155 replies to this topic

[Whitey]

And by that logic you support passive but not active euthanasia? Is this correct?

[Golan]

No, I'm german and take offense to being implied to "support euthanasia", unless you specify what exactly you mean by that.

I do support voluntary euthanasia, if that is what you mean. The distinction between active and passive is irrelevant to me in this question, provided in an active case it's clearly the patient's decision.

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 12:07.

[Wizard]

Confinement and death are two very different things. I simply don't understand why you can't differentiate between the two?

[Whitey]

Because both the death penalty and life in prison entail confinement AND death.

As for the euthanasia reference, your argument was that it is inhumane to decide how or when a person dies. But in supporting euthanasia, in any form, you have negated that.

I suppose now you will argue that you only support it as voluntary. This is a crucial DIFFERENCE between the two though. In the case of criminals, they do not have the liberty to choose. They are being put to death one way or another. The way in which it is conducted, just as in the case of active and passive euthanasia, is where any moral issues arise.

Death by natural cause is our equivalent to passive euthanasia. A life prison sentence.
Death by execution is our equivalent to active euthanasia. The death penalty.

The two lines above are the only possible outcomes. It might seem odd that I'm comparing this to euthanasia, but I feel the analogy is perfectly fitting and provides a new perspective on the issue.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 12:15.

[Golan]

I can't remember having outspoken against voluntary euthanasia for criminals. Do you?

[Wizard]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:10, said:

Because both the death penalty and life in prison entail confinement AND death.

As opposed to the death penalty or life outside of prison AND death? That is no argument at all imo. The ending of ones life PREMATURELY is vastly different from it's ending of natural causes

[Golan]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:10, said:

Death by natural cause is our equivalent to passive euthanasia. A life prison sentence.
Death by execution is our equivalent to active euthanasia. The death penalty.

Passive euthanasia would be supplying them with a lethal injection for use at their own leisure.

€dit
Scratch that. What weird definitions of euthanasia does this stupid language have? oO

Passive euthanasia would mean locking them up airtight with no food.
By your definition, putting someone on life support is passive euthanasia, because they will die eventually.

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 12:21.

[Whitey]

Golan, you have suggested that both forms of euthanasia are perfectly reasonable permitting it is voluntary. This means that under the condition that it is voluntary, they are equal. Strip the voluntary away and you are left with death penalty and life in prison. By the same logic, they, too, are morally equal.

As for Wizard, what about outside of prison now? And premature termination of life is more or less what happens when you are sentenced to life in prison without parole is it not? What real value is there in that life anymore? I see none. Or at least next to none. If an inmate took up a bold statement about the importance of life in prison without parole, then I might accept it. But I can't help but feel the motivation instead of a worthwhile life is just a fear of death.

Aaand back to Golan: Locking them up airtight with no food? I believe that would fall under active euthanasia as it provides an environment of certain death - not from inflicted injury but from entirely preventable conditions (no food, air, etc). I am not talking life support, or starvation. I am talking allowing a monitored natural end to life.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 12:24.

[CJ]

The entire reason why murder is considered bad is that you take someone's life, staying in prison for the end of your days isn't a true life.

[Wizard]

Having A life and having life are two very different things. Punishment for a crime should be the foregoing of having A life. Not the foregoing of life.

Edited by Wizard, 28 January 2011 - 12:24.

[Whitey]

In which case we have a lifeless person rotting in a prison cell for the rest of his lousy existence? The forgoing of A life means that THE life no longer has any intrinsic value and its termination is justified permitting it is more economical than life in prison.

[Wizard]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:27, said:

In which case we have a lifeless person rotting in a prison cell for the rest of his lousy existence? The forgoing of A life means that THE life no longer has any intrinsic value and its termination is justified permitting it is more economical than life in prison.

So you place the value of a living human being confined to a cell as being worth nothing?

[Whitey]

I can't help but feel that's a loaded question.

