Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

tiberry · 05-23-2005, 03:25 AM

Is this really so complicated an argument?

1. Society in general holds that "killing is wrong". Can we all agree on that? Seems a bit ironic that this is both the rationale for and against the death penalty! Also note that this is a prerequisite to administering the death penalty; that the perpetrator know (or more accurately accept society's opinion) that killing is wrong.

2. Assuming 1 is true, then the death penalty can be looked to as serving one or two broad purposes:

A. As a deterrent by threatening to take the life of someone who kills indiscriminately; based on the assumption that the perpetrator must value his life and therefore the fear of loosing it (if caught) outweighs the desire to kill.

B. Provides for "just punishment" and retribution of said crime committed. This could be both vengeful and also serve as a social purification process - i.e. if society holds that killing is wrong, then eliminating those who do not accept this maintains order and discipline.

The problem of course is accepting the judgment of society as authoritative in carrying out the sentence of death. It becomes nearly impossible (and distasteful) to accept this responsibility, therefore we (society) revert to religion for an answer; seeking out a divine arbitrator to decide for us so we don't have to.

It's logically quite simple, I'd think. Removing religion from the equation you're forced to rely on society's determination that "killing is wrong" and should not have any issue accepting society's means to enforcing the rule. There are countless other "wrong" things mentioned in Christianity, which seems to be the general focus of the thread - yet none of these seem to be nearly as debated as the death penalty. I've yet to see a thread about the legal ramifications of not "Honoring thy Mother and Father"...it’s this dichotomy of enforcing religious rules that to me, renders the religious factor nearly invalid – merely an attempt to escape accepting responsibility as a society.

Consider this: A person who admittedly kills indiscriminately, professing that they know full well that society holds that this is "wrong". In other words, this person is mentally capable of accepting social norms and otherwise belonging to our society, but actively chooses not to.

At this point we (society) have one of two broad choices to make. They are:

1. Ignore this person and allow them to kill indiscriminately at will.

2. Remove them from society.

No one seems to have an issue with choosing number 2, yet it's number 2 that causes so much confusion. Here we have two more broad choices:

1. Lock the person up indefinitely, thereby effectively removing them from society until they fully accept the social norm that "killing is wrong". By the way, we'll pay lots of money for this...

2. Kill them and be done with it.

If you accept that this decision is ultimately based on the enforcement of a social (not religious) rule and is intended to serve for the betterment of society in general, then I’d say that the choice is clear.

You decide.

05-23-2005, 03:25 AM	#65 (permalink)
tiberry Insane Location: Location, Location!	Is this really so complicated an argument? 1. Society in general holds that "killing is wrong". Can we all agree on that? Seems a bit ironic that this is both the rationale for and against the death penalty! Also note that this is a prerequisite to administering the death penalty; that the perpetrator know (or more accurately accept society's opinion) that killing is wrong. 2. Assuming 1 is true, then the death penalty can be looked to as serving one or two broad purposes: A. As a deterrent by threatening to take the life of someone who kills indiscriminately; based on the assumption that the perpetrator must value his life and therefore the fear of loosing it (if caught) outweighs the desire to kill. B. Provides for "just punishment" and retribution of said crime committed. This could be both vengeful and also serve as a social purification process - i.e. if society holds that killing is wrong, then eliminating those who do not accept this maintains order and discipline. The problem of course is accepting the judgment of society as authoritative in carrying out the sentence of death. It becomes nearly impossible (and distasteful) to accept this responsibility, therefore we (society) revert to religion for an answer; seeking out a divine arbitrator to decide for us so we don't have to. It's logically quite simple, I'd think. Removing religion from the equation you're forced to rely on society's determination that "killing is wrong" and should not have any issue accepting society's means to enforcing the rule. There are countless other "wrong" things mentioned in Christianity, which seems to be the general focus of the thread - yet none of these seem to be nearly as debated as the death penalty. I've yet to see a thread about the legal ramifications of not "Honoring thy Mother and Father"...it’s this dichotomy of enforcing religious rules that to me, renders the religious factor nearly invalid – merely an attempt to escape accepting responsibility as a society. Consider this: A person who admittedly kills indiscriminately, professing that they know full well that society holds that this is "wrong". In other words, this person is mentally capable of accepting social norms and otherwise belonging to our society, but actively chooses not to. At this point we (society) have one of two broad choices to make. They are: 1. Ignore this person and allow them to kill indiscriminately at will. 2. Remove them from society. No one seems to have an issue with choosing number 2, yet it's number 2 that causes so much confusion. Here we have two more broad choices: 1. Lock the person up indefinitely, thereby effectively removing them from society until they fully accept the social norm that "killing is wrong". By the way, we'll pay lots of money for this... 2. Kill them and be done with it. If you accept that this decision is ultimately based on the enforcement of a social (not religious) rule and is intended to serve for the betterment of society in general, then I’d say that the choice is clear. You decide. __________________ My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers. Last edited by tiberry; 05-23-2005 at 03:29 AM..