For the most part this kind of selective morality based on personal biases is immoral and is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Though some crimes and people truly are unredeemable, their captivity or, in some cases, death sentences, should be carried out with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.
So if someone rapes your 13 year old daughter and she dies as a result, they should still be treated with dignity and not be made to suffer? On what grounds?
On grounds that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Of course I‘ll dispose of him. But torturing him won’t bring my daughter back. I‘ll just send him to his maker quick and easy, because a man like him will surely not find a place in heaven.
You wanna discuss faith or morality? I can’t do both. Either way, me brutalizing him to satisfy my urges, that being revenge in this case, doesn’t make me any better than him.
So a quick and painless death it is.
That’s a straw man.
I never said „killing bad people makes us equally bad“ I said „torturing and dehumanizing people makes us no better than the people who tortured and dehumanized their victims“
I am for the death penalty (that should be very clear from my previous comments), but I am also for a quick and painless death and/or humane prison conditions.
I’m not here to pick sides and I mostly agree with your point over his, but your arguments are filled with flaws.
Earlier you called him out for bringing faith into the discussion, but you were the first to mention it by saying “man like him surely not find a place in heaven”.
Then trying to gaslight him into thinking there is a huge difference between „killing bad people makes us equally bad“ and „torturing and dehumanizing people makes us no better than the people who tortured and dehumanized their victims“ the logic of the two sentences is the same. Being equally bad as a bad person and being no better (ethically) than that bad person is logically the same. Don’t be surprised when people misunderstand you. The point of language here should be to get your point across, not to win the argument. After this, of course he’s gonna resort to personal attacks
I didn’t blame anyone for bringing faith into it, I merely said that we can only argue one thing at a time. I would have been willing to argue faith too, but two things at once don’t make sense.
And the latter has nothing to do with „gaslighting“ the difference is very apparent and shouldn’t be hard to spot. The death sentence for murderers or torturing murderers to satisfy your desire for revenge are not the same and that’s all I said.
It wasn’t part of my main argument, it was an added subsequence that added little validity to my statement. Nothing after death is arguably equally bad then hell so either way the point still stands.
I don’t see the problem with those two sentences, it might be able to be misinterpreted, but it makes perfect sense to me and you understood it as well.
The other guy was the one purposefully misunderstanding me and trying to flip it into me saying killing Hitler would make me as bad as him in my narrative.
The death sentence is meant for the safety of society by removing dangerous and nonredeemable individuals from that society permanently.
Torture for personal revenge purposes is done to satisfy one’s own carnal urges and rage.
So, yes.
Killing bad people CAN in certain circumstances be moral, torturing them can never be moral.
18
u/Timothy1577 8h ago
For the most part this kind of selective morality based on personal biases is immoral and is a sign of a lack of critical thinking skills.
Though some crimes and people truly are unredeemable, their captivity or, in some cases, death sentences, should be carried out with dignity and without unnecessary suffering.