This is truly sickening

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Azazel
unless they're psychopaths, and then I may consider putting them down a viable alternative...

Let's look at the facts of the case and you tell me what they suggest to you. An animal is brutally and maliciously killed in full public view by a group of people uncaring of the consequences. Why don't you enlighten me with the stats regarding the likelyhood of such people graduating to bigger and better crimes?

[Az]

Let's look at the facts of the case and you tell me what they suggest to you. An animal is brutally and maliciously killed in full public view by a group of people uncaring of the consequences. Why don't you enlighten me with the stats regarding the likelyhood of such people graduating to bigger and better crimes?

I think that some research into that is needed. That's why I support the execution of psychopaths in many cases. They have no conscience, and are uncurable in that sense.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Azazel

Let's look at the facts of the case and you tell me what they suggest to you. An animal is brutally and maliciously killed in full public view by a group of people uncaring of the consequences. Why don't you enlighten me with the stats regarding the likelyhood of such people graduating to bigger and better crimes?

I think that some research into that is needed. That's why I support the execution of psychopaths in many cases. They have no conscience, and are uncurable in that sense.

Right, following that logic, other inferior humans such as handicapped people, dumb people and others should be eliminated just as well. Psychopaths are like that because they have no other choice. It would be foolish to punish them for something they can't help. Especially if they have not even comitted any serious crime. Most psychopaths are not dangerous anyway.

[Whaleboy]

I think that some research into that is needed. That's why I support the execution of psychopaths in many cases. They have no conscience, and are uncurable in that sense.

Psychopaths are estimated to include 1% of the human population. It is sociopaths that you refer to I think, who have about a fifth of that number.

[DinoDoc]

They're the samething. You both refer to anti-social personality disorder if you really wish to be semantic about it.

[Az]

ummm... what part of "many cases" don't you understand? Does it really matter if a person "can't help it"? It's not about being fair, or being even. It's about making the community safe.

[Whaleboy]

They're the samething. You both refer to anti-social personality disorder if you really wish to be semantic about it.

There are different levels of that... fairly benign (to others), though no less painful mental disorders, psychopathy is knowing what you do to be wrong and sociopathy is not.

Azazel can, on purely consequential grounds, make the case for it... just as he might want to make the case for eugenics and the suppression of "bad views". However, a society, indeed any group of people, are not run by consequence alone, utilitarianism is, upon close examination, more of a psychological theory (an extension of egoism) than a political theorum... ultimately since it fails to account for numerous aspects of human nature it would fail upon widespread application.... as is the case here. In other words, what a society does in order to be successful is not purely done to directly benefit that society, considering a reciprocal relationship with all individuals, as well as the consistency required therein is needed to prevent collapse, either anarchy or totality.

Azazel will also surely note that there is a very fine line between safety and stupidity, and the knock on effects from the denial of individual responsibility for their actions.

I won't even bother touching on the numerous ethical concerns of a gain in safety from the execution of individuals whose characteristics would compromise that safety. Put simply, execution is going far too far imo, and we need to examine whether creating a wholly "safe" society is a desireable outcome anyway! Azazel seems to be taking it as an unspoken assumption.

[Whaleboy]

These kids, however, have pissed me off. I can rant and reason all I want but I'm a human being at the end of the day not the sum of the parts of my logical calculus, and if I ever met them in person I would tear out their jugulars.

[DinoDoc]

How utterly consistent of you.

[Az]

ust as he might want to make the case for eugenics and the suppression of "bad views".

You know, I hear that anti-utilitarian argument a thousand times, and I've never seen anyone hold their ground...

In other words, what a society does in order to be successful is not purely done to directly benefit that society, considering a reciprocal relationship with all individuals, as well as the consistency required therein is needed to prevent collapse, either anarchy or totality.

Since when ethical theories are about what societies do, and not about what societies SHOULD do?

Azazel will also surely note that there is a very fine line between safety and stupidity, and the knock on effects from the denial of individual responsibility for their actions.

I hardly the one denying the one denying personal responsibility, it's the anti "death-to-psychopaths" argument ("they can't help it, that's who they are!" ). However, I do claim that appeal to personal responsibility, which is basically reprogramming on the basis of negative stimuli, is impossible in this case, because whatever it is, compassion isn't part of their brain design ( that's the point of the disorder)

These kids, however, have pissed me off. I can rant and reason all I want but I'm a human being at the end of the day not the sum of the parts of my logical calculus, and if I ever met them in person I would tear out their jugulars

I have no problem with you saying it, as long as you admit it's a flaw.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
I have no problem with you saying it, as long as you admit it's a flaw.

Jeez, you think mighty high of yourself if you judge your opinion to be superior than his, enough to classify it as a flaw.

[Az]

Jeez, you think mighty high of yourself if you judge your opinion to be superior than his, enough to classify it as a flaw.

Of course I judge my opinion superior to his. That's why I hold my opinion, and not his. His flaw, though is not about his opinion, but his admittance that he would not act according to his his own reasoning, and ethical hypothesis, and hurt him.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Of course I judge my opinion superior to his. That's why I hold my opinion, and not his. His flaw, though is not about his opinion, but his admittance that he would not act according to his his own reasoning, and ethical hypothesis, and hurt him.

It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.

It is not a flaw, it's quite normal.

[Az]

It's only a flaw if you expect humans to be completely rational.

It is not a flaw, it's quite normal.

This line of reasoning is correct only correct under the assumption that normal people are flawless.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
This line of reasoning is correct only correct under the assumption that normal people are flawless.

This line of reasoning is correct and only correct if there is an ideal that we can compare to, to determine what is a flaw and what isn't.

I contend there is no such system for humans, and as such it is not appropriate terminology to use the term "flaw". There is no ideal, there is no perfect, and ergo, there is no flaw...

filosofy...