FA+
Shop
Hatred and rage are not excusable not matter the target.
10 years ago
I always find it distressing to read people discussing a known killer, or really any time a group allows themselves to get riled up into a blood frenzy. The Boston Marathon Bomber was sentenced to death, he apologized to the victims. Now I'm not claiming he actually is sorry, I'm not saying we should all forgive him and life carries on.
The apology is irrelevant, truthful or not something horrible wrong happened and perhaps the death penalty really is the best way to prevent those terrible things from happening again (I don't believe that but that's more general discussion of capital punishment not important to this case)
The thing that gets me is the rage and the comments I see people make about this. "I hope they forget the sponge when he goes to the chair" "I hope they electrocute him for 10 hours" it is a fevered pitch that calls for suffering. extreme suffering.
It's honestly just sad to see. People attempt to take a moral high ground, calling for the abject suffering of another human being and for what? because they deserve it? Because they are now lesser than you for falling from grace? It all rings so morbid and hollow, like a group of superstitious monkeys screaming at each other.
"The dignity of human life is sacred/ is intrinsically good. To violate the basic rights of human beings and cause such suffering is an ultimate immoral act...and so for that I wish to violate those same rights in you"
We dehumanize people too often to justify our own anger and rage. To permit ourselves to act in ways that otherwise would be directly what we're calling out against. Again, what he did was wrong, what he did should be punished and we must ensure it will not happen again. If death is the only certainty then that's that, but there's a big difference between suffering and stopping more wrong doing. Despite such wrong doing he is human, he was always human and not that different from most other humans on this planet.
He's not special. He's not some monster incapable of any good. He is human. He is human that experienced rage and hatred and allowed them to overcome him and make him a killer. The same rage and hatred that allows people to call for his suffering is what spurred those bombings.
I particularly hate this sort of things due to my ethics background. Kantians have this terrible habit where one of the greatest principles of ethics is the value of autonomy, the respect of human dignity, and yet Kantians/deontologists will happily turn around and condemn those that do wrong, stripping them of their dignity and in punishment will go above and beyond what it takes to simply stop something, because such a person deserves to suffer.
It's distressing to see even brilliant minds get wrapped up in this kind of blood lust and attempt to excuse it with faulty logic and ethical arguments.
I really hate to see these kinds of tragedy, because it's never just the horror of the moment. There's something about death and killing that destroys so much for everyone involved, taking the basic humanity from even just a casual observer.
Don't let yourself fall to blood lust. Don't seek out the suffering of others. Rise above it. Build yourself up to be the better person rather than dehumanizing and tearing at someone to make them less. The loss of life is the ultimate punitive measure. To seek anything above that is not only pointless, but it will only lead to more death and tragedy in the long run.
The apology is irrelevant, truthful or not something horrible wrong happened and perhaps the death penalty really is the best way to prevent those terrible things from happening again (I don't believe that but that's more general discussion of capital punishment not important to this case)
The thing that gets me is the rage and the comments I see people make about this. "I hope they forget the sponge when he goes to the chair" "I hope they electrocute him for 10 hours" it is a fevered pitch that calls for suffering. extreme suffering.
It's honestly just sad to see. People attempt to take a moral high ground, calling for the abject suffering of another human being and for what? because they deserve it? Because they are now lesser than you for falling from grace? It all rings so morbid and hollow, like a group of superstitious monkeys screaming at each other.
"The dignity of human life is sacred/ is intrinsically good. To violate the basic rights of human beings and cause such suffering is an ultimate immoral act...and so for that I wish to violate those same rights in you"
We dehumanize people too often to justify our own anger and rage. To permit ourselves to act in ways that otherwise would be directly what we're calling out against. Again, what he did was wrong, what he did should be punished and we must ensure it will not happen again. If death is the only certainty then that's that, but there's a big difference between suffering and stopping more wrong doing. Despite such wrong doing he is human, he was always human and not that different from most other humans on this planet.
He's not special. He's not some monster incapable of any good. He is human. He is human that experienced rage and hatred and allowed them to overcome him and make him a killer. The same rage and hatred that allows people to call for his suffering is what spurred those bombings.
