• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The death penalty is actually quite merciful.

cnredd said:
I say we just go down to the local NRA meeting and say "This person has been given the death sentence...who wants to blow away this ****er for free?"...
Click to expand...

O man, martial law. So you believe in total anarchy then? That might sound good, but this ain't the 1600s, where we burn midwives as witches, and any common person plays the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
 
kal-el said:
O man, martial law. So you believe in total anarchy then? That might sound good, but this ain't the 1600s, where we burn midwives as witches, and any common person plays the role of judge, jury, and executioner.
Click to expand...

you misread his post-he assumes they were condemned

sometimes the lethal injection death row prisoners get is alot less painful than the lethal injection others serving mere time get in prison

my feelings-"Some People ought to be fried but I dont' like giving the government the power to fry people"

Judge Edmund Sargus Jr.-US District Judge, Southern District of Ohio-Eastern Division circa 1996 or so when he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. a great judge and good man
 
TurtleDude said:
you misread his post-he assumes they were condemned

sometimes the lethal injection death row prisoners get is alot less painful than the lethal injection others serving mere time get in prison

my feelings-"Some People ought to be fried but I dont' like giving the government the power to fry people"

Judge Edmund Sargus Jr.-US District Judge, Southern District of Ohio-Eastern Division circa 1996 or so when he was United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio. a great judge and good man
Click to expand...
Yup...you understood it correctly...
 
cnredd said:
Yup...you understood it correctly...
Click to expand...

It seemed rather obvious :mrgreen:
 
True but if it came down to the point where the Earth was so overcrowded that major natural disasters or something were going to occur, I would have no choice but to allow abortion in order to save humanity.
Click to expand...

Ahh I see, so you really think that the Life of a human is not really holy and valued when it comes to the greater good. It's only "sanctified" part-time. Sounds like buffet-table ethics.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
Ahh I see, so you really think that the Life of a human is not really holy and valued when it comes to the greater good. It's only "sanctified" part-time. Sounds like buffet-table ethics.
Click to expand...

Well naturally the greater good is more important than the life of one person. How can you logically say that it's not? I don't see how my ethics are in question here. If it means the fate of humanity versus one life then surely it is logical to terminate that one life to save billions of lives in return.
 
Last edited:
George_Washington said:
If it means the fate of humanity versus one life then surely it is logical to terminate that one life to save billions of lives in return.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lives of a few must be sacrificed for the many.
 
My position is in opposition to the death penalty based on moral reasons. Two wrongs do not make a right and an eye for eye makes everybody blind.
 
If you admit that the many can sacrifice the few, then you must also recognize that the entire basis for "sanctity" of life is nonsensical. If you will sacrifice some so many can benefit, you are a utilitarian. Utilitarians do not hold that there is some universal santified human life.

One may be killed to save more. If you can violate the rights of ONE, then that person's rights and life are not sacred. You are merely going by total utility.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
One may be killed to save more. If you can violate the rights of ONE, then that person's rights and life are not sacred. You are merely going by total utility.
Click to expand...

Correct, if you can murder 1, why not 2, then why not 4, then why not millions? It's the first one you kill in the name of some cause that means the most. The first Jew killed by the Nazi's contained the many that followed. If we can except to kill 1, then we can except to kill another.
 
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
If you admit that the many can sacrifice the few, then you must also recognize that the entire basis for "sanctity" of life is nonsensical. If you will sacrifice some so many can benefit, you are a utilitarian. Utilitarians do not hold that there is some universal santified human life.

One may be killed to save more. If you can violate the rights of ONE, then that person's rights and life are not sacred. You are merely going by total utility.
Click to expand...

No, I believe there is still such a thing as sanctity for human life. Although we might have to sacrifice the few in order to preserve the many, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to also save the lives of the few when possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom