271–280 of 527 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted because I didn't articulate this well]
How would you ever remove human bias from such a system? This is a non-starter.
For a layman like me on medical matters, it seems very strange that a pig's heart is used. Would it more logical idea to use a primate, our closest "cousin"?
For a layman like me on medical matters, it seems very strange that a pig's heart is used. Would it more logical idea to use a primate, our closest "cousin"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The weird thing about saying "Do not save those who took another's life" is that you are saying, "The person took a life. That's bad. We should punish them for the bad thing." Then saying, "Let's take their life to punish them." (not saving a life you could being essentially the same as life taking, to me, here). To me, you are undermining your view that life-taking is bad, by engaging in it yourselves. To me, this i…
So, thieves cannot be fined for their crimes (take their money after they took someone else's), kidnappers cannot go to jail (take their freedom after they took someone else's) - because it would undermine, what exactly? That makes no sense.
What they were saying is specifically that arguing that someone who takes a life should be punished in a life ending way because of the severity of taking a life is undermining that argument's own central claim of the severity of taking a life by at the same time arguing for ending a life.
Your analogies are flawed for two reasons:
1. there are other justifications for punishments that may (or may not) be valid. One argument may be that it is preventative, for example.
2. in neither example would most people argue that we're imposing a particularly extreme sentence because the action was particularly extreme, and this is central to the argument made by graderjs.
In the case of the theft example, if anything we'd tend to argue a fine is not a very serious punishment. In the case of kidnap, we argue for serious sentences because of the seriousness of the crime, but a prison sentence would not be seen by most people as equally cruel as the uncertainty and fear and trauma imposed on both the victim and their loved ones, and most people would argue that the prison sentence is not just a response to the seriousness of the crime committed.
Some people might nevertheless find it hypocritical to argue for prison sentence on the basis of the seriousness of kidnapping, and its their right. But that in itself does not make a prison sentence unjustifiable even if you agree with them, because you may have many other arguments, such as e.g. risk of reoffending, or signal effect to others.
The point is in other words not that a given punishment can't be justified, but that if you choose to argue that something is particularly severe and then in the same breath argues for inflicting that same thing on someone because of that perceived severity, you're undermining that argument.
For a layman like me on medical matters, it seems very strange that a pig's heart is used. Would it more logical idea to use a primate, our closest "cousin"?
I'm a full on speciesist. let's do more of this. since we're already eating them I feel like this even a more reasonable usage of their lives. can we do kidneys next please? we can basically shut down most dialysis clinics after that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next logical step is to breed pigs with organs that especially suit humans, maybe with some genetic engineering to optimise them. I really can't see anyone needing an organ complaining that they're GMO. As long as we treat animals well while they're alive (and why wouldn't you, you want high quality low stress organs) then there's really no limit here, morally.
And then the next step is to do research showing that pigs that are happy, stress free, and eat a good diet produce organs that are better for transplant. If so, this might be one of the most ethical animal industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fines and jail sentences are imposed by courts. It would be weird for a grocery store clerk to overcharge a convicted thief after they served their sentence.
We're talking about the morality of the reaction, not about who imposes it. GP argues that it's morally fundamentally wrong to react to some else's 'misbehavior' by imposing the very same action as punishment.
They say that the specific argument that life-taking is bad is undermined by arguing for life-taking.
This does not preclude other arguments for why life-taking may be bad, nor other arguments for why it may be justified in specific circumstances.
Note that graderjs' very own comment gives examples of other possible arguments for "eye for an eye":
> It will teach people a lesson, let them know they can't mess with us, and let them know there are consequences if they try. Hopefully, my ape brain says, that will make us safer and rest easier, in future.
As such it's very clear that graderjs is not making any sort of claim to absolute morality, but addressing the weakness of a specific line of argumentation.