to be ethically correct for them to be executed.
I change my opinion of child rapists now though. They shouldnt be executed, they should be castrated.
Its not about the sake of public satisfaction to me, if I know the guilt 100% of a murderer, then I believe it to be ethically correct for them to be executed.
Last edited:
We are discussing State Death Penalites.....by definition this means that the murderer has already been removed from society in order to stand trial....in this regard it is already reasonable to assume that the murderer will have no opportunity to kill again if he remains in custody.....so then what does killing the murderer actually accomplish other than punishing him/her by the same ultimate method that they themselves employed.
Does that not raise ethical questions in itself, is the State able to justify judging the individual morally when the State is effectively killing themselves?
Not having to fund for his lifelong imprisonment and being able to spend that money on better things such as scientific research.
Otherwise if you want my opinion on this from a human rights philosophy, I believe that execution is more humane than lifelong confinement and punishment.
The modern method of a lethal injection as used in the USA is also far more humane than the act of murder carried out against an innocent victim.
Last edited:
The costs of prosecuting a case to the ultimate death penalty, which because of the finality of the punishment must be treated with far more care and consideration than mere incarceration are far greater than lifetime incarceration alone.
You would be better creating a system that allowed prisoners to be productive in their incarceration, and while they have their freedoms and societal benefits removed, they are still financially productive within that society.
Killing should be a last resort where there are no other alternatives, not an alternative to simply save money or because it is convenient.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,321
- Location
- Woking