2 votes
Nov 18, 2015


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.

Reply to this opinion
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.

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