|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 12:55:40 GMT -6
Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. Maybe that is true in Sweden. I don't get that impression here. From what I can tell most of the posters would rather let the five commit suicide than commit an act of murder against anyone.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 12:58:51 GMT -6
Why not? It is possible if you do not consider the DP as killing. There is a moral difference between killing and the application of the death penalty. I confirm my position Even as an anti, I do not see the death penalty as murder, and that is the moral line to which you referred. However, the application of capital punishment results in a dead murderer, correct, and is therefore, "killing". If you opt out, as you claimed in an earlier post, you cannot legitimately support the death penalty. Kay's got you, Missy. Any child can see an execution as a killing, with moral consequences attached. It may be legal, or desirable, but it is most definitely a killing. Whether by drawing and quartering the executee or putting him to "sleep" with pancuronium, it's still the same -- a killing.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 14:18:43 GMT -6
Because he is of a different genre than any murderer I have ever seen. IMO, and I certainly could be wrong, but I think this was a time of his life that he would never repeat if given the chance. I must emphasis I do not want him to be given the chance..but that is how I see him and his case. Also, I feel his trial was so wrought with issues, for the integrity of the CJS, he must be retried. Pure projection and imagination. This statement reminds me of the woman whose chimp ripped off her best friend's face. My feelings about this case are based on reading all the books on this crime and it's coverage as well as watching the trial every day
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 14:19:54 GMT -6
Even as an anti, I do not see the death penalty as murder, and that is the moral line to which you referred. However, the application of capital punishment results in a dead murderer, correct, and is therefore, "killing". If you opt out, as you claimed in an earlier post, you cannot legitimately support the death penalty. Kay's got you, Missy. Any child can see an execution as a killing, with moral consequences attached. It may be legal, or desirable, but it is most definitely a killing. Whether by drawing and quartering the executee or putting him to "sleep" with pancuronium, it's still the same -- a killing. I don't see it as the same because of the moral value of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 14:21:06 GMT -6
[ Punishment should be based on what the murderer did, and not on what he might do again. On this, I will agree
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 14:28:54 GMT -6
I don't see it as the same because of the moral value of the death penalty. The moral value of the death penalty is hard to defend, if not impossible, when the penalty itself is applied capriciously and subjectively. That is why capital punishment is in decline -- whatever moral value it once had has been steadily eroded. It is impossible to predict who will be sentenced to death, or why.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 14:52:40 GMT -6
Kay's got you, Missy. Any child can see an execution as a killing, with moral consequences attached. It may be legal, or desirable, but it is most definitely a killing. Whether by drawing and quartering the executee or putting him to "sleep" with pancuronium, it's still the same -- a killing. I don't see it as the same because of the moral value of the death penalty. You don't view putting someone to death as killing? Really?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 14:53:41 GMT -6
I don't see it as the same because of the moral value of the death penalty. The moral value of the death penalty is hard to defend, if not impossible, when the penalty itself is applied capriciously and subjectively. That is why capital punishment is in decline -- whatever moral value it once had has been steadily eroded. It is impossible to predict who will be sentenced to death, or why. I agree. So, if that is the case, are you still the staunch supporter of it's application you once were? How do you feel about LWOP, is I may ask.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 14:55:14 GMT -6
I don't see it as the same because of the moral value of the death penalty. You don't view putting someone to death as killing? Really? I don't. I view it as justice.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 15:01:58 GMT -6
You don't view putting someone to death as killing? Really? I don't. I view it as justice. Justice in your view, that is accomplished by killing, deny it all you want. The whole argument is absurd, and since I'm not fond of banging my head against a brick wall, I'm done.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 15:07:11 GMT -6
What answer did you want, Kay? That is how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 15:12:49 GMT -6