And the answer is no. I do not consider any person worth nothing. But just as a coma patient with 0 chance of recovery may be taken off life support, so should an inmate.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 12:38.

[Golan]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:21, said:

Golan, you have suggested that both forms of euthanasia are perfectly reasonable permitting it is voluntary. This means that under the condition that it is voluntary, they are equal. Strip the voluntary away and you are left with death penalty and life in prison. By the same logic, they, too, are morally equal.

From "A equals B if A and B satisfy C" you follow "A is B if A and B do not satisfy C".
This isn't logical.

For the files, I don't agree with the individual arguments either. Passive and active euthanasia are not the same, not even for the issue of voluntariness. Stripping away voluntariness does not make a life sentence correspond to passive euthanasia - passive euthanasia means withholding vital supplies, which is not the case when a person is imprisoned.

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:27, said:

In which case we have a lifeless person rotting in a prison cell for the rest of his lousy existence? The forgoing of A life means that THE life no longer has any intrinsic value and its termination is justified permitting it is more economical than life in prison.

So, let's get this straight. Once a person is no longer capable of leading A Life, it's okay to terminate them? Then what about disabled persons? What about comatose patients? Birth defects that make long survival impossible?
What defines "A Life" anyways? Freedom? Independence? Happiness? The chance for happiness? Reading a book when you like to?

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 12:39.

[Whitey]

Actually, my logic was as follows: A = B regardless of C. C is an irrelevant aspect as it does not relate to the analogous aspects of the problem.

Passive and Active Euthanasia ARE the same. To deliberately withhold treatment and let die is to kill. I have a fancy article that outlines it much better but I don't think it would be legal to snag it from my school's e-reserve and share it with the world. In any case, the reasoning is deductively valid at the very least. As for the premises, debatable, but as is the nature of argument.

Also, please quit villainizing my statements because you don't agree with them. I am sure you know full-well what I'm getting at and it isn't that people are worthless.

We are not talking a choice between living a free life and dying. We are talking about living an empty life and dying and living an empty life and dying later.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 12:47.

[Golan]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 12:43, said:

Actually, my logic was as follows: A = B regardless of C. C is an irrelevant aspect as it does not relate to the analogous aspects of the problem.

Color coded for your convenience:

Quote

Golan, you have suggested that both forms of euthanasia are perfectly reasonable permitting it is voluntary. This means that under the condition that it is voluntary, they are equal. Strip the voluntary away and you are left with death penalty and life in prison. By the same logic, they, too, are morally equal.

C might be irrelevant for you, but you haven't made a consistent argument for this.

Argl, missjudgled some edit windows...

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 13:15.

[Whitey]

Admittedly my wording was a little off. But the logic itself stands.

For all intents and purposes:
A = B
A = C
B = D
Therefore
C = D

Where A is active euthanasia, B is passive euthanasia, C is the death penalty, and D is a life sentence.

I will reiterate my reasoning for the assigned equalities.

AE is the same as PE in that both involve the deliberate termination of life, all else irrelevant.

AE is the same as the Death Penalty in that it is the termination of life through administration of a lethal agent.

PE is the same as a life sentence in that it is the allowance of death on the person's own accord be it from injury, natural causes, or whatever may be.

And therefore there is no distinction between Death Penalty and Permanent Incarceration on moral grounds as the morality is whether the termination of life is acceptable and by allowing life in prison, that is already affirmed.

Edited by Boidy, 28 January 2011 - 12:59.

[Golan]

Well, okay then. First of, I'd like to clarify that I do not intend to villainize you - these are real questions which I feel follow logically from your position. If you do disagree with this, please clarify, if you want me to clarify, please tell me so.
The issue of drawing the line is a pretty big one about death penalty. There are enough persons that disagree with death penalty simply because they couldn't morally justify the line at which to stop. If you can't say why someone deserves loosing his life, while others that match the same criteria does not, then it's an arbitrary decision. This is especially important for trying to penalize murder with death, as it means the very crime comes from the similar dilemma of an arbitrary decision about another persons right to live.

