Originally posted by sh76Well I beg to differ. The best argument against the death penalty is that it is, in and of itself, wrong. To say that something else is "the best argument against the death penalty" is, to me, sidestepping the core moral question, and smothering it, instead, a kind of ethically ambivalent fudge. Even if it were a proven deterrent it would, to my way of thinking, still be morally unacceptable.
Ergo: The best argument against the death penalty is that it is not a proven deterrent.
Originally posted by FMFI don't find that argument very convincing, though. You could say that the state shouldn't kill because murder is wrong and illegal. However, locking someone up against his will is wrong and illegal as well.
Well I beg to differ. The best argument against the death penalty is that it is, in and of itself, wrong. To say that something else is "the best argument against the death penalty" is, to me, sidestepping the core moral question, and smothering it, instead, a kind of ethically ambivalent fudge. Even if it were a proven deterrent it would, to my way of thinking, still be morally unacceptable.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think it's both morally acceptable and logical to imprison people if they have broken laws. I can't see how one can justify killing them.
I don't find that argument very convincing, though. You could say that the state shouldn't kill because murder is wrong and illegal. However, locking someone up against his will is wrong and illegal as well.
Originally posted by FMFYes, I got that, but what do you base the distinction on? Clearly, locking someone up is not as bad as killing them, but wouldn't you agree that kidnapping someone is generally a bad thing to do?
I think it's both morally acceptable and logical to imprison people if they have broken laws. I can't see how one can justify killing them.
Originally posted by sh76Plus:
Putting innocent people in jail is also a terrible thing. Yet the system does sacrifice some innocent people on the alter of crime reduction. It's unfortunate, but incarceration is a necessary deterrent to reduce crime. The death penalty, where applied in the US, has the same standard of guilt as any other crime; i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt. If the death pe ...[text shortened]... against the death penalty is that it's not much of a deterrent. As such, it's not justified.
Incarrerating someone is both, necessary and undoable.
The death penalty is is both unnessary and perminant.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think imprisonment is justified in the same way as taxation is.
Yes, I got that, but what do you base the distinction on? Clearly, locking someone up is not as bad as killing them, but wouldn't you agree that kidnapping someone is generally a bad thing to do?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThere is a thing called society. You have to pay X for its upkeep. X is set by society's consensus. If you do A or B you will be detained as a punishment. A and B and the punishments attendant therero are also set by society's consensus. We obviously cannot take everything you've got for that upkeep. And we obviously cannot kill you.
I think imprisonment is justified in the same way as taxation is.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraImprisonment doesn't involve taking a life. At least not normally or deliberately. I think we have an unaliable right to life but no inaliable right NOT to be punished for crimes.
I still don't get the criterion upon which you base the distinction between imprisonment and the death penalty.