To kill or not to kill: capital punishment

Originally posted by Big Mac
what should we do with the people that don't agree with that?
what should we do with the people that, for instance, want to murder, oh, i don't know, six million people because they're different?

would it have been better for hitler to have been killed before hand?
should he have been put to death afterwards?
should he have spent life in prison?
----- ...[text shortened]... that at least some human life has no value?

should his life still be considered valuable?

People who take human life (except in extreme circumstances) should be, and are punished. To my mind the correct punishment is a life sentence, not a death sentence.

Killing Hitler beforehand would arguably have been right (depending on precisely what it would have achieved), since it would have prevented a far greater number of deaths, and deaths of innocent people at that.

Killing Hilter afterwards would have achieved no such thing.

Murderers who believe human life has no value are simply wrong; often, although not always, this is a kind of mental illness.

Originally posted by Big Mac
fine point, but you must admit that getting it wrong is an horrific possibility.

the bible says that only by the account of 2 or 3 witnesses should anyone be condemned.

does modern forensics count as 2 or 3 witnesses?
or should we only condemn to death if there actually are true witnesses?
all other evidence could lead to life in prison.

what do you think?

Getting it right is very important, our system isn't perfect, but I like
it above all others with our limitations.
Kelly

Originally posted by dottewell
People who take human life (except in extreme circumstances) should be, and are punished. To my mind the correct punishment is a life sentence, not a death sentence.

Killing Hitler beforehand would arguably have been right (depending on precisely what it would have achieved), since it would have prevented a far greater number of deaths, and deaths of in ...[text shortened]... ife has no value are simply wrong; often, although not always, this is a kind of mental illness.

is mental illness an excuse for murder?

does anybody else get frustrated that people can kill their parents, spend 8 month under psychological evaluation, and then walk free because are cured of an illness whose symptoms simply include murder?

Originally posted by KellyJay
It might be? Well what is it? So life has an intrinsic value, valued by
whom? So if the state doesn't have this intrinsic value on the single
life it is okay, because the state doesn't value it, or the state should
value life because you do? Whose internal value system is important
here, if you have your own, and I have my own, and I say kill that
dirt ...[text shortened]... d a family and the family
pets, your internal value system should trump mine, because?
Kelly

Who decides whether a proof is valid? Well, people who are good at logic. But it is not that people who are good at logic make it the case that some proof is valid. Rather, it is the rules of logic that determine validity. So, although I may think a proof is valid and you may disagree, and in that sense we both decide for ourselves whether to ascribe validity to a proof, our decisions on this matter have nothing to do with actual validity of the proof.

Originally posted by dottewell
That's not the point at all. The fact is there comes a point where explanation and justification ends. For you, that point is god. For you, it doesn't make sense to ask "But WHY did god make murder wrong?" For others, the end point is the value of human life. It doesn't make sense to ask "But WHY is human life valuable?"

In neither case is it a matter o ...[text shortened]... that's just the way god is; from my point of view, that's just the way the universe is.

Is your only argument I believe in God? I'm trying to find the logic
behind an atheist who says it isn't just to put someone to death.
I have your facts, which appears to be just an opinion to me, but
I'm waiting for something else I might have missed, or you have
not presented yet.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is your only argument I believe in God? I'm trying to find the logic
behind an atheist who says it isn't just to put someone to death.
I have your facts, which appears to be just an opinion to me, but
I'm waiting for something else I might have missed, or you have
not presented yet.
Kelly

I'm not using your belief in god as an argument for anything. I'm simply trying to get you to see why (even from an atheist perspective) there comes a point at which justification stops.

I think you might see my point if you try to answer the question: Why did god make love good and murder bad?

Originally posted by bbarr
Who decides whether a proof is valid? Well, people who are good at logic. But it is not that people who are good at logic make it the case that some proof is valid. Rather, it is the rules of logic that determine validity. So, although I may think a proof is valid and you may disagree, and in that sense we both decide for ourselves whether to ascrib ...[text shortened]... y to a proof, our decisions on this matter have nothing to do with actual validity of the proof.

LOL, I'm sure everyone thinks their own views are good, you want to
put logic as the thing that tips the scales one way or another, fine by
me. I'm just wondering when it comes to value, what do we put on the
scale to make it tip with our logic, beyond personal tastes, is just
because I like something good enough, or should there be
some 'reason' we all agree on, or only a certain few get to agree
make up their minds, because they think of themselves as so smart?

The thing about value is a penny has value, a dime has value, it is
limited as I cannot buy a car to drive to work in with either. So there
are limits even with things we can agree have value, saying human
life has value isn't saying much until we know at what level that value
is, and why.
Kelly

Originally posted by Big Mac
is mental illness an excuse for murder?

No, it isn't. But it may be part of the explanation.

Originally posted by dottewell
I'm not using your belief in god as an argument for anything. I'm simply trying to get you to see why (even from an atheist perspective) there comes a point at which justification stops.

I think you might see my point if you try to answer the question: Why did god make love good and murder bad?

Again, I'm talking to you, if you can only come up with you like it
that way and that is important, God saying He wants it that way, and
that is important sort of suggests something to me too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, I'm talking to you, if you can only come up with you like it
that way...

I don't really understand your post, but surely you can see this isn't what I'm saying?

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, I'm sure everyone thinks their own views are good, you want to
put logic as the thing that tips the scales one way or another, fine by
me. I'm just wondering when it comes to value, what do we put on the
scale to make it tip with our logic, beyond personal tastes, is just
because I like something good enough, or should there be
some 'reason' we al ...[text shortened]... ife has value isn't saying much until we know at what level that value
is, and why.
Kelly

My post was an analogy, and my hope was that if you understood the analogy you'd recognize the error you were committing in your discussion with dottewell. The analogy is meant to point out the distinction between "who decides that P" and "what determines that P". Regarding value, the answer to "who decides that life has value?" is "we do, for ourselves". The answer to "what determines whether life has value?" does not have to be similarly answered. You think that everybody will have to decide for themselves whether God makes life valuable, but you also think that it is God that actually determines whether life has value. The atheist can claim that life has value instrinsically (regardless of anybody's beliefs), and that everybody must determine for themselves whether to believe this.

Originally posted by dottewell
I'm not using your belief in god as an argument for anything. I'm simply trying to get you to see why (even from an atheist perspective) there comes a point at which justification stops.

I think you might see my point if you try to answer the question: Why did god make love good and murder bad?

to possibly answer to your question, i could only answer it from my world view. my world view contains the xian god. my world view has the bible as the means of knowing about god and know god personally.

so, with that as my platform, motivation, bent, whatever you with to call it let me try to answer.

the bible says that man is made in god's image. therefore killing a man is an attempt on killing god's image. god, after creation, said that if man shed's man blood, by man shall his blood be shed. therefore murder is bad.

love is good because it promotes right behavior such as giving, sharing, serving, etc. it is also deemed good by god, because according to the bible, god, himself, is love. now there are many who disagree with how this should be interpreted. i seem to be very alone in my interpretation of what this means, esp. as far as xians go. i think that god is love primarily in that he is completely and eternally in love with himself, as in the trinity. otherwise he would be guilty of idolatry. love for people is simply a by-product of his self-love. now, people should love because it is like god to love.

Originally posted by Big Mac
the bible says that man is made in god's image. therefore killing a man is an attempt on killing god's image... love is... deemed good by god, because according to the bible, god, himself, is love.

Right. So the value of human life is grounded in god's nature, and the (presumably infinite) value of god's existence.

Now would it make sense to ask, "But why is god this way? Why does god's existence have value?"

Or are we eventually going to hit a point where we have to say: he just is! it just does! Won't we just assume the person we're talking to is somehow blind or deficient if they can't see it?

Originally posted by dottewell
Right. So the value of human life is grounded in god's nature, and the (presumably infinite) value of god's existence.

Now would it make sense to ask, "But why is god this way? Why does god's existence have value?"

Or are we eventually going to hit a point where we have to say: he just is! it just does! Won't we just assume the person we're talking to is somehow blind or deficient if they can't see it?

again, as i said, i am constrained to answer from my world view, as are you. there is no way i could answer questions satisfactorily enough for you as they are stated. you're asking me a question about god who i assume you do not believe in to start with. you see how that puts me at a severe disadvantage here.

i don't want to end with he just is, and it just does. i don't think that would be the logical end. i don't think you or anybody else is more blind or deficient to understand this stuff that me or anybody else. no "secret decoder ring" here.

we simply don't agree on the parameters and the terms. how can we discuss something that you are convinced does not exist, and i do?

unfortunately, i know that it appears that i'm avoiding the whole thing. perhaps i am. i'm not on this thread to defend the existence of god. i am looking for different thoughts on capital punishment from people with different world views.

i'm sorry if this does not help much.

Originally posted by Big Mac
should governments be allowed to enforce capital punishment?
spiritually speaking, of course.
and, please provide grounds and warrants.

i am torn.
as a theist, which is a popular word on here, and as a xian theist to boot, i try to develop my social contracts and desires from the bible.

paul writes that the government is to carry the sword to defen ...[text shortened]... ave them do unto you.

prophets say that vengeance is god's. he will repay.

any thoughts?

Here are some thoughts:

1) Governments have legal systems, not justice systems. People are sometimes convicted of crimes they did not commit. If given a life sentence, they can be freed if new evidence proves their innocence. If executed, well...

2) Sometimes people change. They should be given a chance to repent.

3) Even if the government carries it out, it's still murder. I know a lot of people would like to think otherwise, but it is what it is.

4) As a Christian, perhaps it would help if you establish a hierarchy of sources. Jesus came to establish a new covenant with man. I would think that whatever he said that conflicts with the old covenant would get precedence. I would think that whatever he said that conflicts with his disciples would get precedence.