What answer did you want, Kay? That is how I feel. Well the truth would be a nice, , but to quote Colonel Nathan R. Jessep "you can't handle the truth" I'm having a sense of being in a quasi fantasy land and can't believe I'm even arguing such a point, but my bad, I'll know better next time.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 23, 2009 15:17:16 GMT -6
What answer did you want, Kay? That is how I feel. Well the truth would be a nice, , but to quote Colonel Nathan R. Jessep "you can't handle the truth" I'm having a sense of being in a quasi fantasy land and can't believe I'm even arguing such a point, but my bad, I'll know better next time. admit it, you like to make it hard for us pros
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 15:18:18 GMT -6
What answer did you want, Kay? That is how I feel. Well the truth would be a nice Those are my feelings. This is a pro board. It would be so easy to say, yes it is killing. I see it as justice not killing, as I have said. I guess we will never see eye to eye so lets just leave it at that.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 15:20:06 GMT -6
Well the truth would be a nice, , but to quote Colonel Nathan R. Jessep "you can't handle the truth" I'm having a sense of being in a quasi fantasy land and can't believe I'm even arguing such a point, but my bad, I'll know better next time. admit it, you like to make it hard for us pros Well at least you have enough integrity to admit the truth Andie, kudos for that
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 15:28:27 GMT -6
You don't view putting someone to death as killing? Really? I don't. I view it as justice. You blew it, Missy.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 23, 2009 15:32:13 GMT -6
Well the truth would be a nice Those are my feelings. This is a pro board. It would be so easy to say, yes it is killing. I see it as justice not killing, as I have said. I guess we will never see eye to eye so lets just leave it at that. If it was not killing and true justice then the death certificates of those executed would say "natural causes-(because what they get is a medically induced heart attack) " or suicide-I can dream buit the fact that it is labled as a homicide makes Kay's point valid about killing. We may say its justice or a justifed killing- just like someone shooting a theif will say its justice- but our views of justice does not come without the underlying premis of killing someone. It is what it is. Do they deserve to die? Everyone will have their own opinions on that question when it comes to murderers-but the fact is it is killing under the law or by the law. Apparently lady justice also holds a syringe.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 15:33:58 GMT -6
are you still the staunch supporter of it's application you once were? I'm a staunch supporter of its application to all murderers. Period. I accept that most pros in the United States are liars, hypocrites and are all too willing to let capital punishment die as soon as possible. They won't vote against capital punishment, but they won't vote in favor of it, either. How do you feel about LWOP, is I may ask. I have no problem with an automatic LWOP. It's a lot better than what we have now, and what we have now -- an average time served for murder of only 10-12 years -- is directly attributable to the existence of the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 23, 2009 16:06:28 GMT -6
Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. Maybe that is true in Sweden. I don't get that impression here. From what I can tell most of the posters would rather let the five commit suicide than commit an act of murder against anyone. No Joseph. It is true in America as well. Listen to the recording. :-) take care nils
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 16:15:18 GMT -6
Hi. again; Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. you can listen to this interesting recording on this problem, you just need to listen from minute 1.00 and a few minutes on... blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/ best wishes from Copenhagen :-) nils Now now Nils, you do this. This is a discussion board, so discuss ... There are two questions up there asked of you the OP. Here's mine, again. Given the above absolute parameters, would you drive a train into a non-innocent to save five innocents? Why? Why not?
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 16:20:53 GMT -6
Gigman, i am not totally dim, i realised it was a metaphor so i gave my own. , hence the pisstake. However it was a dilemma. Who to choose. i choose the warning and sod them. And the metaphore is , "dont stand on railway tracks" It stupid. Gigman ... like it. Not so sure you were joshing Lawrence, although I have to admit, figuring out what any of your stances are is always an exercise in adventure. Right back at ya
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 16:21:05 GMT -6
It is true in America as well. Listen to the recording. If that is true, we are a nation of psychopaths.
