From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@turbont.net)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 16:14:32 MDT
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Brian D Williams wrote:
>
> >
> > Good question <sound of gears grinding>
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > Even if you could remove "the bad part" the entire other person was
> > killed.
> >
>
> Yes. But killing the killer will not bring that person back. It will
> only result in another individual irretrievably lost.
Some people provide a net benefit to the rest of society only in their absence
from it. Some people are irretreivably lost while still quite alive. Some people
need killin'
>
> > How could a sentient, caring person live with themself knowing they
> > had murdered another person? Denial? That wasn't the "real" me?
> >
>
> A sentient, caring person can come to appreciate the enormity of the
> wrongness of the act if properly reformed and never perform such an act
> again. Many acts short of murder but also quite heinous cannot be
> undone. At best one can make what poor atonement one can and resolve
> never to perform in such a way again. Or do you believe all wrong-doers
> should be executed given your logic?
Not all wrong doers, but the cost to incarcerate an incorrigible murderer for
life is so great you might as well just offer a $3 million dollar reward for
people to turn themselves in. You'd save more money that way. Society practices
the morals it can afford. I can't afford YOUR morals, which seem intent on
rewarding murderers with lifetime maximum security bed and breakfast services,
nor can society.
>
> How can a sentient, caring person condemn another human being to
> irreversible and irretrievable death?
Thats just it: murderers are not sentient caring people (not manslaughterers,
etc), else they would not murder people. They typically do not recognise others
as 'real', or at least as 'real' or important as themselves.
>
> > This could also lead to a dilemma: What if someone decided to kill
> > someone knowing the worst that could happen is that the "bad part"
> > would be purged. They would still accomplish their task.
> >
>
> It is not that simple by far. There is no "bad part". This is a
> strawman. Their task was a misaligned way of acheiving some goal. Cure
> the misalignment if you can.
And who do you suggest decide how the fixing gets done and by whome? By
governments that kill far more people than individuals do? By doctors who kill
more people from negligence every year than are murdered intentionally? Show me
someone who knows what the hell they are doing first. Until you get such people
can do that job, those that offend should be excised from society. Life is not
the highest ethic, liberty is at least coequal to it. 'Death is not the worst of
evils'. What is wrong about murder is not the theft of life, but of liberty,
life being merely one of many liberties the individual posesses, and the one
without which the rest are moot. One who commits such an act surrenders their
own right.
>
> > Of course one would like to think if we had the kind of technology
> > that could remove "the bad part" this would be accomplished before
> > the fact.
> >
>
> Most likely many such murders would be avoided by better psychological
> and sociological practices before the fact.
I doubt it very much. Better education, more stable upbringing, these would make
a difference for most. The rest, those who are 'wired wrong', if you can't
rewire them, eliminating them from the gene pool is the best you can do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:32 MST