U say that someone gives up the right to life when they take another life in every circumstance? What about soldiers in war? What if someone’s cancer meds makes them drowsy and they fall asleep at the wheel and kill someone? What if a doctor refuses care to someone who can’t pay and then they die? All these people have taken a life, do they all deserve to die?
Not reading all that. Just read the beginning and that’s your opinion I don’t agree with.
“It follows that since we have the right to life, we have given up our right to take life. In the very same moment that an individual decided that he/she has the right to take life, is the exact same moment they give up their own right to life.” That puts the executioner in an awkward position
@UCrayCray Not really. The executioner is simply carrying out justice. He/she is a 3rd party, since this can't be left to something as unreliable as god (s) or karma. If I were to go into the details of how this whole thing (as I see it) would be arranged, we'd be looking at 3 to 5 pages of text at least.Suffice it to say that the executioner is not guilty for carrying out the execution. It's not a domino effect. You kill an innocent person, and by doing that, you lose your right to life. You may now be killed in turn without your killer losing their right to life, as you are not innocent (having already taken innocent life yourself). I am sorry for forgetting to highlight that this applies to the taking of innocent life (in this case, anyone that has not killed someone else) specifically.
@jjj101010 These are particular incidents that require some discussion and analysis. Discussion I tried to avoid because my answer was already long. I am giving a general rule here. As with all things, specifics will need to be ironed out. In terms of the scenarios you gave; the simple answer would be yes, but that ignores several important factors. Without going into too much detail (remember that all this is solely my own opinion): War for example, can be looked at as an agreement between two (or more) nations to legalize the murder of certain people (military personnel) for a period of time. This arguably nullifies my point on right to life. I believe that falling asleep at the wheel is purely an act of irresponsibility on the driver's part, and so, yes, they would be guilty in that scenario. In the doctor's case, he/she is arguably not guilty; although an argument can be made on the humanity of saving a life even in the absence of remuneration for that action, especially considering this is a profession concerned with saving lives. I think that if profit and income is given primacy, most crime is then justifiable. It's a complicated discussion, but in this case, the blame would fall more on the state for not controlling or subsidizing the cost of healthcare for it's citizens. I understand that I may not have eloquently expressed my opinion well here. My main point of contention on the subject of the death sentence is how wrong it feels to devalue the life of the victim while in relation to that of the murderer, and how that can logically be considered fair (especially when there are multiple victims).
There point about war legalising the killing of others becomes more of a legal argument than a moral one. However this is all a moral issue not a legal one as the laws are already laid out. It appears that the argument for taking a life boils down to its wrong unless we say it’s not, that is the only way the solider can do his job, or the executioner for that matter. Just coz it’s lawful, doesn’t mean it’s morally right. I have heard it argued that the sign of a civilised society is how they treat their least civilised, in this case criminals, and also their most vulnerable.
@jjj101010 Indeed. What is lawful is not necessarily morally right. These can be seen everywhere. However, the nature of society is that laws are necessary to control actions, while anything goes in the state of nature. This is because morals are subjective in relation to the person. For example; I think the death penalty is right because sparing the murderer implies that the victim's life was worth less. To me that is immoral. I'm sure other people who support and oppose this all have moral arguments in support of their position. Because of these various opinions on what is morally correct, I prefer to try and boil them down to something I think we can all agree on first (In this case, that we all have a right to life, and no right to take life). If we make that common point a law, we may then begin addressing the specifics from there, and the problems (such as why the victim's life has less value, how sparing the killer does not encourage exploitation, what constitutes incontrovertible evidence of guilt, etc.). It is even worth considering who gets to decide what is morally "right" anyway, and why. I have heard that line about what makes a civilized society. While I deeply respect the spirit in which it was made. I personally think it's an empty statement designed to attach a negative connotation to people who don't share a particular view. Similar statements have been made about other moral positions dealing with freedom, equality, international relations, etc., and their weakness lies in how their defenders erect double standards along the way when challenged. It's subjective as far as the quote goes. After-all, who gets to decide what makes a people "civilized" and others barbaric, and why them specifically and not someone else?
I understand the logic for the death penalty but as I stated previously in a separate chain, the death penalty is a practice that has been phased out in the majority of the world, someone wanted to dispute this but as I stated, of the 193 countries in the world only 53 still carry out capital punishment based on amnesty international figures. An argument could be made that morality is set by what the majority of people deem acceptable, therefore globally it is not deemed morally right. I’m sure u will have an opposing view to this and that’s fine. It would be a boring world if everyone thought the same.
You're a nutcase.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Lack of sex Ed doesn’t make people rape people 🤣🤣 something is wrong with you. Those boys deserve the chair.
Believe it or not it actually does. They're not taught the concept of consent. They have no idea what to do with their horny asses. Don't get me wrong I'm not defending them. I'm just saying that the root cause should be eliminated. Give them the chair or whatever. They definitely deserve to be punished. I was merely talking about prevention.
Most were rightfully killed. How dare you post this trash on my question?
> most> trashInnocent people getting murdered by the state is trash?
Yeah too bad they’re apparently protected in there now
I even read they brag about who they raped to each other, like wtf
Fuckin disgusting. Honestly I'd gather all these animals and jettison them to an empty island where they can rape each other, far away from everyone else.
Most of the time the wrong person isn’t captured. This should be common sense. You people are giving very crappy answers.
Yes people do have that right, which is why many do it.
I don’t believe that people have the right to take other people’s souls. Ultimately the souls belong to god.
People don’t have the right to rape other but still do it, that’s my point. You saying they don’t have the right doesn’t change the fact that they will, and in reality many people do have the right to take a life, like the police or executioner. This is a fact.
Yes of course it doesn’t stop people. But I’m not really an advocate of the eye for an eye concept. And I suggest others means of punishment. A life imprisonment sentence is psychologically very challenging and I think it’s better than a death sentence. I don’t believe the government or the law has the right to kill someone. Yes, criminals do it but if the law does it then we are suggesting as a society it’s acceptable.
Sorry rather an acceptable concept*
You said legalizing the death penalty would say otherwise? What? It is legal
I don’t live in the US we don’t have a death penalty here in the UK
And yes I respect your opinion too. I enjoy the diversity :)
Oh okay, that’s probably why men can rape their own daughters and kill them and only get 10 years. I definitely won’t be going to Wales unarmed.
Also want to point out we’re not as violent as you guys are so I’m reading your comment right now thinking man im so glad i don’t live in the US lol. Imagine sending your kid to school knowing someone can just walk in and shoot them...
Lmaoo, girl men can rape and kill and only get a slap on the wrist where you are! Stop it, you guys are kinda a bunch of pussies when it comes to the law.
You people aren’t as violent yet you women are sleeping with men who rape and kill their own daughters...😂😂 nice fail. US rocks.
But what about them bragging to each other about the rapes they did?
You’re also forgetting that they can get out on good behavior. That guy is only in there for 10 years.
Then it’s not the problem. It’s how we apply laws that’s the problem. He should be there for 200, but he’s not going to be convicted what’s the point. Also, killing ends the suffering. Not all rapists brag. They realise they are fucked
What are you talking about dude? He raped and impregnated his daughter! Of course he’s freaking convicted. That’s why he’s serving time. My point is that it’s only 10 years, which is disgusting.
It’s not abolished in most of the world, I don't know what world you’re in
There are 193 countries in the world. Only 53 have the death penalty. I’d argue that based on those numbers, most countries don’t have the death penalty
There are also cases of where people have been locked up for a crime they didn’t commit, your reasoning is stupid. And yes, most of the world does have the death penalty, don’t spread false info.
How many countries have the death penalty then? Yes people have been imprisoned falsely but they can be released if they find out later they r innocent, u can bring someone back from the dead. My facts r from amnesty international, happy to look at yours and be proved wrong through
He locked up and impregnated his daughters for years. He should die.
I know it's terrible.just saying once it's you in the chair or bed strapped down starring death in the eyes you'll rethink your position on the subject. unless of course you accept full responsibility and welcome death with open arms which very rare in a criminals case.
Um if I fucking raped my kids? No I wouldn’t. Why the hell are you even trying to compare
I think it's good to keep crime down but you yourself have to accept the possibilty that you and anyone you love will have to go through the same fate no exceptions.
do you not understand what I'm saying?
Everyone wouldn’t have to go through the same fate, cause all crimes don’t require the same punishment. Your argument is invalid, and you must be oblivious or dumb.
🤣yeah you don't get it.not enough brain power
No, you are just clearly dumb dude
Like seriously, it’s crazy how many guys your age are stupid af.
They’re not going to castrate any rapist in the US. What you people aren’t even thinking about are them raping other prisoners. And they get a free meal and bed while their own children they raped are dead and suffering? Unacceptable.
How does it suck?
Yeap. And Americans who rape Americans, Americans that rape illegals and illegals that rape illegals. At least in my view.
Everyone is human, that makes no difference.