Why is murder actually wrong.

Author: Checkmate

Posts

Total: 458
#121
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
They're in jail. 
What kind of things do you think happen in jail?

But a lot of people end up killing people for example because their mental illness skews their perception of reality. Schizophrenia is the most obvious example.
Point already taken but when I took them out of the equation you still had issue with the death penalty so the mental illness argument is just an excuse as far as this discussion is concerned.

#122
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
What kind of things do you think happen in jail?
Does every prisoner who goes to jail harm someone in jail? Are you willing to make that guarantee?

Point already taken but when I took them out of the equation you still had issue with the death penalty so the mental illness argument is just an excuse at this point.
We were in a line of conversation that involved mental illness, so I made a point about mental illness. Also, I've also clarified my position on those who aren't mentally ill and made it clear that since the U.S. does not make a significant effort to determine who is mentally ill (in a way that clouds judgement) and who isn't then the death penalty is unacceptable for everyone. 
#123
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
My position is so simple but you're making it so much more complicated than it needs to be. I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is, and in addition it is cruel to the human beings experiencing it. 
#124
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Does every prisoner who goes to jail harm someone in jail? Are you willing to make that guarantee?
No I’m not but that’s besides the point, fact of the matter is being in jail doesn’t mean you’re no longer a threat period.

Also, I've also clarified my position on those who aren't mentally ill and made it clear that since the U.S. does not make a significant effort to determine who is mentally ill (in a way that clouds judgement) and who isn't then the death penalty is unacceptable for everyone.
But I asked if they made a significant effort would that have any impact on your stance and you still said no, you’ve yet to give me an answer as to why under those circumstances.

My position is so simple but you're making it so much more complicated than it needs to be.
I’m sure a lot of people with complicated positions feel that way, not to mention I never asked you to rephrase your complicated position, you did that on your own.
#125
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
No I’m not but that’s besides the point, fact of the matter is being in jail doesn’t mean you’re no longer a threat period.

No one is ever not a threat at all, in the sense that everyone has the potential to harm. The question is whether the magnitude and probability of that harm is to ethically justifies in harming the potential perpetrators of that harm in certain ways.  

But I asked if they made a significant effort would that have any impact on your stance and you still said no, you’ve yet to give me an answer as to why under those circumstances.
It is cruel to kill people when you don't need to. 

I will get back to you tomorrow if you respond as I have work to do. 
#126
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
The question is whether the magnitude and probability of that harm is to ethically justifies in harming the potential perpetrators of that harm in certain ways.  
Then answer it, if the magnitude and probability of harm is high (which I believe it is) does that then ethically justify the death penalty? If your answer is still no then I’m curious as to why.

It is cruel to kill people when you don't need to.
Now this is a classic example of the inconsistency I was alluding to before because it is also cruel to convict a person for a crime they didn’t commit yet you’re still pro jail, why does the cruel argument work for the death penalty but not jail I’ve yet to figure that one out from you, lastly take as long as you need I’ll be waiting with the hopes of a sufficient response, don’t work too hard now.
#127
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Not talking about the law dude.
#128
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I was dude, you have a right to ask me anything you want just know that if you’re not asking in regards to the law then it’s not applicable to the discussion me and armoredcat were having.
#129
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
#129

Don't see a lot of legal discussion going on there.

Mostly ethics.

Don't quite see how me questioning, and you imparting, views concerning innocence, is inconsistent with an ethical discussion.



#130
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
you imparting, views concerning innocence
You have a direct quote from me doing so?
#131
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Then answer it, if the magnitude and probability of harm is high (which I believe it is) does that then ethically justify the death penalty? If your answer is still no then I’m curious as to why.
Well, it isn't. At this point we are talking about criminals who have committed severe offenses that do not have a judgement-clouding mental illness. This is a fraction of a fraction of people and killing them will do next to nothing to prevent prison violence. Meaningful prison reform is probably the only thing that will, and I agree that prison violence is a problem. America clearly does not invest nearly enough in prisoners and those in mental asylums. If you're asking me what my views on the death penalty would be if it did have a large impact, I would have to think about that. It would depend on the impact. 

Now this is a classic example of the inconsistency I was alluding to before because it is also cruel to convict a person for a crime they didn’t commit yet you’re still pro jail, why does the cruel argument work for the death penalty but not jail I’ve yet to figure that one out from you
I will quote myself: 

I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is
Moving on: 

 lastly take as long as you need I’ll be waiting with the hopes of a sufficient response, don’t work too hard now.
I hope you mean that in good faith and are not being patronizing. 

#132
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
Well, it isn't.
And you know this how?

killing them will do next to nothing to prevent prison violence.
It will from the one you executed, if you cut the head off the snake the snake can’t attack you.

I think that imprisonment is necessary for the functioning of a society. I don't think that killing people is
This quote doesn’t answer the question, cruel and unnecessary are two different concepts.
#133
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
And you know this how?
I elaborated immediately after I said that. 

It will from the one you executed, if you cut the head off the snake the snake can’t attack you.
So, if we've established that the justification you propose for killing criminals guilty of capital offenses is that they might hurt someone else in prison ,then, therefore, you are saying that you are willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So you'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed. 

This quote doesn’t answer the question, cruel and unnecessary are two different concepts.
If something is necessary for the functioning of society, that typically outweighs if it is cruel. If it is not then it often doesn't. 
#134
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
So, if we've established that the justification you propose for killing criminals guilty of capital offenses is that they might hurt someone else in prison
No we haven’t established that, who does or doesn’t pose a threat to society was your argument not mine, nice try taking your talking points and treating them as if they’re mine so I can do the work for you.
#135
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
No we haven’t established that, who does or doesn’t pose a threat to society was your argument not mine, nice try taking your talking points and treating them as if they’re mine so I can do the work for you.
Well for better or worse that's what has been implied to be a justification for killing people guilty of severe offenses for the last 10 posts or so. For no other reason has the DP been justified recently. 

I feel as if you are telling me what my motivations are for making statements in this argument. However, you do not know why I said what I said and you cannot reasonably infer malicious or dishonest intent from what I've said. I want you to stop getting into the bad things you think I am trying to do and have a good-faith conversation about the topic. 
#136
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
If something is necessary for the functioning of society, that typically outweighs if it is cruel. If it is not then it often doesn't. 
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.

Well for better or worse that's what has been implied to be a justification for killing people guilty of severe offenses for the last 10 posts or so.
The only one making implications is you once you made the posing a threat argument, I’m just countering what you’ve been saying.

I feel as if you are telling me what my motivations are for making statements in this argument.
And I feel as far as this discussion is concerned unless you have any solid proof of what your claiming then you should keep your feelings in your pocket because without that your feelings are nothing but that feelings, but in good faith I haven’t made any claims in regards to your motivations, in fact I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked you why and last I checked asking why is a question not a declarative statement.
#137
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.

Jail and prison? 

The only one making implications is you once you made the posing a threat argument, I’m just countering what you’ve been saying.
Ah, I see what you're saying. Sure, but either way what I said here: 

So, if we've established that the justification you propose for killing criminals guilty of capital offenses is that they might hurt someone else in prison ,then, therefore, you are saying that you are willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So you'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed. 
Still proves the consistency of my position. It's just that we're working under my framework, which doesn't change much. 
And I feel as far as this discussion is concerned unless you have any solid proof of what your claiming then you should keep your feelings in your pocket because without that your feelings are nothing but that feelings, but in good faith I haven’t made any claims in regards to your motivations, in fact I’ve lost count how many times I’ve asked you why and last I checked asking why is a question not a declarative statement.
You billed yourself as some kind of nonpartisan arbiter of consistency:

 don’t assume to know the answers to these types of things I just observe from afar to and speak up whenever I detect any inconsistency,
So I've been assuming that I was supposed to prove that my positions were consistent, not actually get to the heart of why I believe what I believe. And when you ask me why, I have been giving you answers haven't I? Do you want me to explain to you why I believe that killing people who are already captured by the state is wrong? 
#138
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
in good faith I haven’t made any claims in regards to your motivations

nice try taking your talking points and treating them as if they’re mine so I can do the work for you.

#139
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
So what makes jail necessary but prison unnecessary? Because they both serve the same function in regards to eliminating a specific threat.
And if you're curious why I support jailing people over killing them (which may have been what you meant here) than it's because we need to maintain the social order somehow by keeping people who are dangerous to society from destroying everything. Jail, for all it's problems, is generally better and more humane than death. I guess if you wanted to kill yourself instead of go to jail that would be fine... maybe? (like a voluntary death penalty or something) in some cases.  I also obviously believe in prison reform to make jails and asylums better. Sometimes we don't consider people who may have done unethical things in our moral compass, but we ought to because they are still people after all. 
#140
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
#95.

"Innocent people".

Was this a random comment, or did it have a cause and an intended effect?
#141
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
No one is ever not a threat at all, in the sense that everyone has the potential to harm.
Even if I accepted that, that’s not what you were referring to when you said

I don't believe in killing people who don't pose a threat to society.
So be consistent and keep that same energy because this is your talking point not mine unless you’re willing to concede the point altogether.

Jail, for all it's problems, is generally better and more humane than death.
Well there’s been reform in regards to the death penalty I don’t think they kill them the same way they used to in the past, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) after attempting to execute them the assailant may not die instantly and they’re just holding on to dear life suffering, people thought that was an inhumane way of killing so I think they do it differently now maybe before it was hanging and now it’s shocking but for those that believe in hell it makes sense if they also believe the suffering would continue regardless if not be worse but if you don’t believe in hell (which judging by your profile you don’t) then the death penalty should be considered preferable over jail since you don’t believe there’s suffering in death because let’s be real even with all the reform in the world jail is still no picnic (excluding the last meal inmates receive on death row).

Still proves the consistency of my position.
No it doesn’t because you’re trying to speak for me.

