(August 10, 2022 at 9:49 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Any given killer may have stepped out on the this hypothetical social contract, but the society hasn't.
I think we can say this is the essence of the argument right now. When the individual steps out of the contract, and (in my view) has surrendered his rights as provisioned BY that contract, then what does it mean to say that the society hasn't?
There must be something lost by members of the society in executing criminals-- they must have an ongoing vested interest in the biological well-being of a serial killer.
I get that. If life is not intrinsically valuable, then someone has to (gets to?) determine an arbitrary value-- life X is worth maintaining, life Y is not. And that's a dangerous slope to build on purpose. I wouldn't want a Republican-loaded supreme court to start adding trans people, gays, or atheists to the list of lives not worth protecting.
