Killing all the lions and tigers....

[russ_watters]

How can you possibly be a proponent of the death penalty then?

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

 

[micromass]

There is no single written code that covers everyone and i never claimed there was (nor does there need to be). The US code is a reflection of the morality of the people who created and agree to adhere to it. And as I said in the next part of the post, they pretty well reflects the morality adhered to in most of the rest of the world, as pertains to this thread.

Personally, I do not find the US moral code to be very reflective of my own personal moral code. In any case, you are being very US-centric here.

 

[micromass]

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

Yes, I find that odd.

 

[russ_watters]

Personally, I do not find the US moral code to be very reflective of my own personal moral code. In any case, you are being very US-centric here.

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals.

I could cite the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights as the closest thing to a worldwide moral code, but it doesn't mention animals (that I know of) and I didn't want to play rough.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I find that odd.

Then how do you reconcile it for yourself? There are few moments in your life when you AREN'T doing/participating in something that accidentally kills innocent people.

 

[micromass]

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals.

I could cite the UN Universal Declaration of Human rights as the closest thing to a worldwide moral code, but it doesn't mention animals (that I know of) and I didn't want to play rough.

Well, it is called the decleration of human rights for a reason. But if you're evil enough then you might say that the existence of human rights signifies that there are also rights for nonhumans. Don't bother to reply to this, it's just a joke.

And yes, generally people do not accept personhood for animals. I do not see this as indicative that animals do not fall under our morality.

 

[micromass]

Then how do you reconcile it for yourself? There are few moments in your life when you AREN'T doing/participating in something that accidentally kills innocent people.

For example?

 

[russ_watters]

People at going nuts over the killing of this lion. But even William accidentally acknowledged that there is no real animal rights issue at stake here: the most the hunter can likely be charged with is poaching, which in this case is essentially distruction of property.

 

[russ_watters]

For example?

Do you drive? Fly? Ride a bike on streets? Walk on streets? Live in a structure built by people? Use electricity generated from coal? Use any products made from hazardous chemicals?

All of these activities regularly kill innocent people.

 

[micromass]

People at going nuts over the killing of this lion. But even William accidentally acknowledged that there is no real animal rights issue at stake here: the most the hunter can likely be charged with is poaching, which in this case is essentially distruction of property.

In my opinion, there is an animal rights issue here, even though the law does not recognize it. Shooting any animal with a bow and then letting it suffer for 40 hours should be seen as criminal because it is animal cruelty. If we are going to kill animals, let it be for good reasons such as food, or population control, and let us kill it in a humane fashion.

 

[micromass]

Do you drive? Fly? Ride a bike on streets? Walk on streets? Live in a structure built by people? Use electricity generated from coal? Use any products made from hazardous chemicals?

All of these activities regularly kill innocent people.

Do you really not see a difference between those activities and wilfully executing somebody who might be innocent (but who probably isn't)?? For example, I don't wilfully execute people in order to get coal, nor do I force people to work in dangerous conditions. And if people were forced to do this, I would not support it.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you really not see a difference between those activities and wilfully executing somebody who might be innocent (but who probably isn't)?? For example, I don't wilfully execute people in order to get coal, nor do I force people to work in dangerous conditions. And if people were forced to do this, I would not support it.

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

 

[micromass]

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

The fact that he chooses out of his own free will to accept the money and do the job, that makes it ok with me.

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, there is an animal rights issue here, even though the law does not recognize it. Shooting any animal with a bow and then letting it suffer for 40 hours should be seen as criminal because it is animal cruelty. If we are going to kill animals, let it be for good reasons such as food, or population control, and let us kill it in a humane fashion.

Fair enough. However, that is a very narrow part of this issue and (google) happens to be one where not all governments are aligned. I rather suspect though, that if this lion had been shot with a gun the level of outrage shown in this thread and in the general public would not be substantially different. The vast majority of the thread, for example, has been about (tangentially) whether animals should be hunted at all (whether they have a right to life and other human rights).

 

[micromass]

Fair enough. However, that is a very narrow part of this issue and (google) happens to be one where not all governments are aligned. I rather suspect though, that if this lion had been shot with a gun the level of outrage shown in this thread and in the general public would not be substantially different. The vast majority of the thread, for example, has been about (tangentially) whether animals should be hunted at all (whether they have a right to life and other human rights).

Well, lions get shot a lot by humans, without as much outrage. But in this case:
1) The killing was quite brutal with bow and arrow and a prolonged suffering.
2) The killing was illegal and the lion was lured outside of the park
3) The lion was being studied by scientific agencies, and was beloved by many in the country.
4) The killing was for fun and had no "bigger reason"
I guess those reasons together caused the outrage.

 

[micromass]

No, I don't. The construction worker who builds your house doesn't want to die, but he might because of something you asked him to do. You (and the rest of society) could totally avoid the possibility of his death, but you choose not to. Why? The fact that you are paying him to take the risk makes it ok with you?