So correct me if I’m wrong but what other reason is there to take your talking points and treat them as if they’re mine other than trying to manipulate me into defending your position (I’ve played devils advocate before but this is slightly different)? Because you most certainly did this, I too can quote things.
#142
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
If you’ve read the context surrounding that whole post you would know that the quote 
“innocent people” were in regards to false convictions, again all having to do with the law and not imparting my views anywhere.
#143
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Everyone does pose a threat to society in some capacity. When I say "a threat to society" I am trying to get across that unless someone is literally about to kill someone else or immediately going to do something extremely harmful they typically should not be killed, unless there's some other substantially significant circumstance going on that I haven't thought of.

Well there’s been reform in regards to the death penalty I don’t think they kill them the same way they used to in the past, I think (and correct me if I’m wrong) after attempting to execute them the assailant may not die instantly and they’re just holding on to dear life suffering, people thought that was an inhumane way of killing so I think they do it differently now maybe before it was hanging and now it’s shocking but for those that believe in hell it makes sense if they also believe the suffering would continue regardless if not be worse but if you don’t believe in hell (which judging by your profile you don’t) then the death penalty should be considered preferable over jail since you don’t believe there’s suffering in death because let’s be real even with all the reform in the world jail is still no picnic (excluding the last meal inmates receive on death row).

I don't think you can measure the value of life solely by how much utility it has. If we did that we could justify killing a lot more people than prisoners. Life has inherent value as possibly the only thing we have. Plenty of very important people had bad lives. And like I said, I think prisons need to be improved; I don't think that the current state of prisons is an inevitable reality. I also think that you're assuming unjustly that a prisoner's life is a fate worse than death, when I think that's an overgeneralization. You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison. It's just a much more difficult atmosphere.

No it doesn’t because you’re trying to speak for me.

So correct me if I’m wrong but what other reason is there to take your talking points and treat them as if they’re mine other than trying to manipulate me into defending your position (I’ve played devils advocate before but this is slightly different)? Because you most certainly did this, I too can quote things.
Say I phrased it like this: 

So, if we've established that the potential inconsistency with my position generally opposing the deaths of people who do not pose an immediate danger to society (which is something I probably could have phrased better at the time) is that they might hurt someone else in prison, then, therefore,  I'd saying that I am willing to kill people who won't kill anyone in prison on the off-chance they do. So I'd be killing people for offenses they would never commit... so that... other people don't get killed. 
Would you have a problem?

And excuse me for getting a little confused when this whole conversation has been a complex interrogation of my views where it can be difficult to distinguish what your positions are and what your challenges of my position are. Don't be so uncharitable. If you're going to engage with every facet of someone's views on an issue and dig down into it, you have to be able to expect that sometimes they will have to rephrase or clarify or sometimes misunderstand what you're saying to them. If you can't then you're not capable of having a decent conversation about this. 




#144
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
unless someone is literally about to kill someone else
Someone else? Why do we have to wait until they kill a second person to act, why can’t the first offense be enough? This is peoples lives we’re talking about here, the stricter we are in protecting it the more it shows how much we care waiting for the second go round is practically saying it’s okay to do it if it’s only once you get a free pass.

I also think that you're assuming unjustly that a prisoner's life is a fate worse than death, when I think that's an overgeneralization.
Well that depends on what happens in death and if it’s hell for some people then I don’t think there’s anything worse than that.

You can still get an education, have friends, and, to a more limited extent, follow your talents in prison.
Even in solitary? Not everybody is interested in getting their education or can make friends (I’m sure making an enemy is more likely) look if everybody thought prison was preferable over death we wouldn’t have so many on suicide watch.
#145
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Someone else? Why do we have to wait until they kill a second person to act, why can’t the first offense be enough? This is peoples lives we’re talking about here, the stricter we are in protecting it the more it shows how much we care waiting for the second go round is practically saying it’s okay to do it if it’s only once you get a free pass.
Someone else as in a person besides them. I mean like if you see someone who's about to shoot some random guy in the head you can act. 

Well that depends on what happens in death and if it’s hell for some people then I don’t think there’s anything worse than that.
If hell is real wouldn't death be worse than prison?

Even in solitary?
I mean solitary is literally psychological torture... 
#146
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
And I mean if someone was in solitary and wanted to receive the death penalty instead as long as they both exist I probably wouldn't have a problem with that. 
#147
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Although I don't know if it's feasible to do that. 
#148
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
If hell is real wouldn't death be worse than prison?
Yeah that’s what I said, you’ve answered all the points outside the main question and that’s what makes jail, for all it's problems, better and more humane than death? Because you’re making it seem like some of the people who commit these heinous acts are victims in their own right, well if God is real and judges that and rewards them heaven then where’s the harm there?
#149
Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Tarik
Well any amount of gods and any amount of metaphysical realities could possibly be real/true. If I knew that there was a specific god that existed, had certain moral prescriptions, and that created a specific afterlife, I would have to reconsider all of my views, not just those on the death penalty. But I don't see evidence for that so I default to the assumption that after people die their existence is most likely to be an endless oblivion. I can't be sure that that's true, but since consciousness seems to be a property of living things, I assume that non-living things are just unconscious. 
#150
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Username
But I don't see evidence for that so I default to the assumption that after people die their existence is most likely to be an endless oblivion.
So is endless oblivion worse than

psychological torture
Because if not then one can make the argument that you’re doing those on death row a favor by killing them.