Is It Moral To Allow Someone To Be Killed?

uscitizen said:
A war based on lies. A country invaded for no reason. Many innocents killed.
Click to expand...

The country was not invaded for no reason. It is obvious that the reasons given for the war were misunderstood or not supported by evidence, but the war itself was not a useless thing-- while the US forces could probably have served a better purpose, it did remove a genocidal madman from power.

Innocents being killed in war is fine as long as they aren't my countrymen.
 
[We can change the way that we incarcerate to ensure the safety of all involved. It would be at a cost. It is not necessary to put them in harms way in order to incarcerate them.

Now you are playing cost/benefit analysis, you are again entering the same domain you ridiculed another for entering.]

Nonsense. I didn't ridicule anyone for speaking of cost. I pointed out that Gonzo was changing the subject.

So what if we can make prison safer? that doesn't say ANYTHING about the FACT that incarceration is a necessity to protect the public, while CP is NOT.
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[We can change the way that we incarcerate to ensure the safety of all involved. It would be at a cost. It is not necessary to put them in harms way in order to incarcerate them.

Now you are playing cost/benefit analysis, you are again entering the same domain you ridiculed another for entering.]

Nonsense. I didn't ridicule anyone for speaking of cost. I pointed out that Gonzo was changing the subject.

So what if we can make prison safer? that doesn't say ANYTHING about the FACT that incarceration is a necessity to protect the public, while CP is NOT.
Click to expand...

Incarceration is a necessity to protect the public from people that will eventually see the light of day again--- what point is there in paying for the life of someone that will never leave prison?
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
[We can change the way that we incarcerate to ensure the safety of all involved. It would be at a cost. It is not necessary to put them in harms way in order to incarcerate them.

Now you are playing cost/benefit analysis, you are again entering the same domain you ridiculed another for entering.]

Nonsense. I didn't ridicule anyone for speaking of cost. I pointed out that Gonzo was changing the subject.

So what if we can make prison safer? that doesn't say ANYTHING about the FACT that incarceration is a necessity to protect the public, while CP is NOT.
Click to expand...
Incarceration is not "necessary" to protect the public, one could exile them, or any other number of punishments that are not incarceration. The premise is flawed by the fact that innocents will die through your inaction if we incarcerate innocents. Which it is assured we will.

Your argument simply brought to bear entirely on the criminal "justice" system turns on itself.

Either you are willing to kill innocents because you think it is okay to risk their lives to punish others, or you are not. You have shown that you are willing to kill innocents by incarcerating them with the most heinous of criminals who will assuredly kill one or two of the innocents you incarcerate. It might make you feel better about yourself that you didn't sentence them to that death, but you sure thought that it was okay to risk it.
 
My problem with the death penalty is that innocent people will be tried, convicted and executed. That's why I'm opposed to the death penalty.

I'm also opposed to the death penalty because it's not necessary. Keeping a person in prison until they die keeps them out of society.

I'm also opposed to the death penalty because it denigrates every individual associated with it.

I also believe it denigrates a society that approves of it.
 
Diuretic said:
My problem with the death penalty is that innocent people will be tried, convicted and executed. That's why I'm opposed to the death penalty.

I'm also opposed to the death penalty because it's not necessary. Keeping a person in prison until they die keeps them out of society.

I'm also opposed to the death penalty because it denigrates every individual associated with it.

I also believe it denigrates a society that approves of it.
Click to expand...

Yes, Diuretic, that's all true.

It ineteresting comparing the murder rates between the 10 or so states that don't have the death penalty and the other 40.
 
gonzojournals said:
Of course it is moral, as long as it is for the good of society.
Click to expand...
YOu have said so much stupid shit throughout this post that I had to go back and address them one at a time.

Of course it is moral, as long as it is for the good of society.
Click to expand...
So your "argument" is ANYTHING done for the good of society is moral. So the final solution created by Hitler's henchmen was moral. Because, in their mind it was good for their society.

Here's another one. Country A takes pregnant women with one child already in existence and forcibly abort her child, because they have an overpopulation problem. Overpopulation is BAD for society and getting it under control is good for society. Ergo forced abortion is good for society.

The possibilties of the use of immoral action for the "good of society" are endless, and by your logic they become moral.
 
gonzojournals said:
It isn't revenge, it is removing people from society that would endanger society. You are still scoring positive points, because the number of innocents that are killed unintentionally is smaller than the number of innocents that would be affected by those that earn the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Stupid Shit numero dos.

