6 opinions, 6 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Other answer.
1 vote
Nov 18, 2015

I am pretty sure from my subjective point of view and "cases" I'd agree that maybe yes. Although, we've got to have in mind that if we sentence people to death penalty as Gambi says - first, people will "deserve" to die for X reasons... then in the future for Y reasons. We can't set the limits nor we can control who makes these either. There's people who are more harmful than helpful - but I believe our aim is towards to "Reforming/rebuilding/remaking" these people to be a more "thinking" and/or "sentient" being and to fit more into our "common" society. As in, help each other and build together. This way, we're only going to implement violence with even more violence. So, once again as Gambi said - it's a tough one and a hard decision. I believe both ways could be right - but there needs to be a balance. Although, I'm not denying that some people don't "deserve" to die - but I don't think they should actually die. Not quite sure and doubting this one... it's indeed very complicated and can be seen from many perspectives - the thing is getting a balance between the two.

subscribe
100
User voted Other answer.
1 vote
Feb 1, 2016

Subjectively, yes, I believe there are many people who "deserve" to die, but that does not mean be they ought to die.

The subjectiveness of "deserve" in and of itself tells us that no one should be put to death. If we are talking about capital punishment, I am of the opinion that the justice system is too fallible to dole out such a sentence. Even if a justice system were somehow 99% correct or in cases with apparent infallible evidence, the precedent cannot be allowed.

subscribe
75
User voted Yes.
4 votes
Nov 17, 2015

Tough one. Word "deserve" excludes using any objective facts, but I'm still sure of my opinion: yes, there are. We are basically living only for 4 F's, but we've actually made it to something like next level of existance thanks to power of our brains. Therefore started the responsibility for our actions and there simply are actions that deserve to be punished by death. Furthermore, the highest form of punishing people is torturing them, death penalty is making sure they will never do anything harmful, so it has its grounds.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Nov 18, 2015

And what angel will be making these judgments and delivering them?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote,
Nov 23, 2015

None. There is no "angel" or any omnipotent mind that can decide about if it's right or not. There is only you. We reached the point where things like this are getting complicated not by morality, but by society's good. If I kill someone because I decided that he or she had been dangerous, then anyone can do it, right? But what if entire society agree on killing that person? Is it fine? Maybe society is wrong? That's why I pointed out there is no objective fact in my opinion above. I just think there are people that deserve to die and I would kill them as long as it had no consequences on me. But "deserve" is not always "should". For now, prisons are doing just fine.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 23, 2015

So, even if we concede in theory that it is meaningful and ethical to say some "deserve" to die, the issue is precisely that we recognize both that collective institutions and individual people are very much incapable of being consistently fair in their judgments, recognizing all the complex causal factors at play, and are themselves far from perfect. So it seems to me that even discussing the issue, when practically it is irrelevant, seems to be flawed.

Prisons are far from doing "fine" globally. American prisons are routinely castigated by human rights groups for routinized torture and an atmosphere that breeds sexual assault.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Yes.
2 votes,
Nov 23, 2015

Sorry for this statement about prisons, what I meant was punishment for crimes, but, indeed, I haven't looked wide enough at this case. And about discussion itself being flawed: I agree with you. Again, what I wrote was just my opinion, which came out of me thinking that world would be a better place without certain people. But only MY world, because I can only see world by my eyes. If you don't want anybody on earth to be dead, then it's fully logical that you disagree with me, as by your seeing of the world, there really isn't anyone that deserves to die.

subscribe
50
2 votes
Nov 18, 2015

No.

As others identify, this is somewhat of a subjective matter.

When we view some as "deserving" to die, we have opened up the gateway to say that any human flaw should be a matter to bring death and destruction.

We ignore the possibility of redemption. We imply the right of judging, which would come from some clear superiority. Such superiority does not exist. We ignore the causal factors that cause bad behavior, and we ignore shared and social responsibility. We blame individuals instead of collective problems.

This flawed approach is a colossal part of our moral paucity and global crises.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted Other answer.
main reply
1 vote,
Dec 6, 2015

This argument feels like a slippery slope. That is, to say that viewing some as "deserving" to die equals saying that ANY human flaw should be a matter to bring death and destruction.

For starters, people DESERVING of death is not the same as people being killed. But that's a discussion for another question (Namely, "should people who deserve to die be killed?" or "What can we do with people who deserve to die aside from killing them?").

What can "deserving of death" mean? Maybe that a person is enough of a threat to justify their permanent removal. if so, a threat to who? I can think of three alternatives. Society, other persons, and themselves. This isn't a discussion for another question, but it doesn't has to do with my reply to you, so maybe i'll write more about it on my own answer.

You say that we, in that hypothetical situation (which, quite frankly, is not exactly hypothetical in our society nowadays. Death is still a punishment used by several countries, and even more worrisome, several people as a personal vendetta or a metaphor that has nothing to do with the victim's life in particular), would ignore the possibility of redemption, which is not necessarily true.

Let's say nobody deserves to die (your argument). Under that law, somebody kills somebody else, and will do it again (by their own admission) if uncontained. So alright, he's sent to jail. He spends his time in jail, then gets out, and kills somebody else. So he's given a life sentence. He then spends the rest of his days in prison until he dies, which is pretty much the same thing as killing him, only with the torture of living in prison for years and years. You yourself said "Prisons are far from doing "fine" globally. American prisons are routinely castigated by human rights groups for routinized torture and an atmosphere that breeds sexual assault.". In that case, isn't a life sentence worse than execution? I'm not going to answer that for you.

Then you said "we imply the right of judging, which comes from a fake perception of superiority". I think that here's where i agree the most with you. Even so, though, we need to judge. We need courts of law, we need penal law and we need jails. Otherwise, what do you think would happen? Known murderers running free can't be better than having them imprisoned. Maybe you have some good ideas regarding what to do here. I can think of some myself, but once again, i shouldn't answer anything for you.

Finally, you say "We ignore the causal factors, social responsibility and collective problems. Instead, we blame individuals and their bad behavior". Maybe it's just me, but i feel like we as mankind are sort of doing something about that. Granted, we're dragging our feet (we love to drag our feet, don't we? Global contamination, universal healthcare, economic equality... Violence is just one more thing we're procrastinating on), but what can you or me do about that? I believe arguing this will bring no point for or against our arguments, but if you differ, please feel free to explain why. Either way, we won't fix those collective problems tomorrow or in a few days. Likewise, the causal factors aren't likely to depart any time soon. As such, blaming individuals is the best we can do in a non-hypothetical scenario where things take time, and murderers and thieves and other morally bad people won't wait for us to fix things either.

You end your argument with "This flawed approach is a colossal part of our moral paucity and global crises", and maybe here you utter your truest statement. Sure, taking the easiest way out means not having to think hard about fixing these things, but as i said before, we're not perfect machines who can calculate results in long-term and act accordingly. We aren't even coordinated in our motives and morals. The world has too many ethos, and ethics can't but vary through them. Even under the same ethos, there are several ways to do the same thing. It is communication, sponsored by globalization, that which should be our greatest tool on deciding a course of action, and then actually following through with it. But until that happens, maybe some people do deserve to die.

subscribe
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes
Nov 25, 2015

Form my point of view I'd say that there ARE people that deserve to die and are alive. However, as we can't bring back people that deserve to live but are dead. So the people that deserve to die SHOULDN'T die when thinking that way.

subscribe
0
0 votes
May 25, 2016

Yes, but the bigger question is who is morally allowed to kill them?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jul 7, 2016

no one has no rights to kill someone and steal lifes! he(she) is not GOD!

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: