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

41–50 of 53 posts

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#41

Post by jebarker »

quantummagic wrote: post #39
jebarker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t find this a convincing argument. This works as an argument for permitting lethal force to end a life-threatening attack. But once someone is already detained there’s no way that killing them meaningfully increases public protection over just keeping them locked up.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#42

Post by quantummagic »

jebarker wrote: post #41
quantummagic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t find this a convincing argument. This works as an argument for permitting lethal force to end a life-threatening attack. But once someone is already detained there’s no way that killing them meaningfully increases public protection over just keeping them locked up.

That's just your opinion. The point of my comment is to show there are cases where even you agree causing the death of someone is "deserved". Once we both agree there are deserving cases, the rest is just a disagreement about where to draw the line. You have your preference, I have mine.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#43

Post by jebarker »

quantummagic wrote: post #42
jebarker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t find this a convincing argument. This works as an argument for permitting lethal force to end a life-threatening attack. But once someone is already detained there’s no way that killing them meaningfully increases public protection over just keeping them locked up.

That's just your opinion. The point of my comment is to show there are cases where even you agree causing the death of someone is "deserved". Once we both agree there are deserving cases, the rest is just a disagreement about where to draw the line. You have your preference, I have mine.

No, we don’t agree it’s “deserved” in any cases. I agree in the self defense case it’s justifiable based on near certainty about the outcome if you don’t respond with lethal force. That has nothing to do with “deserved”, which is always subjective unless we discover some universal moral code we’re all bound to abide by. So I think where we agree is that it’s all opinion.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#44

Post by quantummagic »

jebarker wrote: post #43
quantummagic wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just your opinion. The point of my comment is to show there are cases where even you agree causing the death of someone is "deserved". Once we both agree there are deserving cases, the rest is just a disagreement about where to draw the line. You have your preference, I have mine.

No, we don’t agree it’s “deserved” in any cases. I agree in the self defense case it’s justifiable based on near certainty about the outcome if you don’t respond with lethal force. That has nothing to do with “deserved”, which is always subjective unless we discover some universal moral code we’re all bound to abide by. So I think where we agree is that it’s all opinion.

What is under discussion is the taking of a life. You think it's fine to take a life in certain circumstances, but object in others. Fine. But you have no more a hold on the truth (moral or otherwise) than someone who draws the line somewhere else. So your objection comes down to a complaint about my use of the word "deserve". Fine, use a different word. It doesn't change in any useful real-world way the point, instead it's just typical philosophical navel gazing. The fact is we all agree there are times we should indeed take a life, it's a category that exists, even for your worldview.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#45

Post by jebarker »

quantummagic wrote: post #44
jebarker wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we don’t agree it’s “deserved” in any cases. I agree in the self defense case it’s justifiable based on near certainty about the outcome if you don’t respond with lethal force. That has nothing to do with “deserved”, which is always subjective unless we discover some universal moral code we’re all bound to abide by. So I think where we agree is that it’s all opinion.

What is under discussion is the taking of a life. You think it's fine to take a life in certain circumstances, but object in others. Fine. But you have no more a hold on the truth (moral or otherwise) than someone who draws the line somewhere else. So your objection comes down to a complaint about my use of the word "deserve". Fine, use a different word. It doesn't change in any useful real-world way the point, inste…

Exactly, it’s about the choice of word but I don’t think it’s meaningless semantics.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#46

Post by inigyou »

mieses wrote: post #36
halperter wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who is the enemy?

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#47

Post by RestlessMind »

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…

> What criteria would allow for someone to "deserve" death?

As a framework - death penalty should be legalized when a majority members of the society support that as a punishment.

When applying that framework - it should be applied for the cases beyond any reasonable doubt.

Once you agree on these principles, all other details can be easily negotiated.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#48

Post by voakbasda »

jebarker wrote: post #41
quantummagic wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don’t find this a convincing argument. This works as an argument for permitting lethal force to end a life-threatening attack. But once someone is already detained there’s no way that killing them meaningfully increases public protection over just keeping them locked up.

Yes, it does. are you familiar with the rules for perjury? Once someone lies under oath, everything they say gets thrown out. The logic being that others cannot know what words can be trusted; you are done as a witness.

For some crimes, everything they are should be thrown out, because society should not be burdened with the trust that these people will not commit another similar crime. Removing them from society protects the very fabric of our society: our trust in others.

Child rapists, serial killers… these fuckers need to die, or society learns that we catch and release such predators back into the world. Where they become someone’s neighbors. Are you willing to let them move into next door to you? You think keeping them alive protects society?

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#49

Post by oreally »

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?

Pay for your work. An eye for an eye. Equivalent exchange. Justice for any crimes perpetuated.

Such are some timeless principles that brings fairness.

And to counter on Camus when he writes:

> that there is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals;

This is where he's wrong. Having such a law alters the calculus of people's decisions. It's a simple first principle. It's one net of many nets for would be offenders, if it alters even one of their minds it's worth it.

Re: Reflections on the Guillotine (1957)

#50

Post by Obscurity4340 »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #18
catapart wrote: post #7

[flagged]

"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…

Those very States justify it with "We dont make no mistakes"
Post reply on HN