Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    It's got to the point where I care about animals more than I care about humans who are not friends/family etc. and who deserve punishment. Also, makes developing human target medicine easier.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    :rolleyes: Why do they 'deserve' punishment then? What's the purpose of it? To make them suffer?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    What relevance does that have? It doesn't matter what you prefer to call it, it's torture


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    A lazy slob who doesn't want to do community service would also call picking up litter torture.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    :rolleyes: Why do they 'deserve' punishment then? What's the purpose of it? To make them suffer?
    Punishment as being a deterrent.
    Punishment as being a reward. Like being rewarded for being good.
    To keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over undeserved happiness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Punishment as being a deterrent.
    Punishment as being a reward. Like being rewarded for being good.
    To keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over undeserved happiness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    We know empirically the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, I don't think medical testing as a potential proxy for it is different.

    To aim to 'keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over underserved happiness' as a social policy would require us to go so much further than a death penalty/forced medical testing. There is a great deal of subjectivism to the matter that is often more clear cut in the case of a murder; should we have a 100% inheritece tax as inheritece effectively constitutes undeserved happiness? Should we aim to monitor the degree to which everyone works hard in life and heavily tax those who have amassed millions through good fortune and little else? Murder cases would make up a minuscule part of the imbalance of the overall injustice of 'undeserved happiness' in the world, so for that policy to be effective, government would have to delve into the more 'subjective' areas.

    I would argue that creating unhappiness purely to counter undeserved happiness serves no effective purpose in the world, that seeking a cosmic 'balance of deservedness' is an arbitrary ambition in comparison to seeking to maximise overall happiness (under which system I don't think one could justify the death penalty at all, enforced medical testing would be questionable).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    We know empirically the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent, I don't think medical testing as a potential proxy for it is different.

    To aim to 'keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over underserved happiness' as a social policy would require us to go so much further than a death penalty/forced medical testing. There is a great deal of subjectivism to the matter that is often more clear cut in the case of a murder; should we have a 100% inheritece tax as inheritece effectively constitutes undeserved happiness? Should we aim to monitor the degree to which everyone works hard in life and heavily tax those who have amassed millions through good fortune and little else? Murder cases would make up a minuscule part of the imbalance of the overall injustice of 'undeserved happiness' in the world, so for that policy to be effective, government would have to delve into the more 'subjective' areas.

    I would argue that creating unhappiness purely to counter undeserved happiness serves no effective purpose in the world, that seeking a cosmic 'balance of deservedness' is an arbitrary ambition in comparison to seeking to maximise overall happiness (under which system I don't think one could justify the death penalty at all, enforced medical testing would be questionable).
    I never said I agreed with the death penalty and my view on medical testing had nothing to with the question I replied to.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Punishment as being a deterrent.
    Punishment as being a reward. Like being rewarded for being good.
    To keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over undeserved happiness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That doesn't answer why you think anyone 'deserves' to be punished though? Why do you think some people deserve to suffer? I don't think deliberately causing more suffering for its own sake can seriously be considered as the moral or just thing to do.

    Deterrence is a very tricky issue. First, we actually need evidence that a specific punishment really works as a deterrent. In the case of capital punishment, for example, this evidence is very much missing. Second, what are the moral implications of using deterrence as justification? I don't think it's at all obvious that inflicting suffering on one person so that people in the future don't do similar things is okay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    That doesn't answer why you think anyone 'deserves' to be punished though? Why do you think some people deserve to suffer? I don't think deliberately causing more suffering for its own sake can seriously be considered as the moral or just thing to do.

    Deterrence is a very tricky issue. First, we actually need evidence that a specific punishment really works as a deterrent. In the case of capital punishment, for example, this evidence is very much missing. Second, what are the moral implications of using deterrence as justification? I don't think it's at all obvious that inflicting suffering on one person so that people in the future don't do similar things is okay.
    Because I'm human. Some humans naturally want punishment as a consequence, others want alternatives as a consequence. That's just how I think and as much as I'd like to be pleasant, I can't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm opposed to the death penalty. It's not that I care about preserving the life of say, a serial killer or child abuser, and if such people are killed in vigilante attacks then so be it. What I am concerned about is who's hands the right to kill is in. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that
    political leaders and government authorities are even close to being free of corruption and prejudice, they're just as guilty of it as anybody, if not more so. It's too strong a force that can be too easily abused, by a too easily corruptible body.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Because I'm human. Some humans naturally want punishment as a consequence, others want alternatives as a consequence. That's just how I think and as much as I'd like to be pleasant, I can't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So in what sense do they deserve punishment? Saying that you personally want them to be punished isn't really the same thing!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    ^ and randomly throwing in the word 'naturally' doesn't sell your cause very well either.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    So in what sense do they deserve punishment? Saying that you personally want them to be punished isn't really the same thing!
    Look, the question of the thread was should the death penalty be allowed. My answer was no. It wasn't about anything needing to be justified.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PhantomHill)
    ^ and randomly throwing in the word 'naturally' doesn't sell your cause very well either.
    I wasn't trying to sell anything. I answered a question. I don't care if you agree or disagree and don't want to hear your reasons in reply either.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MockingJay-)
    What's your verdict? Is it right to kill someone for killing somebody?
    Imo we should have the death penalty for rape and pedophilia
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Not at all.


    Killing a killer does not reduce the number of killers in the world; it makes it stay the same.

    Anyone with any empathy should look for the goodness in other humans. If you can't find any light in the criminal, at least find sympathy for their family. At least think about how your family would feel if you were condemned to death, or if one of your family members were.

    I think it's inhumane and barbaric, really.

    (Although, of course, if a person was about to press a button that would launch a nuclear attack that destroyed the entire world and the absolute only way to save the world would be to kill them, I would accept it. But that's an exaggerated circumstance. I'm talking about murder crimes and following prosecutions.)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Punishment as being a deterrent.
    Punishment as being a reward. Like being rewarded for being good.
    To keep the balance of deserved happiness over evil, and evil over undeserved happiness.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    There's no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The USA have capital punishment yet have a higher murder rate than any country in the EU where it's forbidden.

    The last point sounds like a quote from Star Wars or a Disney film.

    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    A lazy slob who doesn't want to do community service would also call picking up litter torture.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Well the authority for calling picking up litter is, as you put it, a lazy slob. The authority for calling forced medical trials torture is the only (to the best of my knowledge) internationally ratified human rights document.

    (Original post by muslimstanisyed)
    Imo we should have the death penalty for rape and pedophilia
    There's a flight to Jeddah departing Heathrow at 20:45, go there and your barbaric wish will become a reality.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    There's no evidence that capital punishment is an effective deterrent. The USA have capital punishment yet have a higher murder rate than any country in the EU where it's forbidden.

    The last point sounds like a quote from Star Wars or a Disney film.



    Well the authority for calling picking up litter is, as you put it, a lazy slob. The authority for calling forced medical trials torture is the only (to the best of my knowledge) internationally ratified human rights document.



    There's a flight to Jeddah departing Heathrow at 20:45, go there and your barbaric wish will become a reality.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You are soft thats why.
    If someone nonced off your daughter you would probably do nothing about it
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muslimstanisyed)
    You are soft thats why.
    If someone nonced off your daughter you would probably do nothing about it
    Or they just haven't bought into an outdated notion that 'an eye for an eye' actually serves any practical purpose or is morally justifiable?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)

    There's a flight to Jeddah departing Heathrow at 20:45, go there and your barbaric wish will become a reality.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Look mate. He stated his opinion and that's it. Whilst you may not appreciate his opinion, it was not directed at you and you had no reason to reply like a ****. This thread is asking for opinions and this person didn't try to start a debate with you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Look, the question of the thread was should the death penalty be allowed. My answer was no. It wasn't about anything needing to be justified.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Moonstruck16)
    Look mate. He stated his opinion and that's it. Whilst you may not appreciate his opinion, it was not directed at you and you had no reason to reply like a ****. This thread is asking for opinions and this person didn't try to start a debate with you.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You realise this thread is in the debates subforum, right? Besides, it's very important to challenge poorly-thought out positions in public, whether you want to stick your magic criticism-resistant 'opinion' label on them or not!

    If you can't justify your position, you shouldn't hold it. That's really not much more than a tautology.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    You realise this thread is in the debates subforum, right? Besides, it's very important to challenge poorly-thought out positions in public, whether you want to stick your magic criticism-resistant 'opinion' label on them or not!

    If you can't justify your position, you shouldn't hold it. That's really not much more than a tautology.
    It a position that I just have. That is my justification. If you can change my opinion then great but right now, I only have one reaction.

    What position do you suggest I hold then? Your one? Because I don't have a justification for that either.

    Anyway, I inputed, that's it. Why aren't you 'trying to open up a debate' with all the other people on this thread who don't hold your position? The person who suggested sending them to a rubbish island may like to argue with you. I can quote them in if you can't find them and you can have some banter with them.


    Also, how is telling someone to get on a plane any way to open up a debate or respons to someone 'in a justified way'.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.