Well if we go your definition of necessary, they'll just sit in prison and rot for years. I said that if they're a societal problem, it is necessary to remove them from society, usually through means of execution. Maybe I don't have a moral conscience, but I'm not some small time punk thinking that just leaving a guy in jail is going to do anything. Death penalty is supposed to be a form of saying, "You do this sh*t, this is what happens to you." Take it was warning. Granted, people still do it because of their habitual instinct to do so or their anti-authority sh*t, but you get the point.

I'm not into being a p*ssy and "giving someone time to think." Screw that. They had the conscious rationale to decide not to do it, but they did it anyway. Unless they have some type of psychological disorder to prove that they had no idea what they were doing (people use this too much nowdays to justify it), they knew what they were doing and the consequences of being caught. Serial killers are a great testament to that. It's always the same M.O. therefore, they know EXACTLY what they're doing, thus they won't change their ways, especially if they've been doing it for years.

In all honesty, I'm glad none of you guys are in law enforcement or judicial stuff. Things could be pretty messy.

Let my response be a request to Ixzion to clarify his question, 'Is it wrong to kill bad people.'

Are you asking us if it's 'wrong' according to our emotions, according to our belief system, or according to both, because for some (if not many) people the answer is different depending on which motivation we are talking about (emotions vs. belief system).

^ True..

Yeah I'm not sure how to answer this topic.

Well I will always hold the belief that it is morally wrong to cut short the life of another, because who are we to put relative judgment on someone and claim ourselves to know what is absolutely wrong and right. Do we really have the hubris to believe our judgment to be flawless and our intellegence limitless? I would certainly hope not, so saying someone deserves to die I think is a highly relative response and subject to all kinds of flaws in logic.

So while that is my idealistic standpoint, from a more practice point of view I believe Capital Punishment to be a highly justifiable action given our societies belief system. So while it might be wrong to end the life of one forcefully, is it not equally, possibly even more wrong to entitle that person to go back to a life of ending others. Also is it fair to have upstanding citizens foot the bill for this one person who refuses to abide by the societal laws. Unfortunately banishment is no longer an option as most of the habitable world is habitated. So this leaves one 'fair' option, reduction of waste, in this case habitual breakers of very serious laws, mainly ending the life of another for no 'justifiable' reason. So as long as this punishment is handed to those who obviously will not stop their practice of ending the life of others I believe it to be in the societies best interest to cut short the life of these people. Simple case of risk management, and society cannot exist without some assurance of safety, so to some degree it is their duty to keep themselves from harm.

Like all security, every one has it's flaws (except the permanent solution), so keeping them in prison is not the ideal solution. Considering at some point they will likely try to escape, and then either be killed on site, or go back to their life of killing. Funny how more people would feel their death justified if they were escaping, but yet ending it before that happens somehow seems wrong. So it's not like we're labeling these people killer from birth, race or other unrelated means, they are labeled so solely because of their actions, therefore I see no reason to continue to fund a completely lost cause when the money could go to so much more 'better' things.

Of course this should be reserved for the most heinous of offenders, and believe in lethal injection as it is the least costly on the city, and the least barbaric by current societal standards.

What an appropriate number for this post.

...creepy

But I think you have a good point as far as considering that it is the duty of giving us a feeling of safety. Also, let me ask anyone this. Does it not seem justified for someone who killed another to be killed himself?

Only if he killed for no good reason. Like if your a cop and you shoot the wrong person in the line of fire. I understand that things happen. But the person who died in the line of fire would have been more safe if the cop was not trying to catch the bank robber.

Or if someone is trying to hurt you. And you kill the person trying to hurt you. No one knows if the person who was trying to hurt you really was or was indeed going to end your life. So that would need to go through a court.

But if someone is indeed a real killer. Then yes I think that putting the man to death is the only thing left. Because then no one is safe around that person. And theres no sense in keeping a killer locked up like an evil monkey in a cage and letting our tax dollars go to feeding him for the rest of his use less life.

We both have the negative emotion yet the criminal takes it too far, I understand. But, I fail to see your point.


Anyway, I still say that torture would be a better alternative than death. You know, that whole "fate worse than death" dealie. To simply kill them off-hand would be, well, some people aren't afraid of death. Take me for example. It's not death that worries me, it's the excrutiating pain leading up to it. Being sentenced to death I'm sure would be painful (unless they're put to sleep like a dog), but it's too quick a punishment for what they've done. And, like I said, there's a chance that, if they do wind up getting sentenced to such a thing, they'll come to regret their actions, something they can't do too easily through insta-death or basic life in prison. Granted, people do come to regret their actions during their sentences already.

