Orf wiv their 'eads [2]
Aug. 9th, 2006 09:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyMy post on capital punishment the other day appears to have sparked a fair old debate, which is always gratifying. It's interesting to note that the pro/anti camp on the poll seems fairly evenly split, which surprised me considering that LJ tends to be the natural environment of the woolly lefty and led to me thinking that the atavistic human desire for revenge is quite strong across the population.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.
Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?
*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.
Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?
*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.
Re: Soylent green is made of people
Date: 2006-08-11 08:56 am (UTC)H
Re: Soylent green is made of people
Date: 2006-08-11 09:34 am (UTC)I would suggest options to them, I would ask them to think about what they truely wanted and whether they felt that this was the solution - if they felt it was I would support them in their choice.
You have already stated though that everyone else in this hypothetical society is blissfully content with their situation - so taking that as a consideration (which until now I've ignored) why should I encourage someone to bring about change which would make more people unhappy in the long run? I'm not talking about making things fair/equal - if someone is happy with being down trodden, who has the right to say "you're down trodden! you shouldn't be happy!" only for them to become unhappy after the interference? Is it better to be enslaved and truely happy? or free and utterly miserable?
Re: Soylent green is made of people
Date: 2006-08-11 10:10 am (UTC)That's not utopia, it's dystopia.
H
Re: Soylent green is made of people
Date: 2006-08-11 10:43 am (UTC)But that would not allow for the lengthy descision period during which someone is more than welcome to change their mind (they may decide that life's actually good, or they may decide that it's better to fight than die).
Nor does not allow for that fact that we are all different and react to situations - some become depressed, some become violent, some become frustrated and try to bring about change, etc. You are suggesting by your argument that everyone who became disatisfied would kill themselves because it wouldn't be worth it, but I would have thought that anyone likely to fight for change in what ever way would be more likely to only be depressed for a short periods rather than a very long one.
Of course a dictator would most likely not allow for the lengthy descision process or the extensive and impartial treatment which I believe should be given to someone who initially makes the choice to die rather than live. Thus this situation would not fit with my belief. I have never said that I believe that if the person is not helped to live first they should not be helped to commit suicide.