i agree on the first two, but the last i believe is morally indefensible. the first one, you have no choice. the second is an act of mercy, the third? theres a choice. excecution is barbaric, in a society where we have the infrastructure to lock somebody away theres no need to kill them.
i think what it boils down to with me is that killing is fundamentally wrong. and the only time it's ok is when i can't ovoid it. unless i'm using a weapon, i don't see a situation where i couldn't avoid killing someone. heres another question, do you think there are any circumstances that would push you to kill outside your moral code? in a way that you personally consider murder?
I vascilate of the death penalty depending on what day you ask me; some people just cannot be rehabilitated and spending money to prolong their existence seems wrong...although this is typically an emotove response to specific circumstances The princiaplled side of me finds it hard to prescribe killing someone as an appropriate action in a situation with no immediacy of action required Killing someone to prevent an action is not difficult to reconcile in myself...killing someone after the event is a bit "revengey"
No I think you will find that MEANINGLESS killing is wrong to you...you have already established that you can foresee circumstances where it may be necessary It's not difficult to perform a physical act of killing empty handed...mentally is another issue. You are defending yourself and the attacker keeps coming. they are trying to stangle you and your blows have no effect...are you willing to escalate? Then you can kill without a weapon If not, then you are dead "Touch my child you die" - that sort of thing you mean? Yes
Now to me killing someone just to save some pennies seems wrong. There are plenty of people we could kill if economic viability is the deciding factor. And isn't it true that keeping a prisoner on death row is actually more expensive than just locking them up in a normal prison? Even if ultimately they end up being executed?
Don't mistake my meaning - I clarified it was an emotive response, typically with people such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Baby_P - I can see no reason why these people should be allowed to live, but again this is purely emotive. I would not spend one penny keeping them alive given a choice The second half of my earlier post reflect my more usual "go to" position As for cost. the only reason it is more expensive is because of the litigation surrounding the appeal process; killing someone (the act) is actually very cheap
1- i don't know about canada, but in the u.s. it costs about as much if not more than life in prison. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 2- for those who can't be rehabilitated, i'd say life in prison. given the choice between killing someone who isn't a threat to society anymore (theyre in prison) and not killing them, i know my choice. 3- what if the courts got it wrong? what if they're innocent? in life, nothing is 100% certain but death is 100% irreversible.
what i meant is that even if there is a purpose, killing is a bad thing. sometimes bad things have to be done but that doesn't make them any better. your strangulation scenario is something i hadn't specifically thought of. if i HAD to kill them to make them stop then i would. i wouldn't hesitate either, once i commit to something i commit.
Hence my vascilation 1. As i said to PA Smith, the cost is not the Death penalty it is the red tape; In china they bill the family of the deceased so it actually costs little...not that I am upholding them as a standard of course 2. They are still a threat - to guards, other prisoners and anyone else that comes into contact. 3. Always a concern, hence my default stance tends to be "no"...but if it was my family member? I would pull the switch myself in a heartbeat It's one reason I have to learn to be able make myself "cold" when I am working, and it also a reason many LEO's come across as indifferent, rude or callous on something like a traffic ticket...it's a defensive mechanism to preserve sanity
don't get me wrong, there are people who i have thought "kill the *******". the guy who walked into the newtown school and murderd dozens of children for example. if i had come home to him in my house after hearing about that, there's a good chance i would have tried to kill him. but i would have been wrong. we can't let emotion get in the way of morality. i just can't justify killing someone as a punishment.
At the time Germany was suffering from the treaty of Versailles and the country became extremely poor, they had their colonies stripped away, had to pay an insane sum of money and unemployment and inflation were spiraling out of control. Then Hitler showed up and promised everyone better days, at the cost of the rest of the world. Basically they just didn't feel like suffering from the consequences of their WW1 fiasco, so they just followed some nut case into another war. So while there were other factors/roots to consider, Hitler was like 90% of the reason why they went to war. He manipulated Germany with his speeches and promises. That's easy. I'd kill someone if he raped me. Which directly contradicts my moral code of not killing rapists. But I doubt I'd be able to think of things like moral codes at such a time. While we're at it, I recall a joke Louis CK made about using a time machine not to kill, but to rape Hitler. He made a valid point me thinks. Look it up an youtube, it's pretty funny. I'd link it here, but there's a lot of profanity in there.
i'd say it's preferable to emotional decision making when it comes to big choices like someones life, wouldnt you?
i don't know for sure if i'd do it, but if somebody raped one of my little sisters i know i'd consider killing them.
Here's a question I wonder if anyone who sits around thinking about slaying their fellow human beings think about: Do you consider the distance of killing and how that might affect you? What I mean is, there's a big difference from beating somebody to death with your bare hands, using a short range weapon (knife, tire iron, bat, etc.) to hack or bludgeon somebody to death, shooting them, or setting a deadly trap such as an IED or pitfall. Shooting can be interesting because looking through a scope 500 meters away can make it just as personal as shooting somebody 10 meters away with a pistol. If you do think about these things (and you should, because they're drastically different), what are your thoughts on it? I don't like to cause suffering which makes me a bit squeamish about close up stuff which tends to provoke a mindset of something that can only be defined as "go bezerk to make it as quick as possible." If I don't click over to that I have problems. Killing animals isn't much different to killing a human (at all distances, as longs as you ignore the difference between humans and animals), I know the previous due to animals, not humans in case anyone interprets this in a way that would make them look at my posts a little funny after introducing this .
I have prepared for any and all from gun, blade, bare hands and weapons of opportunity - it's along the lines of a fire extinguisher...hope I don't need to use it, have for if I do
People who park in disabled spaces, when they have no badge and are obviously not. Add to that people who sell fake disabled RADAR toliet keys on amazon and ebay.
I find that suprising. I guess I imagined the scope creating a psychological distance that is not present when you're a few feet away and using the naked eye. Then you've got the shared responsibility with the spotter and such, the further removal of responsibility through being told it's your job and you're supposed to kill people in cold blood etc.