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 23, 2009 16:22:37 GMT -6
Hi. again; Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. you can listen to this interesting recording on this problem, you just need to listen from minute 1.00 and a few minutes on... blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/ best wishes from Copenhagen :-) nils Now now Nils, you do this. This is a discussion board, so discuss ... There are two questions up there asked of you the OP. Here's mine, again. Given the above absolute parameters, would you drive a train into a non-innocent to save five innocents? Why? Why not? Hi Gman, On question a) I think i would pull the switch, thereby saving the 5 and killing the one, on question b) I tend to think I would not push the guy, thereby letting the five be killed. take care nils
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 16:37:11 GMT -6
Now now Nils, you do this. This is a discussion board, so discuss ... There are two questions up there asked of you the OP. Here's mine, again. Given the above absolute parameters, would you drive a train into a non-innocent to save five innocents? Why? Why not? Hi Gman, On question a) I think i would pull the switch, thereby saving the 5 and killing the one, on question b) I tend to think I would not push the guy, thereby letting the five be killed. take care nils So pulling a switch is easier than pushing a man? different actions, but same outcome. In one instance you would sacrifice a life to save 5 but in another you would not. Why?
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 23, 2009 16:43:52 GMT -6
Not a real question, so no answer. If I had to make the decision then I would be there in the moment and would make a decision at that time. If she had time to switch the tracks why did she not have time to yell or in some way gain attention of one of the two groups. Changing the paradigm is illegal. Except for Captain James T. Kirk at the academy. It did not change the paradigm, it simply looked at it differently. It remains a BS question there are generally more options than that. It is not a moral question at all it is simply one designed to start an argument.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 23, 2009 16:48:39 GMT -6
Now now Nils, you do this. This is a discussion board, so discuss ... There are two questions up there asked of you the OP. Here's mine, again. Given the above absolute parameters, would you drive a train into a non-innocent to save five innocents? Why? Why not? Hi Gman, On question a) I think i would pull the switch, thereby saving the 5 and killing the one, on question b) I tend to think I would not push the guy, thereby letting the five be killed. take care nils I think I would have to be there to answer the question, there may have been options, it is what real life is like.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 23, 2009 17:29:36 GMT -6
so Nils, can I get an answer or not? why is this a dilemma? Hi. again; Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. you can listen to this interesting recording on this problem, you just need to listen from minute 1.00 and a few minutes on... blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/ best wishes from Copenhagen :-) nils actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". I would base this on the people running into the twin towers and murray buidling vs those running away from them
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 17:57:38 GMT -6
actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". I would base this on the people running into the twin towers and murray buidling vs those running away from them I think most people if confronted with a real similar event would be paralysed with indecision. Especially so if there was little time to think, they were not trained to deal with this sort of 'crisis', and the players involved were unknown to them. People answer these things not just with the truth, they also consider how their answer will be accepted by those performing the test. In this case the only thing riding on the decision is the later; 'If I choose such-and-such will this make me look like a bad person'? That's partly why most people answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second. (You see the same with pre-election polls and the like). They can be useful tools for developing individual thought, but as indicators of overall social morality ... not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Feb 23, 2009 18:14:54 GMT -6
I think, in reality, there is no moral dilemma. Somebody is going to die--no matter what we do, we can't change that. In both situations, 6 people are literally, in the wrong place at the wrong time. Unfortunately, 5 people in each scenario are meant to get killed. It's sad, not a dilemma, because in each scenario, if the 5 people didn't have enough time to get out of the way, then Jane would not have enough time to pull the lever/push a person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2009 18:19:42 GMT -6
actually most of us would turn and run, not taking any action at all. perhaps the dilemma being more like, "why would I inject myself into this lawsuit?". I would base this on the people running into the twin towers and murray buidling vs those running away from them I think most people if confronted with a real similar event would be paralysed with indecision. Especially so if there was little time to think, they were not trained to deal with this sort of 'crisis', and the players involved were unknown to them. People answer these things not just with the truth, they also consider how their answer will be accepted by those performing the test. In this case the only thing riding on the decision is the later; 'If I choose such-and-such will this make me look like a bad person'? That's partly why most people answer 'yes' to the first and 'no' to the second. (You see the same with pre-election polls and the like). They can be useful tools for developing individual thought, but as indicators of overall social morality ... not so much. True G. And I wonder what people would do if their child was say in the group of 5 or was the single person. Would they divert the train to kill 5 if it meant saving their kid..
|
|