Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pro Crastination)
    I don't see how pointing out that imprisonment of dangerous members of society tends to increase overall happiness is being particularly selective. Murderers and kidnappers are free to think whatever they want about their acts but I can only think that somebody who, for instance, values their freedom to take life from another sentient being against their will as providing more net happiness than the healthy continued existence of that individual is not thinking rationally.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I'm against it tbh- It's just an easy way out!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If the crime was that serious, I'd rather they were jailed for the rest of their lives than kill them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    The difference is that human suffering matters, animal suffering doesn't.
    Do you care to expand upon your speciesism?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.