fast
Contributor
Haha, nice observation!
Self-defense is very ethical.
Is the question, "are you in favor of capital punishment (?)" a moral question or a legal question?
Self-defense is very ethical.
Neither.If I'm asked if I support capital punishment, I don't know whether I'm being asked if it's a righteous act or if I would vote in favor of it.
We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on knowing their moral attitude alone?
We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on how they would cast their vote alone?
Self-defense is very ethical.
Exactly. I can't really fault prisoners who kill guards in their escape attempts.
Self-defense is very ethical.
One purpose of prisons being to remove the risk from the public. We do not need to defend ourselves from inmates locked away in high security cells.
Self defense is ethical, but self defense should not exceed threat, the use of excessive force, etc. If you have an attacker subdued, it is neither ethical or legal to execute him.
Exactly. I can't really fault prisoners who kill guards in their escape attempts.
The guards are not the ones with a history of psychotic violence. They need the defending, not the perp.
Interesting. It may be open to interpretation in so much as one might interpret it differently than others, but if it's a straight forward objectively oriented question, then despite the complexities surrounding the issue, it would seem to me that the skewed responses brought on by the ability to accurately interpret the question would indicate that some people may inaccurately respond with a wrong answer--such that one may indeed support capital punishment but profess to oppose capital punishment.Neither.
If you are asked if you support capital punishment you should understand that one is asking you if you support capital punishment.
You can interpret the question so as to ignore or not all moral issues related to capital punishment. Similarly, the person asking the question may or may not have moral issues in mind when asking the question.
Maybe the fallacy would be to suggest that the question "Do you support capital punishment?" is not subject to interpretation.
We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on knowing their moral attitude alone?
We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on how they would cast their vote alone?
EB
The guards are not the ones with a history of psychotic violence. They need the defending, not the perp.
False dichotomy. The need for self-defense isn't limited to situations where the other party has a history of psychotic violence, and having a history of psychotic violence doesn't magically make you safe.
You must have missed my earlier posts. The prisoner is still a risk to the guards who are around him every day.
The heinous criminal is executed because of his crimes and is a danger to the public. This is society defending itself.
Exactly. I can't really fault prisoners who kill guards in their escape attempts.
The guards are not the ones with a history of psychotic violence. They need the defending, not the perp.
Self-defense is very ethical.
One purpose of prisons being to remove the risk from the public. We do not need to defend ourselves from inmates locked away in high security cells.
Self defense is ethical, but self defense should not exceed threat, the use of excessive force, etc. If you have an attacker subdued, it is neither ethical or legal to execute him.
You must have missed my earlier posts. The prisoner is still a risk to the guards who are around him every day.
The heinous criminal is executed because of his crimes and is a danger to the public. This is society defending itself.
Not necessarily. I would agree that there has to be a mistake somewhere but it may well be in your suggestion that if two people answer the same moral question differently then at least one of them has to be wrong.Interesting. It may be open to interpretation in so much as one might interpret it differently than others, but if it's a straight forward objectively oriented question, then despite the complexities surrounding the issue, it would seem to me that the skewed responses brought on by the ability to accurately interpret the question would indicate that some people may inaccurately respond with a wrong answer--such that one may indeed support capital punishment but profess to oppose capital punishment.Neither.
If you are asked if you support capital punishment you should understand that one is asking you if you support capital punishment.
You can interpret the question so as to ignore or not all moral issues related to capital punishment. Similarly, the person asking the question may or may not have moral issues in mind when asking the question.
Maybe the fallacy would be to suggest that the question "Do you support capital punishment?" is not subject to interpretation.
We could, yes.
We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on how they would cast their vote alone?
EB
Suppose two different individuals both have no qualms with capital punishment in theory (oh say, on moral grounds) but do have qualms with it in practice (because of high cost or potential for mistakes), they may answer the posed question regarding support or opposition differently. If I'm correct, then one of them responded incorrectly.
Consider a guy like Unbeatable whose moral attitude is that there are no correct moral judgments. He'll support capital punishment or not based on how often it has a result he likes compared to how often it has a result he doesn't like. How are you going to extract that information merely from knowing he thinks there are no correct moral judgments?We could, yes.Can we conclude whether one supports capital punishment on knowing their moral attitude alone?
I think the mistake is here:
Consider a guy like Unbeatable whose moral attitude is that there are no correct moral judgments. He'll support capital punishment or not based on how often it has a result he likes compared to how often it has a result he doesn't like. How are you going to extract that information merely from knowing he thinks there are no correct moral judgments?We could, yes.
I would agree that originally "support" probably meant "active support". But precisely because we can also say "active support" it seems to me that "support" today just means "being in favour of".Maybe the word "supports" suggests an action of sorts. For instance, I voted in favor of X, so I supported X.
Second example: I went and stood by and cheered for the team I liked, so I did show up and support the team I favored.
I guess that a moral position should explain what our actions would be given at least some specific circumstances. There should be some circumstances in which we would act accordingly. We may have the moral position that the death penalty is wrong and yet possibly do nothing about it until for example we stand on a jury.Maybe a moral position is merely (and only sometimes) a reason for support or opposition.