To reiterate again, passive euthanasia and a life sentence are not the same. Passive euthanasia, by definition, means withholding vital life support to a person. This is not the case with a life sentence - the only thing withheld is freedom, vital needs are fulfilled and medical treatment is also usually supplied.
Of course, a life sentence ends with death. This doesn't make the life sentence the cause of the death however. In fact, many things end with death, including life itself, but also marriage, life insurances, and other ludicrous things that probably cause you to think I'm trying to make fun of you. I do not. If you decide that any action leading somehow to death of a human equals killing, then we are all murderers ten times over. If you decide that it only applies in this special cause but can't say why then it's not a position to argue for.

Furthermore, the removal of voluntariness from the situation is a pretty big deal. As you might have noticed, the common notion is that death penalty is amoral because someone else decides to do the killing. Ruling out this problem does of course simplify the situation, however it doesn't address one of the main concerns voiced against death penalty, and as I see it this is exactly the concern you tried to disprove with your argument.

[Whitey]

Passive Euthanasia, as I understand it, is not the withholding of life support, but of treatment, and there is a difference and that difference is the person is going to die from sustained injury under passive euthanasia, spending the last moments in a hospital bed. It can take any amount of time - even a lifetime. Therefore I still feel the analogy is reasonable for what it is meant to illustrate.

Now whether execution is arbitrary: Legally, no. And as a legal matter at heart, that should be all that matters. But the moral argument seems to get the most attention. Mind you, even if morally arbitrary, the policy as a whole is not, as it follows a very specific legal system.

As for the volunteer v. non-volunteer. The offender has volunteered just by committing the crime. They are facing life in prison or death. There is no other option.

"As you might have noticed, the common notion is that death penalty is amoral because someone else decides to do the killing."

No killing would be done had the offender not offended in the first place. As I said, the offender has volunteered himself, so to speak. Now the only thing left is whether he should die sooner or later. From the offender's position, should this really matter? Or more, should he really have a say? Yeah, he would rather die later than sooner. He would also rather be free than imprisoned. His preference is not to be taken into account. He is supposed to be at the mercy of the law.

Now why the law is immoral? Because it kills rather than lets die? Is that the only reason that the law is immoral? Please clarify.

I need to go to bed though. 8:15 in the AM here... haven't slept yet. =p But I'll gladly debate later.

[Chyros]

I don't know how imprisonment in the US works (I just know you don't want to end up in one there) but I still fail to see the difference between dying of old age in or outside of prison. If all goes well you die of old age anyway, regardless of your prison sentence. When the court condemns you to a life sentence, they don't sentence you to "life sentence AND death" but just to the sentence. Death is not a product of prison time (or at least, it shouldn't be, if all goes well).

[Golan]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 14:12, said:

Passive Euthanasia, as I understand it, is not the withholding of life support, but of treatment, and there is a difference and that difference is the person is going to die from sustained injury under passive euthanasia, spending the last moments in a hospital bed. It can take any amount of time - even a lifetime. Therefore I still feel the analogy is reasonable for what it is meant to illustrate.

Life support is part of treatment - if a lung fails, then an artificial breather machine treats this. Spending the time in hospital, in a bed or whatever isn't part of euthanasia - it usually comes with it, as injuries grave enough to be lethal without treatment usually mean confinement, but its not a requirement for or part of euthanasia.
The thing killing you if you stay in prison for a lifetime is the same thing killing you in any other situation, if you endure it for a lifetime - life ends with death.

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 14:12, said:

Now whether execution is arbitrary: Legally, no. And as a legal matter at heart, that should be all that matters. But the moral argument seems to get the most attention. Mind you, even if morally arbitrary, the policy as a whole is not, as it follows a very specific legal system.

I'm sorry but citing The Law for whether something is right or wrong is bullshit. Laws are artificial rules meant to mimic what people perceive as right or wrong, not the other way round. If you consider this issue merely a matter of legality, ask a lawyer or read the law.
By the way, it might be legal in your 'hood. In mine, it isn't. Does that make death penalty a major case of uncertainty principle? Does its rightness change when traveling over country borders?

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 14:12, said:

As for the volunteer v. non-volunteer. The offender has volunteered just by committing the crime. They are facing life in prison or death. There is no other option.

"As you might have noticed, the common notion is that death penalty is amoral because someone else decides to do the killing."

No killing would be done had the offender not offended in the first place. As I said, the offender has volunteered himself, so to speak. Now the only thing left is whether he should die sooner or later. From the offender's position, should this really matter? Or more, should he really have a say? Yeah, he would rather die later than sooner. He would also rather be free than imprisoned. His preference is not to be taken into account. He is supposed to be at the mercy of the law.

It appears that our definitions of volunteering differ greatly. As you said yourself, a convict would, in most cases, not give consent to his death. Which means there is still the need for someone else to decide that he is to be killed and someone to do the actual killing.
You seem to misunderstand that this isn't about the freedom or preference of the offender - its about the need for someone to declare his life unworthy. Which is what people are charged for when committing murder.

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 14:12, said:

Now why the law is immoral? Because it kills rather than lets die? Is that the only reason that the law is immoral? Please clarify.

I haven't been talking about any specific law so far. oO

Edited by Golan, 28 January 2011 - 15:29.

[Whitey]

I said I'll gladly debate later but I lied. We aren't going to come to an agreement because what is a life worth living apparently differs in our views. In mine, were I serving a life sentence, the only thing preventing me from saying "kill me now" would be fear of death. An irrational fear, in my opinion, knowing that it is coming anyway at the end of a longer stretch of the same road I'm already on. I know that I am not the only one that feels this way, but I also know that many others disagree. This is why I originally meant to make an economics-centered argument, but as I feared, you can't see it because you are still hung up on the moral dilemma, whereas I view the penalty as neither moral or immoral.

So... have fun.

[deltaepsilon]

Chyros, on 29 Jan 2011, 1:39, said:

If all goes well you die of old age anyway, regardless of your prison sentence. When the court condemns you to a life sentence, they don't sentence you to "life sentence AND death" but just to the sentence.

When it comes to people who deserve the death penalty, I'd go with Ion's criteria (serial killers, serial rapists, drug lords and crime bosses)

On to my point: As for prison life being worse than execution - I'd agree with that, of course based on the conditions of the prison. Forcing them to live them in a run-down hellhole with constant fear of attack from other prisoners (they won't want to be dropping the soap) is a much more drawn out and grueling punishment than a quick and painless execution. At least they'll be able to feel the degree of prolonged suffering and grief that the victim's family would feel.

However, replying to what Chyros said, if the life sentence is going to result in death anyway, wouldn't it just be faster and cheaper to give out the death sentence? The tax payer contributes a considerable amount to keeping these hardcore criminals well fed - despite how much they've taken out of society, they're still being supported by society, which seems rather ironic really.

Edited by deltaepsilon, 28 January 2011 - 23:06.

[Chyros]

deltaepsilon, on 29 Jan 2011, 1:05, said:

However, replying to what Chyros said, if the life sentence is going to result in death anyway, wouldn't it just be faster and cheaper to give out the death sentence? The tax payer contributes a considerable amount to keeping these hardcore criminals well fed - despite how much they've taken out of society, they're still being supported by society, which seems rather ironic really.

No, research has shown that being born is actually even more likely to result in death than anything else. I mean seriously, life sentences just mean that you live out your life in a separate society, not more. All this talk of life sentence boiling down to death makes no sense at all to me.

[Alias]

Just read the article I posted earlier, costs are far greater for the death penalty.