The death penalty


You are like an apple on a pinhead. Its interesting


My point was not that there isn’t a subjective morality because most people think that there isn’t. My point was that you were assuming it true and not giving an argument why.

If it’s the case that “morality is subjective” is integral to your argument in favour of the death penalty then you need to give a very good argument for why morality is subjective first.

If it’s the case that you weren’t “using it as a defence” then it’s a cop out because you haven’t given a reason as to why the death penalty is moral.

So: values vary across time and space therefore morality is subjective?

Theories about the origin of human life also vary across time and space, does that make evolution subjective?


It is still human life, they still produce utility. Once they are not a threat to society, further punishment is unnecessarily destructive.

Well looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, they are still contributing utility so society, even if they are not directly helping others. It is still human life, and so long as you deem human live valuable, at least in general, which I’m assuming you do, then you cannot deny that their lives still hold some value in that respect.


Morals are based on what you feel to be right or wrong. That’s why morality is subjective. There is no objectivity. What is right to one person may be wrong to another. So do I think it’s moral to have a death penalty? Yeah, especially if there’s substantial evidence like in mass shootings, those people gave away their rights when they thought they could shoot people up. Taking their life is just an eye for an eye.
In that reply I was explaining that something can be moral because people have differing moral views, which is obvious. Again, a fundamentalist muslim and a homosexual democrat are going to have some varying views on what is moral and what isn’t. Morality is not set in fact, it’s what you feel to be right/wrong, what you feel how people(or yourself) should act/behave.

Yes and yes/no. Evolution to me is real, but to any fundamentalist religious person it isn’t. It’s immoral to even consider it real to them. Because a value is “a person’s principles or standards of behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life.” Values are subjective. A scientific theory is “a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.” Morals attempt to establish “right and wrong” based on what you feel is right or wrong and attempt to get wanted behavior. Scientific theories are attempts to explain natural phenomena and how things have come about.


I mean yeah, they can, but we don’t need them right now. If we had a labor shortage yeah, then killing them would be counter-productive. But we don’t need them, and if anything they take away jobs from people who aren’t comitting crimes.


You are assigning commonality between literal feelings to empirical studies and processes. While it’s true some forms of morality come from other epistemological means, that doesn’t make results from said epistemological analysis comparable. 2+2 = 4 , is true here, over there and everywhere. Homosexuality is morally fine however is not recognised as true everywhere. The only conclusion is morality is subjective. An objective thing is consistent in it’s properties , regardless of whether people believe it to be or not.


You have given no reason for me to believe morality is “based on what you feel” other than you stating it to begin with.

You are confusing what is true about someone with what is true itself. Evolution isn’t believed by religious fundamentalists but that has no baring on whether evolution is true itself.

So your argument is retributive; that it is justice that a mass killer gets their life taken in return?

This is just repeating the argument I replied to. Moral norms are disputed across time and space, uncontroversial, what doesn’t follow is that morality is subjective. Its a non-sequitur. In the same way I could argue the origin of human life is disputed, therefore all explanations for the origin of human life, including evolution, are subjective, but that is obviously absurd. If your criteria for non-subjectivity is something that is non-disputable then literally everything is subjective apart from tautological statements like “2+2=4” or “blue bananas are blue”.


Then we are at an impass. If you insist on your eronous comparisons of empiricism and feelings based on the fact they both can be disputed (it’s less disputed and more people feel differently on the issue for morality) then we are done here. Your stance is some people “feel” it’s objective, this is a positive claim. You must demonstrate morality is objectivity , not us its negation.

The nice thing about empiricism , and I thought you were aware of this, is that things it proves true are true here there everywhere, regardless if someone doesn’t believe it. Like flat Earthers or creationists.


My comparison to feelings and empiricism? What are you talking about? I compared the fact that moral norms are disputed, to the fact that the origin of human life is also disputed. Where does Empiricism ; the claim that knowledge is derived through the senses (which as it happens I am philosophically very much opposed to), come into this? Unless you meant to type Evolution? In which case you need to demonstrate why the comparison is erroneous.

Saying that it is “more people feel differently on the issue for morality” is just stating the same point a different way; people feel differently about the origin of human life also.

My stance in this case is that there is no good arguments here for believing morality is subjective/ based on feelings. If you look back in the thread you will see that “morality is subjective” was the original claim. The burden of proof does not fall on me, I have not stated that “morality is x”. I have only rejected someone else’s claim.

You’re going to have to explain what you mean by empiricism and why it is relevant.


I believe in the death penalty when it can be used fairly and when it’s applied only when there is absolutely no doubt that the person committed the crime. I believe there are a couple of stories where the death penalty was given to someone and then in the end it turns out that person didn’t even commit the crime. If there is no doubt that the person committed the crime with clear evidence that cannot be argued against then we should use the death penalty more often.


I’m [quote=“aydoggie, post:52, topic:113328”]
If there is no doubt that the person committed the crime with clear evidence that cannot be argued against then we should use the death penalty more often.
We shouldn’t be using the death penalty more often. It accomplished nothing constructive and society gains no net benefit. The crime is not undone, life is only taken. Not to mention it’s ridiculsouly expensive and that money could actually be used to save lives instead.


death penalty is only viable as a serious punishment if you abandon liberal standards of judges (which most people heavily oppose for good reason)



I support the death penalty but what is that title? Completely misled me.


Sorry this is late reply but I don’t support the death penalty to decrease crime. I don’t believe people who commit horrible crimes should continue living. I honestly believe that if there’s clear evidence that a person did the crime and he is sentenced to death all other appeals should be dismissed and the person should be executed with a bullet to the head. Save some money.


do you know how many cases have come around where a person is convicted on basically bullshit evidence recently? There were people in death row who got out because bite mark anaylises, again literal bullshit was thrown out by the courts recently. They would have been unfairly executed because the standard of evidence changed to a superior one (how bite mark anaylises became evidence i dont even fucking know). Finger prints is another example
Evidence based trials often require repeals in order to maintain said standards, WITNESSES are no longer even reliable thanks to advances in psychology where you can manipulate testimony.
Courts are often dealing with unclear evidence, to have a viable death penalty you have to end fair courts basically mate.


In those cases I don’t support the death penalty. Like I said previously, only clear evidence and that there is no doubt that a person did the crime. I remember reading about a case where an old man killed a police officer, he was eventually executed but it took too long. There was clear evidence, police dash cam footage, on top of that he admitted to murdering the police officer and was pleading instead of being mentally ill. In this case, this guy was clearly guilty, they determined he was not mentally ill, and he was executed. I believed as soon as the first judge said guilty they should have shot him in the head instead of wasting all that money and taking too long.


courts just dont work that cut and dry, im afraid, even if they attempted to do it your way.


Well if it’s not decreasing crime then there’s not really a moral justification for taking a life. It doesn’t undo the damage of the crime, it is just further harm and damage. Also, it is worth noting that with all the legal proceedings that the death penalty is actually vastly more expensive then life in prison.


Martin Shkreli intensifies