Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[bennyboy]

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.

Nope nowhere in the social contract does it say we have the right to kill someone if they break it nor does breaking the contract give us the right to do so. Nor does the life of a serial killer need to depend on what others lose by keeping them alive.

You seem not to have read what you are responding to.