I particularly hate this sort of things due to my ethics background. Kantians have this terrible habit where one of the greatest principles of ethics is the value of autonomy, the respect of human dignity, and yet Kantians/deontologists will happily turn around and condemn those that do wrong, stripping them of their dignity and in punishment will go above and beyond what it takes to simply stop something, because such a person deserves to suffer.
It's distressing to see even brilliant minds get wrapped up in this kind of blood lust and attempt to excuse it with faulty logic and ethical arguments.
I really hate to see these kinds of tragedy, because it's never just the horror of the moment. There's something about death and killing that destroys so much for everyone involved, taking the basic humanity from even just a casual observer.
Don't let yourself fall to blood lust. Don't seek out the suffering of others. Rise above it. Build yourself up to be the better person rather than dehumanizing and tearing at someone to make them less. The loss of life is the ultimate punitive measure. To seek anything above that is not only pointless, but it will only lead to more death and tragedy in the long run.
Just because that is what people do when faced with tragedy does not mean that's what they should do. The thing is we aren't just apes, we do have the capacity for logic and understanding. We do have the ability to overcome basic instinctual violence, and we have in the past. We have logically overcome some very silly biologically triggers ideals.
It's not the case that all ideas are created equal. There are ethical theories that logically do not work, they create inconsistencies. So barring those you are still left with different theories, but there's a core to those theories.
So you're right, just having an ethical theory doesn't mean I am right. One shouldn't simply condemn others for having an opposing view. But we shouldn't discount ethical ideals because an opposing view exists because sometimes those opposing views are logically wrong. The idea of what ethical theories are correct has changed, logic has not.
The comments I'm making here actually go over a series of theories, it addresses a specific principle which most theories use and have used. I comment on Kantians specifically because I think multiple arguments can be made, and have been made, that the theory is not correct in how it operates. It is inconsistent if they claim one thing and do another.
Also, on a side note, the Boston Bomber is getting executed right here in my home town. That is because of the fact that the federal penitentiary here is the only one in the US that can carry out the death penalty.
You have two views. one in which punishment exists only as a means to end wrongdoing and protect the ethical community or punishment exists to both stop wrongdoing, protect the community, and additionally hurt the wrong doer in some manner.
Now if you are the former viewpoint, the actual belief and intent of the wrong doer doesn't matter. For instance if you have a scientist that intends to cure aids and gives everyone cancer, it doesn't matter what the intent was he has done something wrong and society would do what is required to be sure he doesn't give people cancer again.
So in this respect it doesn't matter what the intent was, the killer would be removed from society in such a way that they couldn't kill again.
Now the punisher also has to follow through on their own commitments. A utilitarian is in this category of punishment being for the good of society, Utilitarianism says the ethical action is that which causes most happiness, or least unhappiness. If that is the ethical commitment there is a very big difference between simply killing, and killing to cause suffering no matter the intent of the killer, if one intentionally acts in a way to make the killer hurt more it is less ethical (basically. there's a lot of nuances to argue)
Now the latter punishment type is generally considered when we believe there's some sort of ethical character or ethical agency which could be lost. You get this with deontologists. 1. intent is in part what determines the ethics of an action and 2. punishment needs to hurt, that some sort of suffering is deserved. Therefore the death penalty doesn't matter for a martyr cause it doesn't hurt them.
To be honest, my opinion on that matter is that punishment for the sake of suffering is pointless. The intent of the one punished only matters in so far as understanding the most effective way to prevent future wrongdoing. If it comes down to death being the only thing to accomplish that there's no reason to make the death worse just because it might not bother the person that much.
Even if you cause the person to suffer in death who cares? they can't use that lesson that people believe they will learn. It just adds more suffering for the sake of suffering and I think it's honestly ethically toxic. It feeds into bad intuitions and arguments.
I'll grant most of the time that when we discuss punishment the person comes out alive. so one might argue that to add suffering to punishment means they are more likely to learn or something, but that's kinda...bad intuition. There's a lot of argument that could occur and it's a strong claim to make, but I don't think anyone actually cares to read the long argument I could make to back my claim, so i'll just make it. punishment=suffering isn't ethically useful.