The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should The Death Penalty Be Allowed?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ozzyoscy
Godwin's Law states I should now say murdering Hitler would provide 'net happiness'.

As you can see, if you delve deeper you can start explaining things to favour your view, it's not as simple as 'murdering a murderer makes us as bad as them' and 'imprisoning a kidnapper is ok' after all.


Why would killing Hitler if you already have him captured and imprisoned increase overall happiness?
Original post by similarBlank
In my opinion, yes it should be used for more than murder.

Just one reason:

In Britain,

Human kills several humans. Human is sent to prison.



Dog bites one human one time. Dog gets executed.


Human arrogance right there.


The difference is that human suffering matters, animal suffering doesn't.
I'm against it tbh- It's just an easy way out!
Original post by ozzyoscy
Their possessions are taken from them in the process of imprisoning them.


But they aren't permanently deprived of those possessions, if they're a thief it's likely they don't actually own some of those 'possessions', there is no dishonesty involved, nor is there any appropriation. Don't argue laws you don't understand.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
The difference is that human suffering matters, animal suffering doesn't.


To some people yes, to other people animals are considered of greater importance than most humans.

Posted from TSR Mobile
If the crime was that serious, I'd rather they were jailed for the rest of their lives than kill them.
Original post by loveleest
I'm against it tbh- It's just an easy way out!


Here, here! More suffering is need to the person!
Original post by maria.x
If the crime was that serious, I'd rather they were jailed for the rest of their lives than kill them.


Inb4 rehabilitation :mmm:

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Moonstruck16
Inb4 rehabilitation :mmm:

Posted from TSR Mobile


It may work, but personally I doubt it. As they say 'The dog's tail will never straighten out.'
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
The difference is that human suffering matters, animal suffering doesn't.


Do you care to expand upon your speciesism?
Original post by maria.x
It may work, but personally I doubt it. As they say 'The dog's tail will never straighten out.'


I do hope the basis of our legal system rests on more than proverbs. In all seriousness, and this is more a response to the post you were responding to, why is it funny to think that humans have a capacity to see the error of their ways and make amends?
I think that the death penalty would be acceptable as an option if the person had committed a bad enough crime and sometime in the future there was a way to prove without any doubt that a person is guilty.
Original post by Pro Crastination
Do you care to expand upon your speciesism?


There is no good reason to think that animals are morally important.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
There is no good reason to think that animals are morally important.


Why? Given the fact that they are made up a great deal of the same biological material as we are, and so like us have the capacity to consciously experience existence and hence the capacity to suffer, why should we arbitrarily draw a line and say the right to not suffer stops at our particular species?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Pro Crastination
Why? Given the fact that they are made up a great deal of the same biological material as we are, and so like us have the capacity to consciously experience existence and hence the capacity to suffer, why should we arbitrarily draw a line and say the right to not suffer stops at our particular species?


Because a) the understanding we have of their capacity to suffer is limited - neurological evidence can never be sufficient to indicate suffering; b) the only reason we must logically extend moral consideration to humans is lack of any distinction which could possibly matter from those we take as axiomatically morally important (read: ourselves and those close to us); and c) even if we adopt a reciprocal rationalist approach to morality, we have no reason to think that animals are capable of moral reasoning.
Ethics aside, I don't think that the death penalty is in any way useful. The whole idea is to punish someone for a serious crime, but isn't a life in prison, possibly a life in solitary confinement, SO much worse than dying?

It's basically giving criminals the easy way out, rather than punishing them.

So no, I do not agree with the death penalty.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
Because a) the understanding we have of their capacity to suffer is limited - neurological evidence can never be sufficient to indicate suffering; b) the only reason we must logically extend moral consideration to humans is lack of any distinction which could possibly matter from those we take as axiomatically morally important (read: ourselves and those close to us); and c) even if we adopt a reciprocal rationalist approach to morality, we have no reason to think that animals are capable of moral reasoning.


Point a: As we are not those particular animals ourselves we will never 100% be able to prove they have the a capacity to suffer, that being said it would seem highly likely that they do. Secondly, would it not be morally sensible to assume they can, risking being wrong and little else, or assume they cannot, being wrong, and inflicting incalculable suffering?

Point b: That is speciesist. Hundreds of years ago white people would have said stuff exactly like that about about black people etc. 'They are not like us, hence they are due no consideration as I don't find them particularly important to my interests.'

Point c: What does it matter that they can or cannot morally reason? People in comas can't morally reason as far as we know, that doesn't mean they are instantly without rights.
Original post by Pro Crastination
I do hope the basis of our legal system rests on more than proverbs. In all seriousness, and this is more a response to the post you were responding to, why is it funny to think that humans have a capacity to see the error of their ways and make amends?


Well some of them can fix the 'errors'. I can't deny that but just not all of them.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
The difference is that human suffering matters, animal suffering doesn't.


^ This epitomises human arrogance right there.

In my opinion, (something you forgot to say before you said what you said) animal suffering matters, arrogant humans' suffering doesn't.
Original post by Pro Crastination
Point a: As we are not those particular animals ourselves we will never 100% be able to prove they have the a capacity to suffer, that being said it would seem highly likely that they do. Secondly, would it not be morally sensible to assume they can, risking being wrong and little else, or assume they cannot, being wrong, and inflicting incalculable suffering?


I strongly, strongly disagree that it seems highly likely, or even that it seems more likely than not (it is difficult enough to establish that other humans have feelings). With that said, I don't feel we should inflict pain on animals where absolutely no benefit to humanity is gained - however, in the vast majority of cases where humans harm animals, a significant benefit is gained (eating meat, testing drugs etc).

Point b: That is speciesist. Hundreds of years ago white people would have said stuff exactly like that about about black people etc. 'They are not like us, hence they are due no consideration as I don't find them particularly important to my interests.'


Nothing at all like it. The reasoning then was a complete lack of both moral thought outside the confines of religious diktat as well as lack of biological understanding.

Point c: What does it matter that they can or cannot morally reason? People in comas can't morally reason as far as we know, that doesn't mean they are instantly without rights.


People in comas have the potential to morally reason in the future. Are the dead worthy of moral consideration? Of course not!

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you