Quite. But it seems too hard for some here. They prefer the lynch mentality.
Quite. But it seems too hard for some here. They prefer the lynch mentality.
Nor have you suggested that they should be.
And those circumstances could well result in damage to innocent parties.
No, but that's probably a cleaner and more honest approach than, say, the Guardian's.
Not at all. But, if that "simple theft" does result in the death of an innocent party, are you suggesting that we just accept it because that wasn't the original intention? I would rather see you suggest that criminals, major or minor, accept the consequences of their own actions, especially if they impinge upon the lives of innocent people.
If, however, they manage to kill themselves in the course of their illegal act it may serve as a warning to others.
Please remember that they have total freedom of choice in these matters
- their victims do not.
Dead thieves don't steal.
If at some point the threat to society and the cost to society of live ones exceeds any possible benefit to the race of preserving them..well yes, its third Reich pragmatism. But it exists as a definite possibility.
A friend of mine had a child who became ill..ws taken to A & E where he had a coughing fit, choked on his on vomit and died, but was (just) resuscitated enough to be a screaming mental 2 year old until finally he died at age 10 or so.
Her marriage collapsed, and her whole life became dominated by a court case against the hospital for failing to come sooner and the exigencies of bringing up a child that everyone knew would have been better off dead for everybody bar the child, and no one ever managed to ask him that question because he never learnt to talk.
So, what was the greatest good for the greatest number? Would his simple death have not in fact been a whole lot better? In the end you are always skating on thin ice when you enter the moral maze. There are no clear answers at an intellectual level.
Moral Philosophy abounds with awkward questions like this. E.g. ten sick people each need a different organ transplant that one healthy person could provide..
The greatest good for the greatest number implies that one should kill and organ strip the one healthy person in order to save the lives of the other nine. On paper this is the optimal solution.
Discuss....
IF you have Faith of course, its GodsWill that the 9 die, and the one survives. Atheism gives you no such guideline...
it's a pity they don;t have such pictures along side the words like they do on ciggerette packets. i.e keep breaking in or go past this and this is could be your future.
Considering that the police investigation that is the result of the deaths will delay the repair compared with the situation if the thieves had got away, ISTM that it is *you* who doesn't care about the increase to the disruption so long as the thieves suffer bad consequences.
Do you feel the same way about a criminal who drives his car at 45 MPH in a 40 MPH limit? It could result in death. Even parking in a no-parking area could result in death. Do you therefore similarly wish death on drivers who break the speed limit, and people with parking infringements?
Or maybe a yellow triangular sign with a picture of a dead person under a lightning bolt? Like the ones I see all over Europe?
The pictures shown here would frighten people who aren't planning on doing any wrong, and the general feeling among those who are planning to do wrong is "It won't happen to me, because it didn't happen to my mate when he did it.".
My point is mainly that no matter what you do to protect people, evolution still happens.
Don't talk s**te. Nobody is saying that there should be no punishment, only that the death penalty is inappropriate.
Having experienced that situation twice I recommend social philosophical discussion. Worked for me.
Janet
For programmed shut-downs, mobile generators are usually provided . Kidney machines are highlighted on operational control diagrams.
Bill
Well it also worked for me, but I didn't HAVE a gun...
Dream on!
Bill
Please cite a few examples.
Do you therefore similarly
I've not "wished death" on anyone, although some might have wished it upon themselves.
As you may be aware, there are penalties available for exceeding the speed limit, as there are for illegal parking regardless or whether an accident ensues, such penalties being more severe when an accident occurs for the reason stated. Never having received such a penalty in nearly fifty years of driving, however, I'll be guided by those who obviously have fallen foul of the law.
You may think it a good idea to kill speeding drivers, but I'll keep an open mind on it.
Don't be such a silly boy, that is not what I have said.
They bring these things upon themselves and they bring about the disruption which requires police involvement. Of course such disruption is inconveniencing and annoying to everybody. If the consequences of their acts are that they injure or kill themselves, so be it, it is self-inflicted. Nothing I can say or do will change that, however I don't see that I should feel guilty for lacking in sympathy for such people.
Nobody wished it upon them, it was totally self-inflicted, they weren't forced to do it. Darwinism in action, out of everyone's hands except their own.
En el artículo , Cynic escribió:
Nice straw man.
last year on a road near here, a car left the road, hit a tree and killed the 2 occupants. A lot of bleating about the road being unsafe, inadequately marked, etc.
Facts: 1.the car was shown to have been travelling at well over the 40mph speed limit - Volvo estates generally stand up well to this sort of impact
En el artículo , Clive George escribió:
The death penalty was self-inflicted in this case. Quite a different matter from wishing to impose the death penalty on someone.
En el artículo , harry escribió:
please?
When my Father started to teach me to drive, in 1954, he said to me, "Remember, the most dangerous nut in a car, is the nut behind the wheel"
Mike
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required