Is it time to do the Political Compass test again?

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 21 Jul 2009, 07:52

emordnilap wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
biffvernon wrote: There can be no death penalty without the state taking upon itself the authority to kill it's own citizens. There can be nothing more authoritarian.
The death penalty is pointless. It could only ever be brought back for the most serious offences - for people who currently have no hope of ever being released e.g. Fred West and Ians Huntley and Brady. The reason it is pointless is that such people, knowing they will never be released, actually want to die. Huntley has tried twice to commit suicide, Brady is force fed to stop him starving himself to death and West succeeded in killing himself. Just imagine being Ian Huntley. He can never so much as have a w**k without somebody watching him. He's already in hell. Why let him off the hook by killing him?
Totally agree. Even if someone is genuinely guilty of taking another's life, taking their life away brings you down to their level.

Gosh, it's quite difficult to think of something more authoritarian than giving oneself the right to take other's lives.

I had always been opposed to the death penalty because innocent people had been sent to their death. No prospect of release in those days like we have seen recently with convicted murderers being found to be innocent. It was not any squeamishness about killing killers or about the state being authoritarian; feuds and vendettas have existed, and still do in places, for millennia before any state emerged and are a poor second to a fair trial and community-sanctioned justice. It was about some people being, due to whatever cause, unresponsive to the normal rules of an orderly society and beyond the civilised sanctions of society.

That was until recently. However, with DNA fingerprinting and CCTV, the quality of convictions has now improved enormously. I would not support the death penalty in every case but there are some people who are beyond the pale, maybe because they know there is no adequate sanction to be used against them and that a 20 year sentence means they will be out in 5 years.

So, if you don't agree with the death penalty, how would you deal with these characters who have been convicted recently of callous and premeditated murders?

Gang jailed for teenager's murder

How lovestruck boy was lured to his death

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2009, 08:31

We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.

I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest, but for people who actually profess to follow one or other of the Abrahamic religions the death penalty and other forms of killing humans must be a complete no-no.

To kill is wrong. End of.

2 As and a B · Post by **2 As and a B** » 21 Jul 2009, 08:44

All the commandments, etc basically come down to a single one: do unto others as you would have them do unto you - treat others with respect.

So how would you deal with those hardened miscreants? Other than by giving them rent-free accommodation with tea, telly, table tennis and regular conjugal visits (not by you I hasten to add!)

There is a serious question here and it is the liberal's dilemma. What do you do with people who don't just not play by the rules but actively spoil life for others?

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 21 Jul 2009, 09:56

biffvernon wrote:
goslow wrote: by the way I disagree with the death penalty, its no deterrent, possibilities of mistakes etc etc
Oh, nothing to do with being wrong to kill people then? Just so long as you kill the right people.

yes of course I think its also generally wrong to kill people except if there is no other option for the purposes of self defence. So soldiers fighting in wars can be ok for instance, depending on the circumstances. But I would personally equate the death penalty with premeditated murder.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 21 Jul 2009, 10:02

biffvernon wrote:We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.

I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest, but for people who actually profess to follow one or other of the Abrahamic religions the death penalty and other forms of killing humans must be a complete no-no.

To kill is wrong. End of.

But there are loads of God-sanctioned killings in the Bible, and indeed, killings by God,

Peter.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Jul 2009, 11:07

foodinistar wrote:So, if you don't agree with the death penalty, how would you deal with these characters who have been convicted recently of callous and premeditated murders?

Gang jailed for teenager's murder

How lovestruck boy was lured to his death

Ermmm... haven't they been dealt with?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2009, 11:41

goslow wrote:yes of course I think its also generally wrong to kill people

The trouble with the word 'generally' is that it can mean the same as 'not particularly'.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 21 Jul 2009, 11:45

Blue Peter wrote:
biffvernon wrote:We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.

I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest,
But there are loads of God-sanctioned killings in the Bible, and indeed, killings by God,

Peter.

Which is why I said I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest.

'Turn the other cheek' was another good bit. In fact quite a lot of what Jesus is said to have said is pretty good. Such a shame that so many Christians don't follow their son of god and Moslems don't follow one of their prophets.

Would Jesus have supported the death penalty? Qestions of that form are a pretty sound basis for a lot of ethical decisions.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:09

biffvernon wrote:Which is why I said I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest.

But, as you acknowledge, opens you to the charge of a selective reading.

'Turn the other cheek' was another good bit. In fact quite a lot of what Jesus is said to have said is pretty good. Such a shame that so many Christians don't follow their son of god and Moslems don't follow one of their prophets.

Strictly speaking, that would be idolatrous.

Would Jesus have supported the death penalty? Qestions of that form are a pretty sound basis for a lot of ethical decisions.

But I'm sure that you can find sound-bites for either way, and there are a million and one Jesus's, one for every position you'd like to hold (hence the above idolatrous comment).

However, on that theme, the "what would Jesus have driven?" question asked by environmentally-concerned Christian Americans always amuses me. Since I suspect that Jesus would have been too poor to afford a car, and consequently would have been like those people unable to evacuate New Orleans by motor transport, and so got shot at as looters when they tried to walk away.

Peter.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:40

biffvernon wrote:We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.

But it didn't need some some bloke to climb up a mountain, and come down with a big stone with that instruction chiselled into it by a supreme being. He could have just sat in the pub with his mates and said "Look, this killing stuff is a bad idea. If I do it to someone else, what's to stop someone doing it to me. How about we all agree not to kill anyone". It's only common sense. Oh, maybe that's the problem, as many humans don't seem to have much of that

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:42

biffvernon wrote:We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.

I'm happy to ignore pretty much most of the rest, but for people who actually profess to follow one or other of the Abrahamic religions the death penalty and other forms of killing humans must be a complete no-no.

To kill is wrong. End of.

Says who?

As an atheist you should acknowledge that there are no absolute rights and wrongs. Human morality is born of behavioural tendencies that were evolutionarily advantageous. One of those was that, as a social species, we co-operate and don't kill each other - or at least, not within our own groups. However, co-operativeness is not spread equally among all members of society, and so sanctions have to be put in place to deter those naturally tempted by anti-social behaviour.

So don't go condemning Christians' hypocrisy when you yourself won't accept the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:45

foodinistar wrote:Interesting...

I meant if other people attack you, or make it clear they are about to attack you, then it's alright to attack them.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:47

biffvernon wrote:
goslow wrote:yes of course I think its also generally wrong to kill people
The trouble with the word 'generally' is that it can mean the same as 'not particularly'.

No it can't.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:49

What about 'do what the hell you want, just don't harm others'.

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 21 Jul 2009, 12:49

JohnB wrote:
biffvernon wrote:We all pick the bits of the Bible we like but my favourite line has always been, 'Thou Shalt not kill'.
But it didn't need some some bloke to climb up a mountain, and come down with a big stone with that instruction chiselled into it by a supreme being. He could have just sat in the pub with his mates and said "Look, this killing stuff is a bad idea. If I do it to someone else, what's to stop someone doing it to me. How about we all agree not to kill anyone". It's only common sense. Oh, maybe that's the problem, as many humans don't seem to have much of that

But that's not morality; that's just enlightened self-interest (per Ludwig's recent post). Of course, having rules imposed upon you by a cantankerous supreme being isn't morality either,

Peter.