Hmm... now that I think about it, though, the regret through torture would be regret that he did something to recieve torture, not that he regrets that he hurt those families in such a big way. Still, regret through torture is still the same basis of a kid getting swat on their butt when they do something wrong. They'll regret doing what they did because of the punishment as well.

I understand that this was your idealistic part of your response. Within that context, wouldn’t your perspective IDEALISTICALLY prevent you from locking people up as well, or even fining them, etc?



Do you think that “an eye for an eyeâ€

Do you think that “an eye for an eyeâ€

Well idealistically no one should need to be punished, haha. But now I still think people should be locked up, in the hope that being put away from society and forced to live in confinement would make them regret their actions. This is decidedly different from killing the person, in that case there can be no regret or healing. So my idealistic stance was just on killing, I still think punishment is necessary for those who break the rules. But I also think we should keep an open mind to the interpretation of the rules, and realize that rules are malleable, and do need to change from time to time.

So even though being in jail for the rest of your life might seem the same as killing, the person is still able to lead a life, certainly not as successful a one as if they were not in jail (though that point is debatable for a social deviant), but a life nonetheless. Of course I value thinking as one of the most important aspects of life, so since they are still given that privilege I feel no remorse for punishing someone for a grave misdead by confinement or fines. Of course no justice system is perfect, but as long as we can keep the false positives to a bare minimum, while not allowing false negatives to be too high, I think it's worth it.

It's for his own good. And to explain why would be to get into religious discussion.

Well yeah. I mean its wrong to kill your spouse. Sometimes cheats can be worked out between two people and sometimes the love is just not there anymore. So if theres no love its best to just walk away.

I was more thinking along the lines as a person who gos out and rapes and kills, or someone who hates a type of person and kills that type of person.

Being put to death over a love quarrel? Nope I don't see that happening. Maybe 10 to 12 years in jail. But then again it depends how he killed her too. Was it quick? or was the guy/gal mental and stabbed them over and over again? I don't know...

Heh, Bo's got alot of typing to do. But I can't say I'm not enjoying this topic. Pretty much everyone has some form of valid point, which is what makes this debate all the more interesting.

Anyway... carry on. =Þ

Actually, I had intended to read your responses and leave it alone unless someone had a specific question.

There are too many beliefs systems out there that conflict with the emotional feelings brought on by such a topic and it would take too long to question potential inconsistency.

Good?
Bad?
Dumb.
The idea of making a black/white distinction on someone, literally dividing them based on what a group feels is "right" and "wrong" is stupid. I would say it isn't right to kill bad people because death solves nothing.

In the context of crime, specifically murder/manslaghter/whatever, capital punishment is the same thing as throwing a paper towel over a mess in the kitchen and then walking out. It doesn't solve the issue of crime, nor does it "correct" the person("correct"tional facility?). America tosses around the death penalty more than anyone, and we still have one of the highest crime rates in the world. A pretty lousy deterrent if you ask me. And you did.

In the context of war, I would say that killing is even less justified. A murderer knows he killed someone, and knows that he is a "bad" person for it, but in war there are no such things as "good" and "evil". In any war the percieved "bad guy" never thinks that he is actually evil. He thinks the other side is evil and that his side is the good one. Even the Nazis thought they were fighting for the good of the world. You hear America referred to as "The Great Satan" by the Al Queda and the other terrorist groups, because they percieve us as evil. In turn, the president goes and labels an "Axis of Evil". If aliens were (okay, they are) watching us kill each other, who would they consider good or bad? Would they care? Is someone still "bad" when they're dead? Who knows? Who cares?

Good and bad are just words used to motivate people into doing the kinds of things they would never normally do.

Borrowing from Clerks, Is it really okay to blow up the under construction Death Star? Is it worth killing innocents to also kill the bad guy?

How many questions am I gonna ask?

Poof.
Killing is wrong, I don't care who it is.

@SSD256

I liked 2 things about your response. First I liked that you maintain that 'good' and 'bad' are concepts that are relative instead of universal.

I really liked your response regarding war. I have always thought that people don't often try to see the other point of view in war and that they think they are justified in killing from their point of view.

