the Death Penalty

PS: Not having a TV has its advantages: I have no idea who the dead soccer star even was.

Just to add to my disgust: The Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban will now serve as the venue for Senzo’s funeral. If it is for genuine grief for the loss of a star I have no problem but IMHO 99% of the “mourners” are there for the sake of publicity…probably also rent-a-grief-stricken-crowd plus politicians, TV cameras and at least two days of mourning…state funeral??? let’s hope not: he was just a goalie FFS. (wtf!!)

Imagine the problems liable to emerge if the death penalty were to be reintroduced. Politically appointed judges ruling on groups like the boeremag crowd and others who are not of the current political flavor would be open to manipulation. The powers that be would only need a couple of the judges in their pockets to completely eliminate any creditable opposition.

How hard can it be to kill? http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/04/17/oklahoma_execution_method_nitrogen_asphyxiation_bill_signed_by_governor.html?wpisrc=obinsite The more I think about it (the death penalty) the more I’m moving away from it. I was always for it but now I am a fence sitter, leaning over to the no side, I suppose.

These things are always ostensibly done to ease the suffering of the person receiving the execution. I disagree, I think most of this stuff is done to ease the suffering of the onlookers. I mean, Blindfold the person and just take them out. 0 suffering required.

But, for those doing the executing, a bit more messy. And therein lies the true problem.

As far as I can work out, nitrogen asphyxiation is about as painless a way to go as you get. It is sometimes used in auto-euthanasia devices too. So if we are going to execute people, I suppose it is as good a method as any. Won’t eliminate the psychological torture of the thing, mind you.

Painless? It can be downright enjoyable!

Rigil, I think you’re probably thinking of something less permanent than N2 asphyxiation…

'Luthon64

Following recent discussions with some of my friends who are pro-death penalty and in light of Robin Stransham-Ford’s recent ruling on his right to die, it is so weird that these friends are pro-death penalty, yet completely against euthanasia, assisted suicide and abortion.

I honestly don’t get this, people claim moral reasons for not supporting pro-choice and euthanasia, and don’t get me started on the gay issue, but when I question how they can be so pro-death penalty, they just say it’s a completely different issue and basically refuse to have a discussion further when combining these different issues and questioning their moral positions on these.

How can people say euthanasia and abortion is wrong and immoral and yet support the death penalty? How does this promote well being?

Anyone who has ever seen a terminally ill cancer patient would appreciate a right to die, I just cannot wrap my mind around this warped logic and moral sense

In my view, most people who are pro-death penalty are quite/very conservative and also often religious. When you take that into consideration, it starts to make sense that they would in all likelihood be anti-abortion and anti-assisted suicide etc.as well 'coz the bible says so.

There are different genera of moral systems, the most recognized three being deontological morality, consequential morality and virtue morality.

Deontological moral systems rely on a prescribed set of laws, such as the Ten Commandments in Christianity. Adherents tend to regard such laws as infallible and immutable. The aim of their moral system is obedience to these laws as far as possible.

Consequential moral systems weigh the consequences of actions or omissions to determine the most desirable outcome and then act in accordance. Adherents typically consider the wellbeing of fellow humans and other sentient beings as desirable.

Virtue-based moral systems value virtues of character such as wisdom, honesty, bravery, and then deduce associated behaviour.

It would appear that you argue from a consequential perspective whereas your friends do from a deontological one. Their morals are not driven by the wellbeing of fellow humans.

Yup. These are also the kind of people who think atheists must of necessity be completely immoral, seeing as they do not have a set of rules to live by. You even now and then hear them argue that the fact that they are moral is proof of the existence of God. :slight_smile:

Sure, I can understand that, but I’m a bit hesitant of categorizing people that way, because, wouldn’t thinking like that mean your setting yourself up for an us them scenario? Wouldn’t that make me guilty of tribal mentality as well?

I think we share much the same common values and christians for the most part, are just trying be good people, the problem is that many people claim to hold beliefs I don’t think they’ve really thought through or really believe when you press them on it, that’s why if you mention any specific example, like the case with Robin, people readily and easily make him the “exception to the rule” or people who are supposedly pro-death penalty condemning the recent executions in India.
on
This is what I don’t understand, why be so vehemently opposed and outspoken against these types of laws they are actually okay with on a human level, yet because of ideological differences people somehow think they prove they are good christians by being pro-life, anti-gay creationist racists?

