Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[The Grand Nudger]

However, if a person thinks that people shouldn't kill people, and if a society develops around this idealized form of organization - the reason that you don't kill someone who kills has nothing to do with whatever they did.  You....shouldn't....kill.  It's a simple rule.  It's not one we have to agree with to understand.  Do you understand?

"You. . . shouldn't. . . kill (people)," you mean.  Again, we've established that you not only kill animals, but relish the act of doing it for fun.  So harm and suffering in and of themselves are not the objection-- there's something special about people, ALL people, even the greatest pedophiliac murderer, that is sacrosanct to you.  Why would that be?  I'm saying that human life is NOT intrinsically valuable, and that to claim it is is either an emotional opiinion or a religious one-- in either case, irrational.  All the talk about morality of execution-as-murder takes human exceptionalism as axiomatic-- but I do not accept that axiom.

If a society organizes itself around the normative belief that we shouldn't kill people, which isn't human exceptionalism..just a normative declaration....it would be a breach of that normative declaration to kill people.  A society need not believe in or posit human exceptionalism to reject killing people, even killers. 

I wonder, though....do you think that a society formed around the belief that we shouldn't kill people and animals, a more inclusive taboo, would be more or less conducive to capital punishment than one that did believe in human exceptionalism?

The social contract can have a rational veneer:  "If we do not agree that killing (people) is wrong, then ourselves or our children may be killed.  And that would be counterproductive."

Sounds rational, but the truth is more like: "I'm a social animal with instincts for love, and the idea that someone I care about might be harmed is abhorrent.  If one of my children were killed, it would be emotionally and psychologically devastating, something I know to be true because even imagining it is terrifying."

I'm glad you agree that this sounds rational.  Speaking of rational sounding things.  It can be true that a society of lawless murderers would be counterproductive to the goal of...well...society, as well as us feeling a certain way about our children.  

As I said before, if you don't give a shit about something, you don't worry too much about the morality of it.  It's ALL emotional, and any rational argument is just spackled on after the fact.  It's not rational turtles all the way down.

The difference between a subjective motivation for x such as a persons emotional response to x, and a relative motivation for x such as a social contract that asserts x...is that the latter doesn't give a shit about the former.  Societies enforce compliance.  Things permissible and things taboo both contain items that individuals can be emotionally invested in - and things which we're not.  It's the good of society, however, and not the satisfaction of a given individual, that any relativist norms are premised upon.

[bennyboy]

"You. . . shouldn't. . . kill (people)," you mean.  Again, we've established that you not only kill animals, but relish the act of doing it for fun.  So harm and suffering in and of themselves are not the objection-- there's something special about people, ALL people, even the greatest pedophiliac murderer, that is sacrosanct to you.  Why would that be?  I'm saying that human life is NOT intrinsically valuable, and that to claim it is is either an emotional opiinion or a religious one-- in either case, irrational.  All the talk about morality of execution-as-murder takes human exceptionalism as axiomatic-- but I do not accept that axiom.

If a society organizes itself around the normative belief that we shouldn't kill people, which isn't human exceptionalism..just a normative declaration....it would be a breach of that normative declaration to kill people.  A society need not believe in or posit human exceptionalism to reject killing people, even killers. 

I wonder, though....do you think that a society formed around the belief that we shouldn't kill people and animals, a more inclusive taboo, would be more or less conducive to capital punishment than one that did believe in human exceptionalism?

You think that people should never be killed, but that animals may be killed for the fun of it. A killing is a killing, harm is harm, pain is pain. So yes, it's pretty apparent that if even very bad people cannot be killed, there's a blanket over the one species that is based on membership rather than on merit-- clearly, exceptionalism.

The problem is that "normative beliefs" can include things like "Niggers is savages and ain't Christian, and as their souls (if they even have souls) is anyway condemned by the Lord, the white man may do with them as he wishes."  You can have enforced compliance for those beliefs, too, based on the sincere belief of the population that what they WANT is really good, filled in with "rational" arguments once the rule is already agreed upon. Preachers, politicians, children and housewives will parrot each other in an idea so common that it is "known" to be true.