What had not occurred to me until your response was that if both points of view maintain they are right, then in the overall system, the only conclusion that a moral universalist (instead of a moral relativist) can logically claim is that both sides are SIMULTANEOUSLY good and bad. The only way out of that is for the moral universalist to properly demonstrate why their understanding of morality is necessarily universal (thus giving a basis to judge which side in a war is ‘more’ right, and hopefully ‘right’ enough to be ‘good’) and not relative which is difficult (arguably essentially impossible) to PROVE to yourself let alone others.

However I have a question. “You said that killing is wrong, I don’t care who it is.â€

I think you got me there...

What I mean by that isn't nessacarily that "If you kill things/people/animals you're a bad person, and you'll burn in hell.", but more that the act of killing is inherently wrong and can't be justified on its own, but we all die anyway. Being killed is one of many ways die.

If a smaller amount of people are definitively attempting to kill a larger group of people, killing the smaller group, while still wrong, can be unavoidable. When there's no way around it, what can you expect people to do?

I guess what I mean is that you shouldn't say "killing is okay when _____", but rather accept that killing is wrong, but death is unavoidable. In dire times, people tend to shut out certain morals and values in order to stay alive, and can't always be expected to take actions that are "right".

As far as the line with species goes, death is death. Avoiding killing microscopic organisms is impossible, so I'll conveniently pretend they don't exist. Every time there's an instance of severe animal cruelty, people are outraged, but still are able to eat meat and wear leather. A lot of people don't like to think that animals die so they can eat, but it does happen. A lot. Yet even most voracious meat-eaters would never do anything to hurt a pet, or even a wild animal. I would say that it is wrong to have an animal die so you can eat, but unavoidable (at least that's what the meat industry would have us believe).

I'm a vegatarian. But not an annoying one who freaks out whenever he sees someone eating meat. I try too hard to balance the wrong with the right, which is mentally and emotionally vexxing. If you can get by without worrying about what had to die so you could eat, be clothed, and pay jack for gasoline, you are a greater man than I.

I'm not sure if I answered the question completely, but whatever. That's about the best I can do to explain what I think about this topic.

@SSD256

I appreciate you response.

I just have not found a compelling argument that killing is INHERENTLY wrong, because after all, LIFE whether by god or nature or both IS about individual or group survival which often is a function of other individual DEATH.

The act of killing (preventing a life from continuing its biological functions and theoretically discontinuing any of its concious awareness potential) is entirely permissable act by real physics and often individually beneficial. I see no reason to attribute a universal moral perspective about it.

The human hope is that the individual has significant empathy to avoid killing those individuals with the greatest capacity to suffer or the greatest potential for loss in the circumstances when other alternatives are available.

*shrug* personally, i see nothing 'wrong' with killing a person. it's just very likely to get you severely punished. institutionalised killing is a slightly different thing. slightly more dangerous, because generally institutionalised actions don't lead to punishment in the way that the same action will do when committed by a citizen. lawful executions kinda make me uneasy. ^^;

however, i'd like to suggest (just a suggestion, not anything i KNOW or BELIEVE TO BE TRUE or anything) that perhaps... well...

morality can be considered as a thing that comes from... well, from religion, basically. God's Law, you know?

alternately, it can be considered as based on natural selection, much in the way kin altruism or plain stranger altruism is. morality and acting morally/fairly to others is a quality which makes an individual more likely to be accepted by his/her fellows, and is therefore a beneficial quality to possess.

remember that more traits are handed down from one's parents than the purely genetic, and that many psychological traits are genetic. one's IQ, for instance, is at least partially determined by genetics. so one's morality... pfft. i'm just theorising.

so that's how i'd argue that there could be morality, based on social adjustments. its not so implausible that you can consider it no reason to attribute a 'universal' moral perspective to it.

... and as for 'universal' moral perspectives, then? such as not killing another person? well. they only need to be as universal as one's society, but i would still argue that they could exist.

forgive the fact that this post rambles for a long time before it gets to the point, but i wanted to try and be clear.

i probably failed, eh? ^_^

@Regal
Maybe a better way of saying my point is that out of the infinite amounts of competeing potential universal moralities that can be imagined to be beneficial for any given set of particular circumstances there is no compelling evidence to assume one must necessarily be kinetic.


EDIT:
I consider the shifting social moralites that you are talking about to be ethics. The main difference is that when two people debate about what is ethical, it is a debate about their preference within their understanding of the relationship between the individual and soceity.

I reserve the word 'moral' for the condition that exists independent of society, i.e., an ideal that has a life of it's own and that controls human behaviors in its fashion. One in which humans don't have the right to refuse lest this ideal have the authority over humans to properly label human action, "wrong" (through the mouths of its minions i.e. other humans).