From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Oct 10 2000 - 21:18:34 MDT
"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > 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'
>
Ouch. This is quite likely what the perp set about his/her victim.
Exactly when and how, especially in the light of possible immortality,
can you tell that a given individual is totally unredeemable now and for
all time?
> >
> > > 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.
>
Exactly when is a murder "incorrigible"? Especially given near-term
techniques and time? I am not at all sure any of can afford the morals
we as individuals and as a society practice today for too much longer.
> >
> > 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.
>
There you are talking about a psychotic. That is a mental condition,
not a moral one. And it is a mental condition that with the advent of
nano-medicine we most likely can cure. So why would you justify
murdering someone for a curable condition? The more common type of
murder is committed by someone like you or me who believes that the
victim "just needs killin".
> >
> > > 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.
>
That no one knows what they hell they are doing totally is precisely why
an irrevocable death penalty makes far less sense than putting the
person on ice (figuratively or literally for a while).
> >
> > 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.
If they are "wired wrong" then they are not responsible and need to be
cured, not murdered.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:32 MST