What would you do in this murder case?

So you would rather spare a guilty monster than Pay Evil unto Evil? What happens if that one you stayed your blade from spills more blood?

Exactly. But in the modern world, prisons are almost as inescapable as death sentences, and it's actually not that often that your typical prisoner even tries to escape, so I advocate that.

Why does a murderer suddenly not deserve to live? They're as human as you or I, and if killing people is wrong when the murderer does it it must also be wrong when you do it to the murderer.

Besides that, what would it help? It's just unnecessary pain. Why kill someone you don't need to kill? What does it accomplish?

EDIT @red: I notice you used the word "monster" to describe a human. You have no idea how much that annoys me.

Nobody is a monster. A human cannot lose their humanness taken away by any means possible. If someone kills people, than they're a person who kills people, not a monster.

Honestly, sometimes I think people call murderers and rapists and all these nasty kinds of people monsters to try to mentally escape from the fact that humans do nasty things sometimes.

edited 19th Feb '11 11:10:41 AM by BlackHumor

BH, it's an interesting thought that people use words like "monster" to avoid thinking of the fact that humans do evil things, but honestly, actual monsters don't exist outside of fairy tales; the word itself was invented to be used as an insult. It shouldn't be any more infuriating than calling someone a bitch - when people say that, they don't literally think the woman in question is an actual dog.

Also, well, that argument won't work on me because I don't believe unconditionally that "killing people is wrong".

1. Then why is killing people wrong at all?

2. But that still doesn't explain why you'd be okay with killing someone when there's no reason to kill him. It's just unnecessary pain, again.

BH, it's an interesting thought that people use words like "monster" to avoid thinking of the fact that humans do evil things, but honestly, actual monsters don't exist outside of fairy tales; the word itself was invented to be used as an insult. It shouldn't be any more infuriating than calling someone a bitch - when people say that, they don't literally think the woman in question is an actual dog.

The actual word comes from the Latin for a "wonder". We started using it as an insult/to describe things that 'should not be' partly because that could be some of its meaning in some Latin texts, but primarily (IIRC) because of the BLOODY VICTORIANS, who could not handle the sublime and thus started making words like "eerie" (high, airy), "Monster" and "awful" mean things that they just plain oughtn't've. Or, more accurately, to mean things that they did sort of mean mean in that society at that time, but which now represent very different concepts.

And I think the idea that claiming people are mentally adding "with all the rights and moral value that comes from personhood, of course", or in other words, "this is only a metaphor, and I have a sense of this personality outside of this metaphor" every time they say 'monster' is a little naive. Maybe you do. I don't hear it used very often in a context suggestive of this afterthought, though, and I do hear it used a lot to excuse knee-jerk reactions.

Also @ your comment a while ago, about the "empathy gene" regarding sociopaths - I think that is based on whether you differentiate between psychopaths and sociopaths or not.

If you do differentiate between them, then I believe the main thing that people use to describe that difference is that sociopathy is environmental, whereas psychopaths are "born wrong" somehow.

Just a comment: By the most recent DSM, there is no such thing as a sociopath or a psychopath.

They got replaced with Antisocial Personality Disorder.

Killing innocent people is wrong because it damages society and increases net suffering.

But if someone is attacking you with an intent to kill, then it isn't wrong to kill them before they kill you. Likewise, if you're a police officer in a high-speed chase with some dangerous murderer/gang leader/terrorist, you would be justified in killing him when you can to minimize collateral damage and the risk that he might get away and hurt more people.

But when you have the person in your custody and it's unlikely that sparing them will hurt other people, then by all means spare them. In all cases where the criminal is caught and detained, I advocate jail time, not death. I just don't believe you can make a blanket statement that killing people is wrong.

edited 19th Feb '11 11:57:45 AM by OnTheOtherHandle

It's not that it's not wrong to kill someone in self-defense; it's that it's no more wrong than allowing yourself to be killed, and all else being equal you would obviously choose the scenario where you live above the one where you die.

After all, if you're in a scenario where you have to defend yourself but you don't have to kill the aggressor, isn't it still wrong to go ahead and kill him anyway? If someone punches you in the face, isn't it still wrong to take out a gun and shoot him?

Yes, because someone punching you in the face doesn't mean they're going to kill you. If they punched you in the face and pulled out a gun, it would be reasonable to assume that they both have the means and the intention to kill you, in which case it wouldn't be wrong to kill them.

Self-defense is a neutral and instinctive action, so I'm not going to say it's right or good to kill someone intending to kill you, but I will say that it's likely that the world would be better off if you survived rather than him, since he has proven himself to be proactively violent and might hurt others.

However, I think killing in defense of others (like the police officer example) is right and good.

Basically, my attitude about crime and punishment could be summed up as "In the heat of battle, Pay Evil unto Evil. In the court of law, show restraint."

And my moral code is, something that is wrong alone is wrong in any situation, but it may be justified to do it anyways if by not doing it something equally or more wrong will happen.