Spackle works wonders.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wonder, though....do you think that a society formed around the belief that we shouldn't kill people and animals, a more inclusive taboo, would be more or less conducive to capital punishment than one that did believe in human exceptionalism?

You think that people should never be killed, but that animals may be killed for the fun of it.  A killing is a killing, harm is harm, pain is pain.  So yes, it's pretty apparent that if even very bad people cannot be killed, there's a blanket over the one species that is based on membership rather than on merit-- clearly, exceptionalism.

I thinks it's a well demonstrated utilitarian rule for a society made of people.  I also think killing is killing..and pain is pain.  As I've already said, I have no problem at all acknowledging that there are things I like to do which Aren't Great - Bob.  This a direct observation that the set of the good as I see it is not entirely exhausted by nor does it contain every representative of the set of things I like.

The problem is that "normative beliefs" can include things like "Niggers is savages and ain't Christian, and as their souls (if they even have souls) is anyway condemned by the Lord, the white man may do with them as he wishes."  You can have enforced compliance for those beliefs, too, based on the sincere belief of the population that what they WANT is really good, filled in with "rational" arguments once the rule is already agreed upon.  Preachers, politicians, children and housewives will parrot each other in an idea so common that it is "known" to be true.

Spackle works wonders.

Sure, our normative beliefs have been known to contain a number of horrid things, and?  Some of them were mistakes explained solely by ourselves as subjects - the way we might feel about x.  Others mistakes made because of some assertion that x was good for society.  Yet more still mistakes about items of fact.  If we're even allowing for such statements to be mistaken....but ofc, if we're not...then what's the problem with those normative statements anyway?

I think we would both be comfortable allowing for human beings to be able to get things wrong any number of ways.  Sure, their feels - but not just their feels.  No?

[bennyboy]

Sure, our normative beliefs have been known to contain a number of horrid things, and?  Some of them were mistakes explained solely by ourselves as subjects - the way we might feel about x.  Others mistakes made because of some assertion that x was good for society.  Yet more still mistakes about items of fact.  If we're even allowing for such statements to be mistaken....but ofc, if we're not...then what's the problem with those normative statements anyway?

I think we would both be comfortable allowing for human beings to be able to get things wrong any number of ways.  Sure, their feels - but not just their feels.  No?

Comfort with it doesn't matter too much. I suppose we're all uncomfortable with the ways in which we think others have it wrong. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of industrial meat farming, with laws against abortion, and so on.

I'm also uncomfortable with a country whose citizens actually believe it's the "Land of the Free" having a greater portion of its population in prison than probably any other in entire human history.

It's not so much a refusal to execute criminals that I have a problem with-- it's the inconsistent application of philosophy, or even religion.

Want an abortion? Despite the proscription of abortion IN the Bible, and historical definitions of life beginning with first breath, we will BLOCK YOU. (but we're the land of the free)

Poor? Well, we will completely ignore the entire New Testament and everything our Lord says about the poor or about children, and we will CONDEMN YOU. (but we'll send money to starving children in Africa)

Hate death-- we will ban executions-- but ensure everyone you know has the God-protected right to purchase a very good tool of execution. Cuz we care about life so much.

I like how every time there's a school shooting, Republicans INSTANTLY get the moral high-ground: "This is not a time to politicize gun ownership." Dafuq?

So with all due respect, "normative values" when applied to US society represents such an inconsistent world view that it borders on schizophrenic psychopathy.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think they instantly get the moral high ground, lol.  They instantly beclown themselves.  Even the nutters know tots and prayers is bullshit...that's why they're arming themselves.  At any rate, that a given culture is all kind of weird is not an argument against or a demonstration that a given moral proposition is malformed, illogical,  purely subjective, or inconsistent...and it's not as if not killing killers is part of the american social contract, yet, anyway.  We kill em just fine.  Not fast enough for you, but just fine.  We also kill war criminals and terrorists, the latter..generally, without a trial.  Hell, if I was a terrorist, I might put on a uniform at least once and commit a warcrime, to increase the odds of my getting a trial rather than a hellfire.

Was that all this ever was?  Bog standard anti-americanism?  So much for those many pages of brilliant and absolutely operative objections.  Learn not to waste your own time and the time of others, while beclowning yourself like a common american nutter after a shooting in the process, dipshit.