Once you tell someone you’re bi or once you actually bring home someone of a different colour, people are less bigoted and more accepting, once you actually know a terminally ill person and see the way they go, people are more compassionate and make all these “exceptions”

It’s like you bring a black friend to your party, people are like, “he’s not like the other blacks” or when you talk about a teen girl needing an abortion, they go:'o jeesh, she has her whole life ahead of her" and go on to make another exception to the rule.

Why do people stand in the way of other peoples rights out of ideologies, but once you humanize the situation, they make up all sorts of excuses why this or that situation isn’t what they are talking about?

Take the euthanasia example, when discussing that, people usually object to making it legal for terminal patients by changing the argument and jumping to absolutes like the law permitting you to put your old people to sleep or depressed people getting euthanized.

By distinguishing between deontological morals and consequential morals you are not catogerizing people, you are categorizing moral systems. An individual will seldom exclusively abide by only one moral system. Only the most fundamentalist members of a religion will adhere to religious prescripts without at least some consideration given to the consequences. When people suspend adherence to religious prescripts on humanitarian grounds, but they do not admit that those prescripts are inherently fallible, then those people are not entirely honest with themselves. And good intentions do not equate sound morals.

That is right, Hermes and that is what I was trying to get at, people are just bullsh%%ing themselves when they try to hold the bible up as their moral code while also trying to sound politically correct and not bigoted when making all these BUT statements - if you go into specifics, I find people concede points on these kinds of topics easily as long as they get to qualify it with a BUT, it really stops a discussion dead in it’s tracks right there, people can see the merit of e.g. euthanasia, but can’t get around their religious holy books, why people feel the need to stand up for the bible’s flawed moral teachings, I don’t know.

Just this morning, justice minister, Masutha talked on morning live about why he is against euthanasia, and to his credit, avoided the religion aspect for the most part and focused on all the same arguments that is so old and useless in responding with rhetoric we haven heard before… but in the end, he still brought the discussion to an end when he said that god should be the one who decides when you must go…

This is all good old-fashioned Cognitive Dissonance, and IMHO one of the most fundemental, deep, unresolvable problems that lie at the heart non-founded belief systems (such as religion): The inevitable contradictions.

I can’t claim I “don’t understand” why or how people hold such beliefs because I used to engage in the same activity, and here’s the thing: YES, I was operating in a system of belief/morality that was at it’s best vague and myopic. I saw the world in such blurred terms that I just thought it was all too complicated to possibly make sense of and kinda gave up trying to. Once I de-converted though, I was stunned at the sudden clarity that came to my views and to the order of the world. The sudden crystal clear insights and deductions I could make once I discounted all the magical beings clouding the issue.

This is the thing, the brain can operate without absolutes… while holding contradictory beliefs. I was religious and didn’t condemn homosexuals. As a child I at once believed in liberty and apartheid in the same breath. It’s AMAZING what a person can do with a bit of rationalisation.

[...] he still brought the discussion to an end when he said that god should be the one who decides when you must go...

Great, I see our justice minister still reads entrails to determine the law in this country. I’m so glad.

Take this for example: If you simply frame this in regards to personal liberty the counter to this is simple: Each person has complete control over what happens to their own body. If someone wants to die, they should be free to die. However this choice cannot be forced upon them.

So, the assumption being made can be said to be invalid: What’s immoral about suicide in the first place?

It is funny how much more unmuddled things become when you drop your wizardry and become a muggle, I also remember how I used to try and overcomplicate things and then opted for the oversimplified bible answer to tough questions as I tried to make the bible fit what I thought anyway…

Exactly and many depressed and bankrupt people already jump off buildings, or find other ways of offing themselves, but euthanasia for terminally ill people isn’t just about killing yourself, it’s minimizing the pain of the terminally ill person and it’s for the benefit of your loved ones not having to clean up after you, after having been with and shared your pain, to clean up your brain matter and to deal with that whole ugly sight on top of having to deal with what the cancer has already done to you.

When you are dying of cancer you start to think a lot about the life and people you will leave behind and this differs from depressed people who I reckon focus more on their own issues while still having a glimmer of hope for things to change.

Don’t you know? Because of the bible and you’ll go to Hell :stuck_out_tongue: