Death penalty explained

[Kksd74628]

If we really want to think about this thing holistically we have to go step by step to analyze everything which is important. To think holistically means to think what is best decision as a whole. So we have to understand that the decision we are going to pick has negative and positive components within it, but those negative things don't necessarily make the whole thing bad, because it's kind of compromise between different perspectives. So in order to gain better outcome as a big picture we have some trade-offs, but that's natural, okay and inevitable. 

For example if you say that trading someone's rights, happiness or life for resources is bad, you are locking yourself, because your biases, selfishness and assumptions won't let you think about this thing correctly. Where did that assumption that you can't trade someone's rights, happiness or life for higher good came from? It feels bad, because you wouldn't want it to happen to you, but the thing is that we are already doing that and it's all fine. Laws take rights from you so the system works better and also some soldiers are forced to go to war to lose life for greater good.

This can be very hard emotionally, but in order to understand this thing it's essential to drop your emotions away. So first thing that needs to be accepted is that it's actually okay to trade people to more love overall. Actually even killing human being is okay, if that leads to more love. This may sound like I am very cold, but that's not the thing. I am just being extremely rational just to be more loving overall. For example if some person is too dangerous for other people and is using lot of resources that could save lot more people and give more love to others, why not kill him/her if (s)he isn't learning?

What is the point of giving any kind of penalty anyways? So the person could learn that what (s)he did was not acceptable. If we give life sentence to someone then the first principle already fails. So what is the point of keeping him/her in prison, but to make him/her suffer. Killing him/her would be even in favour for him/her. Everyone would benefit out of this decision. Before you say that his/her friends and family members wouldn't want him/her to die, you have to understand that if those loved him/her they would accept that it was best thing to happen to him/her anyways.

So @Leo Gura was right about this thing. It almost felt like people arguing against him weren't even in the same page with him. If someone has something to say about this then comment under this thread, but keep it logical and I'll answer to all of your questions, but don't start personal attacks towards others. I understand that this thing is very nuanced and needs to be explained in depth so it really clicks. We are trying to build bridge between perspectives so the aim is to understand each other so try to stay charp and don't get triggered.

Thanks!!!

With love and wisdom -joNi-

[zurew]

Do you have the exact same take as Leo or your view a little bit differ from it?

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[zurew]

41 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

So the person could learn that what (s)he did was not acceptable.

Thats not the case imo, the current point is to try to serve justice, but the current system has some holes in it , so the justice service is not perfect at all.

If what you say would be the reason why we imprison people, then prisons would be vastly different, they would be similar to a Scandinavian prison, because statistically people there coming out as a better person and as a more well person who can function in society better. - So one could argue that they learn their lesson there better.

Edited September 4, 2022 by zurew

[Kksd74628]

@zurew

I think putting someone into jail or making him/her suffer just to make justice to the one who suffered in the first place is just egoistical. It is acting out of anger towards the person and I agree with you on this. Also I agree that right now around the world the jails aren't so optimal as they are in scandinavia and that should be changed, because the point is to make people learn as I said. That they don't work right now doesn't disprove that it should be the goal and thing to keep in mind.

[Kksd74628]

@TheAlchemist brought good perspective to this thing, because if we don't kill the prisoner we could study his behavior. Counter argument to this is that I think we have lot to study only by looking to people who have strong mental illnesses who aren't in jail though. I mean if studying those people in jail is beneficial then that needs to be taken into account. We have to calculate money - knowledge ratio from this and then do decision based on this. Dangerous prisoners could do other harm too so that could be argument in favour of death penalty.

@zurew has also brought good point that death penalty atm based on some study is more expensive than life sentence so that is also valid point, but that needs to be thought, because we could make giving death penalty cheaper than it is now by optimizing things. It's really weird that right now it costs so much, but maybe the cost is reasonable, I don't know. That needs to be researched more before anything too radical should be said towards any side.

[Breakingthewall]

the issue is not to do justice but to achieve an end. justice is revenge and it is stage red or blue. If we establish prison or death sentences in an advanced world, it is to avoid certain behaviors. For example, imagine that a much more addictive and harmful drug than methamphetamine appears and spreads. the decision is made to sentence to death whoever trades with it and execute the sentence immediately, since the future of humanity is at stake. or perhaps punish with death premeditated large-scale swindles that impoverish entire countries. On the other hand, a pederast is something marginal, not dangerous for society since there are few. best to imprison him and treat him as well as possible. he has enough with his life. the important thing is that he has no possibility of reoffending, but we are advanced and generous humans, and we forgive. We know that the human condition is complicated. We do not act out of hate or revenge

[Leo Gura]

It's not like my position is some absolute right one. It's just my opinion. There is no correct answer on this matter.

I think you guys take some of my opinions way too seriously, as if it's my way or no way at all.

Ultimately we could build a good system with or without a death penalty. It's not a big deal.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, JoeVolcano said:

Only finite minds need systems and rules to govern their lives. Give it up. There are no solutions within the segregated paradigm. The only solution is to develop out of it. Let the dead bury the dead.

Childishly impractical.

[Kksd74628]

@Leo Gura

We could build good system with or without it and I understand that the whole death penalty sounds little off, but as you know, at the end of the day we have to make some decisions. This post wasn't too much about death penalty, but to see how these things should be thought in the first place. As I am making these posts on the forum that I have done lately the point is to show how tier 2 people think about problems. I aim not to have "opinions" about political things, but a worldview that seems most optimal taking account everything as well as possible.

I'd define correct decision as a desicion that at the moment produces most love and growth. I understand that when we think about the problem again the correct solution could change, but with the system thinking we have to accept that we'll maybe never reach perfection and that shouldn't be the goal even. Basically better decision correlates with how many different perspectives have been taked into account. I am just trying to show people that don't discuss perspective against perspective, but instead worldview against worldview, because we need pay attention to the whole.

Peace <3

[Leo Gura]

8 minutes ago, Kksd74628 said:

I aim not to have "opinions" about political things, but a worldview that seems most optimal taking account everything as well as possible.

I'd define correct decision as a desicion that at the moment produces most love and growth. I understand that when we think about the problem again the correct solution could change, but with the system thinking we have to accept that we'll maybe never reach perfection and that shouldn't be the goal even. Basically better decision correlates with how many different perspectives have been taked into account. I am just trying to show people that don't discuss perspective against perspective, but instead worldview against worldview, because we need pay attention to the whole.

Yes, that's the way to go about it.

In the end, you consider various perspectives, test them out empirically, and see what produces the best results for the majority of people. There shouldn't be anything ideological about it. Really, politics should be turned into an empirical science to see what actually helps the most people. We can have opinions and theories about what is best, but they all need to be tested in the field.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Kksd74628]

@Leo Gura 

7 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Really, politics should be turned into an empirical science to see what actually helps the most people. We can have opinions and theories about what is best, but they all need to be tested in the field.

Exactly! I'd want this forums discussions to change more towards this type of communication and that's what I am trying to do with my impact. Also if you want to be more conscious in leading then I think we should really pay attention how to up this forums communication skills, because I guess you agree that better communication in this forum leads to better personal growth among people here. I think we could do little collaboration work that is if I or almost anyone here makes great post breaking down some discussion you could feature (or name it tier 2 discussion or whatever) it so people see where we stand.

-joNi-

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Kksd74628 said:

@Leo Gura 

Exactly! I'd want this forums discussions to change more towards this type of communication and that's what I am trying to do with my impact. Also if you want to be more conscious in leading then I think we should really pay attention how to up this forums communication skills, because I guess you agree that better communication in this forum leads to better personal growth among people here. I think we could do little collaboration work that is if I or almost anyone here makes great post breaking down some discussion you could feature (or name it tier 2 discussion or whatever) it so people see where we stand.

-joNi-

Yes, excellent.

[Razard86]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's not like my position is some absolute right one. It's just my opinion. There is no correct answer on this matter.

I think you guys take some of my opinions way too seriously, as if it's my way or no way at all.

Ultimately we could build a good system with or without a death penalty. It's not a big deal.

I think people are missing the point. Its neither this or that its both. Death penalty can be used in extreme circumstances when all alternatives have been exhausted. I agree we don't need like 10 to 25 plus years. At the same time...we have killed a lot of innocent people through the Death Penalty so we definitely need to do something about that as well, most of that happens due to corruption. But anytime we get into it is an either or business we are being biased as you already know.

Nothing is off the table, we adapt to the present moment and construct a flexible system that tries to correspond to the present era/times as best it can.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, JoeVolcano said:

Only finite minds need systems and rules to govern their lives. Give it up. There are no solutions within the segregated paradigm. The only solution is to develop out of it. Let the dead bury the dead. 

Oh my god we need to burn New Agers on the fire.

[gettoefl]

you mete out the death penalty every time you block ghost defame

this is the only death penalty most are inadvertently guilty of

keep destroying the lives of those you are too dumb to understand while claiming to be whiter than white

while arguing meaningless abstract issues that you will never in your life have a personal experience of

well done

[Carl-Richard]

@gettoefl What?

[AtheisticNonduality]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Oh my god we need to burn New Agers on the fire.

I thought you were a "New Age social democrat." Also who's shocked the Norwegian is against the death penalty?

[gettoefl]

21 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@gettoefl What?

murder is excluding people with you being judge jury excecutioner

worth a contemplation

[Razard86]

3 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, that's the way to go about it.

In the end, you consider various perspectives, test them out empirically, and see what produces the best results for the majority of people. There shouldn't be anything ideological about it. Really, politics should be turned into an empirical science to see what actually helps the most people. We can have opinions and theories about what is best, but they all need to be tested in the field.

This I agree with completely. That's how it should be done, but for that to work sociology will end up being even more important of a field than ever before. Evaluating the social conditions and social structure. If people could see society as a technology and all it needs is updates/patches to continue to function optimally then we could make progress.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

I thought you were a "New Age social democrat."

There is New Age in the sense of embracing a form of spirituality which is stripped from tradition, and then there is New Age in the sense of thinking that spirituality is everything we need. When I use "New Age" in a derogatory way, I'm referring to the latter.

 

3 hours ago, AtheisticNonduality said:

Also who's shocked the Norwegian is against the death penalty?

No one.

Edited September 5, 2022 by Carl-Richard