Murder is not a crime that can be overcome by claiming I killed more people who NEEDED to be killed than the innocent people that I THOUGHT needed to be killed. The state when it executes someone is committing homocide. They call it justified. But if they kill ONE innocent person, just as if you or I kill just ONE innocent person we are murderers. Kill one thousand guilty men and you are an executioner. Kill one innocent person and you are a murderer. Not moral or ethical way around that.
 
gonzojournals said:
Life in prison is costly. Your next argument is going to be that the death penalty is more costly-- I agree--- the system should be streamlined to cut down on cost.
Click to expand...
Dum Scheisse nummer drei.

Streamlining the machinery of death insures that MORE innocent people are killed. Since 1973 124 people have been released from Death Row because they were exonerated of the crime they had been previously convicted of. In you world, many of them would have been murdered by the state because of the difficulty in finding new evidence and getting it before a court. But that is ok with you because murder for the betterment of society is moral?
 
gonzojournals said:
And unnecessarily risks my tax dollars. I think that the occasional innocent death is well worth the price of riding society of these bastards.
Click to expand...
Merde muet quatre.

So we are now going to ride them in addition to killing them. ANd in doing both those things if we ride or kill an innocent person, so long as it saves you personally a few extra bucks then murdering an innocent is ok? Tell me true, you drink all day long, which is why you call yourself Gonzojournals right? You also take mescaline and huff ether? Watchout for the bats.

Anyhoo I have addressed how absolutely morally bankrupt that line of thought really is in another post, but now on top of removing both the threats and the non-threats from society, if it it saves you a buck or two all the better.
 
Last edited:
gonzojournals said:
Innocents being killed in war is fine as long as they aren't my countrymen.
Click to expand...
il stupido merda numero cinque.

By this time you have proven that you have no deep seated value for human life. You don't care if innocent people are killed at all so long as it is not your mother sister child or you. But the truth of the matter is, to remain consistent, if you are wrongly tried and convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, you will not fight it right? Because your murder will be for the good of society? RIght? Or better yet, your kid or your mom, then it will not directly affect you. So no complaints.
 
To keep any sort of reasonable assurance that we're not executing innocent people it's going to be difficult to keep the cost below what it would be to simply imprison someone for life, and then, hell, there wouldn't be much of a difference anyway. It wouldn't affect your actual tax rates at all.

LIKE IT EVEN MATTERS - I DO NOT KNOW WHY WE ARE HAVING THIS DEBATE, IT IS SIMPLY IMMORAL TO MURDER SOMEONE WHO'S HARMLESS, WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE DOES IT.
 
Socrtease said:
Stupid Shit numero dos.

Murder is not a crime that can be overcome by claiming I killed more people who NEEDED to be killed than the innocent people that I THOUGHT needed to be killed. The state when it executes someone is committing homocide. They call it justified. But if they kill ONE innocent person, just as if you or I kill just ONE innocent person we are murderers. Kill one thousand guilty men and you are an executioner. Kill one innocent person and you are a murderer. Not moral or ethical way around that.
Click to expand...

And, well, actually, murder doesn't have a very high recividism rate. The offenders actually AREN'T much of a danger to society if they are released - whenever they're 70 or whatever.
 
And the death penalty has a cost much higher than what it costs to simply retry them, the 100 people they have to hire to carry out the execution in a humane manner, the time they have to house them in prison, and the legal fees.

It costs OUR SOCIETY it's humanity. On some basic level, our has accepted murder through the death penalty, and therefore, our crime and murder rate will be higher. We are no longer human once we consider ANYONE'S murder acceptable.
 
There is a case going on here in NM right now where two prisoners are being tried for the capital murder of a guard. The public defender has a conflict and had to farm the two defendants out to lawyers who are on the death qualified PD contract. Well, they filed a request with the department, explaining that they were going to need an additional $200,000 for experts, legal fees, costs etc. They had already received $200,000 up front and that money has been used up. The lawyers established that all the fees are legit, and that the fees they are asking for are also legit, and the NM Supreme Court has told the state of NEw Mexico that if they wish to continue prosecuting these two defendants under New Mexico Capital Felony charges that they MUST come up with the remaining $200,000 dollars or reduce the charges. $400, 000 to adequately defend a capital murder charge. My bet now is that Gonzo's pocketbook would be offended by that and thinks there should be a cap on what a lawyer can charge for his or her services, which ultimately means that the defendant's should only get "so much" due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top