[bennyboy]

YAt any rate, that a given culture is all kind of weird is not an argument against or a demonstration that a given moral proposition is malformed, illogical,  purely subjective, or inconsistent...and it's not as if not killing killers is part of the american social contract, yet, anyway.

Well, what happened to social contract as normative?  If mores are a social construct, then how is one to say that a society's mores are malformed, illogical, purely subjective, or inconsistent?

As you know, it's my view also that the social contract is normative-- specifically, it's a negotiated median response of the emotions of the human animal in response to its environment.  The problem is that when feelings get spackled with fabricated rationale, people get academic, and now you have people responding not to the physical environment, but to the environment of fabricated construct.

That's how you get people believing (knowing, in their view) in witches, or in the idea that America is the freest nation in the world.

Was that all this ever was?  Bog standard anti-americanism?  So much for those many pages of brilliant and absolutely operative objections.  Learn not to waste your own time and the time of others, while beclowning yourself like a common american nutter after a shooting in the process, dipshit.

Dipshit, huh?  Well, I suppose this conversation is done, then.  I'll finish answering this quote, and go find something less ire-drawing to do, like maining Teemo jungle.

I'm not anti-American.  I've argued, in these very forums, that this is an American world.  Even the worst terrorists are driving cars, flying planes, and using communications technology that would never have existed without America and its unique history and psychology.  Also, my American family roots are much deeper than my Canadian ones, so I identify with America, maybe to a similar degree that Chinese Americans still hold some interest in, and opinion of, how things are developing in China.

That being said-- America is a highly fractured and inconsistent society.  Establishing where mores should come from, and in what ways they should be enforced, is extremely problematic.  The idea that there is intrinsic value in human life, for example-- this is both seen and ignored in remarkable ways in the US.

Back to the OP, the ongoing expense of a single execution might amount to millions.  Okay, there's a deep respect for the sanctity of life (and due process) there.  But then you just had many tens of thousands of black people die to Covid, with little to no health care.  It seems to me that those millions of dollars in vaccinations and medical equipment would have gone very far, indeed, in maintaining those lives.

[Thumpalumpacus]

WHY do you think sheltering evil is good?  WHY do you think murderers should be protected by the social contract which they have violated?

Because a society should hold itself to higher standards than its worst elements hold themselves?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because someone else committing crimes is no reason for us to commit crimes, yes.  Extrajudicial killings are an even lower category of deed than judicial killings, in this view.  

The same act is not always at the same moral tier.  The government may take my property, hopefully within certain limitations, but certainly without my consent.  Taxes and so on are not (generally) considered a crime.

Taxes are part of the social contract you seem to laud elsewhere.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, what happened to social contract as normative?  If mores are a social construct, then how is one to say that a society's mores are malformed, illogical, purely subjective, or inconsistent?

-he asked, after repeatedly making each claim himself, and before reiterating the same later.

That's how you get people believing (knowing, in their view) in witches, or in the idea that America is the freest nation in the world.

Sure, people can believe all sorts of mistaken things, but neither of those claims is a normative claim....so....?

Back to the OP, the ongoing expense of a single execution might amount to millions.  Okay, there's a deep respect for the sanctity of life (and due process) there.  But then you just had many tens of thousands of black people die to Covid, with little to no health care.  It seems to me that those millions of dollars in vaccinations and medical equipment would have gone very far, indeed, in maintaining those lives.

Whatever your moral view of executions may be, and whatever your metaethical view of morality may be...they're more expensive, not less, than just imprisoning someone.  We'd save those millions you think might be useful in other places, were we to stop killing killers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You've dropped the fairy tale on a linguistic level, but the feelings are too deeply-rooted.  The idea that Christian ideals will be dropped is terrifying to you.

"Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" was a phrase coined by a Christian too, which you seem perfectly comfortable with, albeit without the belief in post-life justice. You're still fine with killing folks even if you're not sure they're guilty of anything. And there's that whole Flood thing. It's almost like you're a closeted Christian, perfectly fine with killing innocents so long as it advances your moral outlook in this world.

That you have the nerve to lecture anyone else about morality is both amusing and pretty sad. You don't even know yourself.