It can't be both wrong and justified. Justification is literally "making it just". Killing can't be both wrong unconditionally, and justified in self-defense. If that's the case, then it's usually wrong, but right in some cases.

I try to approach this kind of debate with the attitude of a judge, and concern myself more with what is legal and what is illegal than what is right and what is wrong.

Hmm, that's probably easier to argue at any rate. In which case whether she gets the death penalty or not depends on where she lives. But should the death penalty be legal? I think not, because the principle behind it is arrogant and unwise ("We can't possibly be wrong, ever!").

I try to approach this kind of debate with the attitude of a judge, and concern myself more with what is legal and what is illegal than what is right and what is wrong.

That's probably the best attitude to take, I suppose.

edited 19th Feb '11 1:25:17 PM by mmysqueeant

It's certainly the easiest attitude to take.

Hmm, that's probably easier to argue at any rate. In which case whether she gets the death penalty or not depends on where she lives. But should the death penalty be legal? I think not, because the principle behind it is arrogant and unwise ("We can't possibly be wrong, ever!").

I believe that the principle behind capital punishment is the idea of "just desserts" and making the punishment fit the crime. I don't think there is an assumption of infalliability at any level of the procedure, save perhaps with the most self-righteous or extreme politicians.

One might argue that the death penalty is essentially the ultimate manifestation of the power of the state. Weber suggested that state power is derived from its monopoly on the legitimate use of force within the territory it controls. With the death penalty, the state is the only body that can lawfully take the lives of its citizens; it decides who lives and who dies, and there is no greater expression of power than that.

With this in mind, it is possible to make the case that capital punishment should only be exercised in cases of murder, in which the state's exclusive right to execute a citizen has been infringed. I prefer not to get into that whole quagmire.

edited 19th Feb '11 1:37:36 PM by TheGloomer

It prevents possibly misguided and immoral actions being undertaken in the name of morality, whilst not preventing the possibility of the law changing in the event that the law itself is intrinsically immoral. Indeed, obeying the letter of the law is more likely to highlight the immorality and thus force change, in my view, than getting the jury to fudge the issue.

I don't believe advocates of the death penalty think they're infallible, but it seems like a necessary condition to support the death penalty. Many say that it should only be in the case of a murder. Well, that presumes that we can effectively prove that someone committed murder. Sure, we've got forensics and DNA evidence and whathaveyou now that we didn't have earlier, but that doesn't mean that methods of investigation are the best they can ever be. How many people that we've condemned in our time will be vindicated in the future, when they have even better techniques and technology?

Yes, something can be both wrong and justified:

It's wrong to kill Hitler (because it's wrong to kill anyone), but it's even wronger to let Hitler start the Holocaust, so killing Hitler is justified if it stops the Holocaust.

It's wrong to steal food, but it's even wronger to allow yourself to starve, so stealing food is justified if you're starving.

It works like math. A number can be negative, and yet greater than other numbers; so can a wrong action be better than other actions.

Linky to Less Wrong; Eliezer explains it better than I do, I think.

I read that artice, but I'm confused, because it seems to support my point of view. "Are apples good to eat?" "Usually, but some apples are rotten." "Is killing wrong?" "Usually, but sometimes it's justified."

Last few paragraphs are what I'm talking about.

Ah, okay, I get it. But I kind of treat "wrongness" or "rightness" as a subtraction problem. (Benefit) minus (Cost). So killing Hitler is right because the benefits outweigh the costs. Kiling anyone is unfortunate, but in some cases it's the best choice we have, in which case it's right.

Anyway, OTC, back to the woman. In this case we can do without killing her, and plus human judgment is always fallible, so we shouldn't kill her.

edited 19th Feb '11 6:28:42 PM by OnTheOtherHandle

I see the entire moral dilemmna as a subtraction problem, but I also think it's important to remember it is a subtraction problem.

Like EY says, way too many people think that because doing X in situation Y is right, that means that doing X is right in itself. Or bringing it back on topic, just because it's okay to kill murderers while they're trying to kill you doesn't mean it's okay to kill murderers period.

Its probably a good thing that cruel and unusual punishments are forbidden, considering that most of us here seems interested in torturing the woman to death. Hell, thats what I want to do, but still, good thing you cant do that. But I still hope they beat the shit out of her in prison.

@BH: True, but I don't think anyone here said that. If your choices are between two bad things, then it's right to choose the less bad one. In this case, the less bad option would be life imprisonment, which most of us advocate.

But to me, the reason that it would be a bad option to kill murderers, etc. is not because they deserve to live, but because any human death affects society negatively. I think that if you infringe on someone's rights, you forfeit your own rights to the same degree. But since no one exists in a vacuum, and people will be negatively affected by anyone's death, it would still be wrong to kill those who kill others, unless there's no other choice. If I thought murderers deserved to live, then I would not even advocate killing them in self-defense or defense of others.