ForumTouchy Subjects ► Does Anyone Deserve to Die?
I'm just kind of confused. I always had this fundamental belief that said 'no one deserves to die', but I'm not so sure.
  
I don’t think so either. Not everyone deserves a second chance, but I think people underestimate how much death affects the people around them.
  
I don't believe that a human life loses its worth based on the past actions of that human.
The idea of deserving punishment just does not jive. I get if it prevents someone doing bad things in the future or acts as a deterrent for others. Doing something bad to someone because of some idea of balance of justice, I don't agree with.
  
I can certainly see that.
The only reason I said that some people don't deserve second chances is to mitigate the people that put examples of really bad people and say "why would this person deserve a second chance?"

But to be honest, if someone feels bad for their actions, that's usually enough to convince people not to do it again. Society punishes people a lot more than prison could.
  
I mean, yeah, except for the sociopaths. Jail is still necessary, especially for those who are already felons. Once ostracized, there is less reason to fear being ostracized again, considering the massive grudges society holds against former criminals. There's still a need for punishment and containment, just because people "feel bad" doesn't mean they won't do it again. There needs to be some deterrent to both prevent them from doing it again, and to prevent others from doing it in the first place. It seems bad, but nostrorum conflictus, I guess.
I forget if that's an actual saying or not. My friends and I have a bunch of Latin phrases we use in rhetoric to shorten arguments when they get to philosophical, so I have no idea if that's a common phrase or not.
But yeah, death penalty shouldn't be a thing. Life in prison is more of a punishment than the death penalty, honestly. Hate to be that harsh of a person, but giving someone death penalty is letting them off easy.
  
I do indeed agree on both of those things. I do see the "yeah, but we still need corporal punishment."
Another disadvantage of the death penalty; You can't take it back. If someone's dead, there's no bringing them back. If someone's spending their life in prison, you could still take them out of prison.
Doubt anyone would do that, though.
  
Which is why a bunch of states have suspended it. Death penalty is for people who think death is "bad". You're basically just letting them off easily.

From Socrates:
"Let us consider also in the following way that there is much hope that
being dead is something good. For to be dead is one of
two things: either it is like being nothing and the dead person does not
have any perception of anything, or, as they say, it is some kind
of change, namely relocation, of the soul from here to another place.
And if it is indeed a complete absence of perception, like the sleep of
someone who does not even dream at all, death would be a remarkable gain."


It's not as much a penalty as "we're sure of this and we want to permanently and irrevocably remove this person from our society. No second chances". There is honestly very little reason for it to exist.
  
I believe that all humans deserve to die. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". And "the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

That says nothing about whether humans ever ought to mete out death, but I think the answer to that is pretty uncontroversially "yes". Most obviously, killing in defense of the innocent is morally justifiable. I think most people also generalize this principle to killing in just wars.

In summary of my stance, if the question is whether anyone has earned or is worthy of death, yes. If the question is whether people should be killed, also yes.
  
Yeah, maybe, but we'd like to think of ourselves of worthy.

Killing people isn't okay. Sending people off to death also isn't okay.
  
Just to play Devil's advocate - it's not like there's a shortage of humans.
  
True. But people don't like unfair death.
People make other people look like not people to justify killing them, because no one likes killing a human.
  
Wyyca21 said:
Killing people isn't okay.
Ever? Scenario: You're 100 yards away from a man with a knife who is walking towards a toddler with murderous intent. You have a rifle and a choice. Is killing okay in this instance?
  
Preferably, killing shouldn't be necessary.
I would disable them, not kill them.
Like, shoot the arm holding the knife.
  
Putting aside the fact that shooting to disarm is very difficult and not generally recommended (and that the attacker could still die anyway), assume a scenario in which you must choose to either let someone kill an innocent person or kill the attacker first. I don't think this is an unrealistic hypothetical.
  
Paris, November 2015

Someone is charging into a crowd with a suicide vest and a detonator

You have a concealed carry semi-automatic Glock. Clear shot to the head. Anything else risks detonating the vest.

Your choice?
  
Kill.
Better to kill one than to have them kill many more and mortally wound others.
  
Neither of these scenarios is a state-endorsed execution, aka death penalty. Further, as for deserving, that hypothetical man going after the child clearly thinks the kid deserves to die. Care to disagree with him? Cause he's got a knife and he's not afraid to use it. Who are you to decide who does and does not deserve death? And who is he? Only God can have that level of God complex.
And as far as walking around with a rifle looking for bad guys to kill, only a murderer looking for a legal excuse to murder would do such a thing. Do the crime, avoid the time. Pretty sweet deal...if you're a murderer.
  
For the first one, I would prefer to disable if possible.

To be fair, there wasn’t much of another choice in the matter. Was I to just sit there and let people die?
  
@Hydrogen:
I agree that all people deserve to die. I understand what you completely there. I disagree with anyone deserving to be killed. The use of the word “deserve” in “deserve to be killed” bothers me. Some people ‘need’ to be killed in order for something that is desirable to occur, but killing saddens me terribly. I understand the necessity, but, simply, it is sad. Ultimately though I think you know or can guess my stance on anything needing (in this sense) to happen or not.
  
I think they thought that killing was justifiable because everyone deserved to die in their belief. But still, killing someone isn’t good for anyone related positively to them. Not to mention the law. And like someone pointed out earlier, it doesn’t matter who you kill in the eyes of the government; if you kill, you killed someone.
  
Deserve.
"Serve well".
Serve who?
  
I think that some people deserve to die. I think that people like Brock Turner who brutally raped a woman behind a dumpster deserve to die.

However, I also think we're at a point where it isn't necessary for these people to die. Keeping society safe from them is enough. Just because it's deserved doesn't mean that it's the best option. However, I do have a lot of worries about them being in the prison system and interacting with other inmates. Solitary would be best for those kinds of crimes.
  
Well, there are things worse than death. Solitary makes people insane, you know.
  
Right? Life in prison is worse than death. Regardless, the question is "Does Anyone Deserve to Die?"
Deserve. "do something or have or show qualities worthy of (reward or punishment)."

Deserve implies an imperative. Imperatives imply hierarchy. Essentially, it's asking, "Are there any categories of person that I either will be rewarded for, or even just not punished for, killing?"

Well now we've gotten into a really interesting question, because we've crashed into the intersection of sovereignty, moral objectivism, law. In the process we've dragged up all sorts of metaphysical and philosophical questions that have no absolute and provable answers.

At the end of the day, most of human morality is 'might equals right'. Things happen by force. Laws are enforced. En*force*d. Law is just a suggestion without violence, just another book without an army backing it. It's "Do this because the system works better and your life will be way better than a natural one in exchange for your compliance, but you know, we don't *need* your compliance or agreement".

Agreement of the majority isn't consensus, and every 'equitable' system we have is at best equitable to the majority - which implies that even our very best, our most kind, our most gentle systems of civilization require that we ignore the opinions and wishes of non-conforming individuals. They don't count.

Deserve. Who is condemning them? Who will it benefit? By what standard? Towards what end? The language itself sets up that the question is incomplete without the implied actors being accounted for. It doesn't have an answer that is applicable in a universal sense, because the question is itself a flawed question.

It's just the hitchhiker's guide all over again. That's when you realize, oh shit, I've seen this one before, I need to go to sleep because I've got stuff to do tomorrow.
  
A: This is why this is in Touchy Subjects. Yes, the question is flawed, but essentially, if anyone deserves to die, who would it be, and why?

B: What’s the hitchhiker’s guide?
  
Forum > Touchy Subjects > Does Anyone Deserve to Die?