Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

theanarchistlibrary.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 53 posts

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#31

Post by halperter »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #21
aejm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you would feel different after witnessing an execution (by guillotine)? I believe Camus is arguing that you would, giving his father as example of someone who similarly changed his mind.

[flagged]

This may sound harsh, but I believe that anyone who fantasizes about cruelly murdering anyone has something wrong with them. Have you seen a death, saw someone dying in all the glory of their guts splayed around you? If that is something you desire to see, perhaps this death drive of yours requires some introspective.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#32

Post by otherme123 »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #21
aejm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if you would feel different after witnessing an execution (by guillotine)? I believe Camus is arguing that you would, giving his father as example of someone who similarly changed his mind.

[flagged]

>From A to Z I'd be thinking about the persons you don't care about: the victims.

And what exactly does the extra torture for the victim you care about? Is she better after the arm breaking or after the ball cutting?

I don't know any indicator that countries with death penalty have less victims or less crimes or less vicious crimes, or that added torture improves anything at all for past and future victims.

No, you are caring about you: you feel advocating for extra torture puts you in a better moral possition than people that defends a painless death penalty, or even worse, "only" life imprissoning, or those savages that would say "a mere" 20-25 years in jail.

There has been enough deaths of people that were wrongly judged, to add torture to the mix.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#33

Post by halperter »

romanhounds wrote: post #19
JKCalhoun wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Anyway, yeah, your dad had a weak stomach…" Yeah, no we can still want justice and not want to be horrified by the act of execution for the rest of our lives. Or, I don't know, perhaps we can crush parts of their body one at a time. Or maybe set fire to their limbs one at a time. I mean, why not? (And never mind that if The State could, even once, execute someone who is innocent, it renders capital punishment instan…

And what's your solution for this gross asymmetry of wealth? "Engineers" working 4 hours a week from resorts for enormous salaries? PE and VC run rampant, politicians bought and paid for, lobbying for corporate interests... I don't see why they should be allowed to keep accumulating more power and wealth..

Clearly not capital punishment? A lack of capital punishment ≠ lack of punishment. Boycotts, protests, new supply chains, political pressure, etc? The bourgeoisie still need the proletariat, thus, the proletariat can influence the bourgeoisie through solidarity. Commentator above said nothing about not punishing the bourgeoisie anyways.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#35

Post by mieses »

aejm wrote: post #14
quantummagic wrote: post #9

> it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, Hard disagree. There are people who deserve death, and it is a good thing when it happens. It's just really dangerous to give the state such a power.

I wonder if you would feel different after witnessing an execution (by guillotine)? I believe Camus is arguing that you would, giving his father as example of someone who similarly changed his mind.

A sheltered childhood would lead you to change your mind about anything if you saw someone spill a glass of milk. Emotions. Feelings.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#36

Post by mieses »

halperter wrote: post #30
t-3 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, hangings and torture used to be done publicly and people would gather to watch in large crowds, even bringing the whole family. There are still people who travel to witness death-row executions for no apparent reason than their own pleasure. This kind of morbid obsession with violence and trivialization of it as a spectacle has become much less common as people have become more civilized with time, but I doub…

Camus also writes that these morbid events essentially harden the people who need to be softened, trivializing violence and thus perpetuating it. He uses the example of pickpockets, where a large majority of pickpockets convicted had atteneded an execution of another pickpocjet, sometimes stealing from others while the execution was ongoing.

This just clarifies who the enemy is. I don't see a problem.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#37

Post by jebarker »

quantummagic wrote: post #9

> it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, Hard disagree. There are people who deserve death, and it is a good thing when it happens. It's just really dangerous to give the state such a power.

How do you define “deserve” in any kind of objective way?

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#38

Post by AlexeyBelov »

gsinclair wrote: post #28
TacticalCoder wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

“…the person you don’t care about…” Your comment is below the intellectual and interpersonal standard that makes HN a good place to be. I don’t doubt your sincerity and I can abide your opinion, but you should be restrained in ascribing such points of view to others.

> Your comment is below the intellectual and interpersonal standard that makes HN a good place to be.

You should install an extension and tag certain accounts. You'll notice it's the same people doing it for years (and also constant 2 months old accounts, but that's a different issue).

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#39

Post by quantummagic »

jebarker wrote: post #37
quantummagic wrote: post #9

> it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, Hard disagree. There are people who deserve death, and it is a good thing when it happens. It's just really dangerous to give the state such a power.

How do you define “deserve” in any kind of objective way?

You stop the philosophical navel gazing and use your best judgment. If someone has their hands wrapped around YOUR throat and is actively trying to kill you, you would defend yourself to the death if necessary. And you would clearly claim that you had objective proof that the attacker deserved death. You just apply the same concept, to less immediate forms of attack.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#40

Post by quantummagic »

halperter wrote: post #29
quantummagic wrote: post #9

> it is obviously no less repulsive than the crime, Hard disagree. There are people who deserve death, and it is a good thing when it happens. It's just really dangerous to give the state such a power.

What criteria would allow for someone to "deserve" death? Is it as a form of revenge, like most "deserved" punishments? Camus believes that state sanctioned revenge just breeds more violence. The death penalty is not a deterrent, it is something that offends the senses, and it is ultimately served on the platter as a criminal getting their just punishment in revenge. Either such a revenge is public, to declare that j…

Camus is just wrong. And the word "murder" is doing a lot of work in hiding the deception. It hides the artificial difference between cases where you cause the death of someone. Murder is used, almost by definition, to classify the _unjustified_ causing of death. But there are many cases where causing of death is justified, and we all agree; for instance you are fine to cause the death of someone who is actively trying to kill you. And it is a very logical progression from there, to accept the causing of death in many other cases. For example, you shouldn't have to wait for an attacker to pull the trigger of a lethal weapon before defending yourself, you should be free to ANTICIPATE his action and cause his death preemptively. And you can use this exact same line of reasoning to show that there are a great many cases where causing death is justified. There are destructive and evil people on the planet, and nobody will miss them when they are gone. The same way its good to cull deer, if the population of deer gets out of control... it's just better overall for the environment.
Post reply on HN