Message from @ETBrooD

Discord ID: 620568353383251969


2019-09-09 10:33:21 UTC  

That's the utilitarian morality

2019-09-09 10:33:27 UTC  

My morality is anti-utilitarian

2019-09-09 10:33:38 UTC  

Each individual counts

2019-09-09 10:33:56 UTC  

Surely it'd be better to make that person spend the rest of their life living with the consequences of their actions?

2019-09-09 10:34:13 UTC  

Death is too easy an escape

2019-09-09 10:34:26 UTC  

Well, that's how we've handled it so far

2019-09-09 10:34:33 UTC  

I see it more like this:

2019-09-09 10:34:52 UTC  

A serial killer is more likely to kill again, and that's why it makes pragmatic sense to kill him

2019-09-09 10:35:04 UTC  

True

2019-09-09 10:35:07 UTC  

But from a purely moralistic standpoint, there's no difference in my opinion

2019-09-09 10:35:42 UTC  

And since the world isn't purely moralistic, and utility matters, anti-utilitarian views are irrelevant.

2019-09-09 10:35:52 UTC  

Well, no I think it's not about utility

2019-09-09 10:35:59 UTC  

Or rather

2019-09-09 10:36:02 UTC  

I don't think it should be

2019-09-09 10:36:08 UTC  

I think it should be about pragmatism instead

2019-09-09 10:36:19 UTC  

Well, people shouldn't starve, but they do.

2019-09-09 10:36:19 UTC  

Morality and pragmatism, not uility

2019-09-09 10:36:21 UTC  

I see what you're saying, a murderer can only become a serial killer by killing again but if the murderer is in prison for life then only a murderer not caught early enough can become a serial killer

2019-09-09 10:36:54 UTC  

That's the pragmatic side of the argument, yes

2019-09-09 10:36:57 UTC  

The only difference between the two is how quickly justice is brought down

2019-09-09 10:37:05 UTC  

Morally speaking, I'd either kill both, or none, unless I have a pragmatic reason to differ

2019-09-09 10:37:23 UTC  

For example I'd kill Hitler, but not a one-time murderer, because I think pragmatism is important

2019-09-09 10:38:05 UTC  

I'd kill neither, and extract forced labour from them to cover expenses of imprisonment and turn a profit.

2019-09-09 10:38:13 UTC  

bruh haha

2019-09-09 10:38:19 UTC  

Or that, why not

2019-09-09 10:38:25 UTC  

I see nothing wrong with it

2019-09-09 10:38:25 UTC  

Serial killers tend not to be affected by their actions so killing them is better then letting them live as they don't regret what they did. But a single murderer is more likely to regret his one murder so life is justified

2019-09-09 10:38:40 UTC  

@Goddess Tyche that is also a reasonable response

2019-09-09 10:38:49 UTC  

Why is regret important?

2019-09-09 10:38:59 UTC  

Because it adds punishment

2019-09-09 10:39:16 UTC  

It's worse to live with what you've done then be absolved of it by death

2019-09-09 10:39:32 UTC  

But we can't really tell if people regret what they did or not

2019-09-09 10:39:37 UTC  

We can be fooled easily

2019-09-09 10:40:14 UTC  

True but statistically single murderers are more likely to feel regret then serial killers because of a phycological difference

2019-09-09 10:40:25 UTC  

Justice shouldn't be about statistics

2019-09-09 10:40:51 UTC  

However there are more single murderers then serial killers so if you wanted to keep prison population down then kill the murderer

2019-09-09 10:41:13 UTC  

Oh I'm not saying justice is but I'd rather a man live knowing what he's done then letting him be free with death

2019-09-09 10:41:22 UTC  

I think that would just scare innocent people of coming forward, as well as guilty ones

2019-09-09 10:41:33 UTC  

Doesn't seem useful

2019-09-09 10:41:39 UTC  

Probably I'm just running through different scenarios

2019-09-09 10:41:55 UTC  

It's interesting to view the situation from all angles