accountable for our actions/feelings ...

would this not lead to morals?

is it just as cold-hearted to make the man with live with himself (and others like him)
as it is to kill him because it is cheaper on society to do so ...

It might be said that our rationality gives form to our feelings, and that our feelings give the impetus to develop a rational response to the world around us. But where do we find the ultimate location of morality itself? Which do we use to find our way to the other which is the seat of morality?

"would this not lead to morals?"

Maybe the journey is morality. You just have to keep revisiting the problem until you get it right. You have to keep going back to your crime and relive what you have done over and over until you feel the way you are supposed to, and by doing so you will know how to act.

That sounds like Karma, Hail Marys, repentance, and multiple universe theory all rolled into one, eh?

...is to decide our own fate. It's up to everyone else to support our decisions.

All of this will require Humeility and I Kant do it alone.

Is punishment support? If it can be so, how do we go about it?

Many counselors and psychology professionals will say that a healthy action for a victim is to forgive the offender. I believe that an important aspect of justice is restitution. I'm not sure there is restitution for violence.


Some of those who believe in the death penalty say that punishment and forgiveness is between the offender and God, and that it's their job to hasten the meeting.


I wish there was a way that society could trust that a violent offender could rehabilitate himself.

I am not knowledgeable about philosophy at all, so maybe this isn't the right place to write this, but I sure as hell wasn't going to post it in that thread.

I have conflict about horrible crimes too. I guess my problem is comprehending what we are trying to do with the perpetrators. Is it all about punishment? Are there other possibilities or considerations that we have or should have? Certainly isolating or eliminating someone like this has the benefit to others that they can't harm anyone else. That would be something I could get behind as a rational for either life or death sentences. If is to punish, what is adequate - or should torture and other extreme treatments be allowed too? Is there any motivation to try for redemption (not just this kind of horrendous crime but also in general)?

In other words what is the goal for convicting people?

I have a very "Kantian" interpretation of morality when it comes to killing people: It's wrong. Always. Every time. But this oh so rational and elegant morality is insufficient to satisfy my need for this guy to pay for his crime. The "Humian" in me would like to see him turned inside out over a very long period of time. And then get medieval on his ass. And as you say, how do we use our morality to punish the malefactor or teach him to not commit his crime again?

I don't think it's possible to adequately punish him to make his suffering commensurate with his crime. A criminal justice system that would provide for that would truly be medieval. And a categorical imperative not to kill must apply to us all equally. I am compelled to hold myself to the same standard that I use to condemn him. But he must be made to understand the horror of what he has done and the revulsion of those who are tasked to judge him. I think that might be the nature of punishment; for us to understand the suffering we have caused others as opposed to simply suffering it ourselves. If someone simply makes us suffer for our sins we can simply blame our persecutors without reflection, but if we are compelled to empathize with those we hurt we have to blame ourselves for our crimes and hopefully learn from our mistakes.

But here's the rub. As high minded as the categorical imperative not to kill may sound, it binds us in punishment as well. It would be a great relief to simply put the fucker down like the rabid dog he is and forget about him, but instead we have to let him live and deal with him. If we have to teach him, we have to understand him. And understanding him requires us to empathize with him.

This whole "brotherhood of man" thing can make for a pretty shitty Thanksgiving.

and how it binds us, I just wonder if punishment is even needed? If the goal were simply removing him and his behavior from society the focus would be on that task and punishment wouldn't be part of the equation. some sort of minimal yet humane maintenance would be all that is required.

the whole idea of punishment is troubling to me in a way. (even though I have raised 3 kids LOL)
it comes so close to the realm of revenge rather than a simple consequence for behavior, which is how I see it when I think of punishment having a useful function.

I think we would have to teach him to punish himself. As I understand it the original definition of a "cell" was a small room for contemplation (usually in a monastery). I guess the idea was that if you were confined in a room small enough the only place you could go was inside yourself.

Of course solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment as well, so for us to consider ourselves morally upright and compassionate humans we would have to go in there with him. As it stands now we just warehouse people for profit. If we were to do it right we would have to invest enough in him to make him a whole person. And as bad as he is that would take a lifetime if we were lucky. Maybe that's our punishment and our impetus to do better.

John Stuart Mill would say that we should do what is best for the most people. Since capital punishment currently requires more resources than life in prison, and life in prison is safer for those who may be wrongfully convicted, life in prison would be the best choice for everyone. Our emotions wouldn't really be a big part of our decision.

Marque de Sade would say we should only punish someone if that punishment brings us pleasure. So if knowing that Ohio man was put to death brought you pleasure, then that would be the right option for you.

to a whole bunch of appeals and consul that other prisoners don't get, which is really expensive. The convicted criminal is not killed right away; they're alive for years in prison. The extra time with lawyers and judges is more expensive than just having someone sit in prison.

the cost breakdown of a convict on death row lawyer fees and what not (some of this is pro bono) vs. one in general population ...

it would be interesting to see it written down, real life cases

Utilitarianism unsatisfying. It appears to be a rational philosophy based on a subjective standard of measure, a standard oriented toward the concept of "more", which seems avaricious and consumptive. And I'm not much of a sadist either. But your choice of philosophies is interesting indeed.

If our objective is to make the most people the most happy, how do we define happiness? I read about a study a while back, I believe it was in Slate, where happiness is best defined as "investment" rather than "joy". If that's the case, countries where the population is most invested in their religion would be the most successful societies on earth. Of course, nobody expects the inquisition. And when it comes to seeing that guy in Ohio turned inside out over a long period of time would make Sadism sound like a good idea, cruelty as an objective doesn't work very well in interpersonal relationships or societies either.

And yet, I exhibited some of both. I moved from a visceral dislike for the guy because of his crime, and toward an embrace of the categorical imperative that it is wrong to kill, even in the name of justice. I seemed to move from a subjective standard to an objective standard. Or did I? I mean, the killer himself violated the imprimatur of the objective standard to start with. And he probably did it because of a sadistic subjective standard.

Everywhere I look, the idea of movement seems to be the lynch pin of all human endeavor.

Things like the infamous Phillip Morris study on smoking bring home his point to me.

Google excerpt ;

http://books.google.com/books?id=SKEeHVwT5UMC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=philip+morris+utilitarianism+study&source=bl&ots=vZiZ5bdhkt&sig=b5fGonDb6Bh4Y67Ov8fEqaBJkto&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mB9jUb3pDOqpiQKPy4HoCA&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=philip%20morris%20utilitarianism%20study&f=false

Throwing people to the lions was pleasurable to some, and might have even been percieved to help society (one less criminal or whatever), but it was so morally wrong (painful death, death as a entertainment).

Humans in first-world countries sentence animals to a painful death for the purpose of entertainment. We can survive just fine on tofu, etc., but we generally don't find those foods to be as pleasurable, so we are attracted to foods that involve pain and death. This becomes even more apparent when we consider animals that are often cooked alive, such as lobsters.

Is this morally wrong to the point of being ridiculous? It's just a matter of opinion.

One of the major arguments for capital punishment is relief to the victim's family. Pleasure and pain are major motivators for policy setting. We can call it ridiculous, but we should remember that our government is based on it.

doing both. I'm not a vegetarian, so that would even make me a hypocrite in some ways.

I don't agree that pleasurable to many = the best outcome. In fact, that may lead to terrible decisions.

It's human to want the worst things to happen to someone who does something like this. This is a less reasoned response.

Reason comes later when we cool down and begin to think.