Also, we need houses, we need electricity, we need to drive cars. If we don't, then our standard of living will decrease substantially. On the other hand, we don't really need executions.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, lions get shot a lot by humans, without as much outrage. But in this case:
1) The killing was quite brutal with bow and arrow and a prolonged suffering.
2) The killing was illegal and the lion was lured outside of the park
3) The lion was being studied by scientific agencies, and was beloved by many in the country.
4) The killing was for fun and had no "bigger reason"
I guess those reasons together caused the outrage.

I doubt it. #1 and #4 are legal, happen all the time and cause no significant outrage (about a hundred lions per year in Zimbabwae alone in total: http://time.com/3978116/zimbabwe-cecil-the-lion-poaching-hunting-wildlife-walter-palmer/ ). The only people who can plausibly claim continuous outrage over such things are currently hanging from a bridge in Oregon (and others like them). #2 is a necessary tangential aspect of #3, so that leaves #3. And I agree with #3, but I'll say it a more cynical way:

What makes this lion's killing newsworthy (pre-selected, packaged and preserved for freshness by CNN or your chosen source of outrage sustinence) is that it has a name and an owner who pimped-him out for research and amusement for profit.

And ironically that also makes most of the arguments in this thread irrelrvant to the point of being self-contradictory: the very thing that makes this lion's killing illegal and newsworthy is that it is property and by definition not entitled to human rights.

And again, slightly less cynically: if this lion were free and nameless, we would not have heard about its death.

Also, we need houses, we need electricity, we need to drive cars. If we don't, then our standard of living will decrease substantially. On the other hand, we don't really need executions.

I know of a lot of people who would disagree with the first two sentences. We also collectively make choices that make those things a lot more dangerous than they need to be, without much impact on standard of living. My sister lives in Boston and does not regularly drive a car, but I live in a suburb and do. Coal power is about the worst though and most ironic because much of the reason it is still used as much as it is is because of the very people who care most about the harm it causes. And while we may not need executions, per se, we do need criminal justice. But remember, executions are performed in order to save and enhance lives too. You're willing to get people killed so you can live better already. I see no real difference between those choices.

 

[William White]

What problem do you see here? Do you think it is odd that I support an action/policy that sometimes accidentally kills innocent people?

there is a difference between an policy that accidently kills innocent people

and a policy that is so flawed that innocent people are deliberately executedpeople die in accidents all the time. That's life. Deliberately executing them...different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[William White]

No I'm not. Again, AS PERTAINS TO THE OP OF THIS THREAD, the US code is very reflective of the rest of the world. As William's link pointed out, for example, there is virtually nowhere in the world that accepts personhood for animals..

NO

my link pointed out that SOME place DO give great apes personhood.

the link was in response to your earlier claim that no animals have such rights.

 

[micromass]

And while we may not need executions, per se, we do need criminal justice.

Of course.

But remember, executions are performed in order to save and enhance lives too.

How exactly do executions save and enhace lives?

You're willing to get people killed so you can live better already. I see no real difference between those choices.

If you really don't see the difference between a construction worker having an accident at work, and an innocent person being executed because they wrongfully thought it was guilty, then you are being dishonest at best. And saying that "I am getting people killed so I can live better" certainly is dishonest.

 

[Drakkith]

how is executing a human being - who may be innocent - enhancing anybody's life? are you really this deranged?

I believe the basic idea is pretty simple. You execute criminals so that they no longer pose a danger to others. In addition, their execution serves to discourage others from performing certain crimes. How effective it is is a topic for another discussion. Obviously this is a very, very complicated issue with no easy answer, so please refrain from calling people 'deranged' for simply having a opinion different from your own.

People are not executed to save and enhance lives. People are executed out of malice and vengence.

I don't quite agree.

For every state in the world that executes people, there are ten that do not that have lower murder rates.

This is factually wrong in every respect. Just over 50% of the states in the world that are UN members/observers have abolished capital punishment completely. Of these, several of them, such as Mexico and Brazil, have some of the highest rates of murder per capita in the world. In fact, Honduras, which bans capital punishment, has an intentional homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 people, the highest in the world (it's nearly double the very next country down, Venezuela, which has also banned capital punishment). So no, there are not ten countries with lower murder rates for every country that supports capital punishment. I don't think the ratio is even as high as one-to-one.

Also note that more than 60% of the world's population live in a country that supports capital punishment. The four most populous countries in the world, China, India, The United States, and Indonesia, representing approximately 44% of the world's population, all support capital punishment and have a per 100,000 murder rate of 1.0, 3.5, 4.7, and 0.6 respectively. China, India, and Indonesia are well into the bottom half of the list of countries by murder per 100,000 people.

It seems to me that trying to base your opinion on capital punishment by looking at murder rates is not going to do you much good given the huge variation in murder rates vs legality of capital punishment.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (UNODC references are linked within the article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country (Same as above)

 

[micromass]

This is factually wrong in every respect. Just over 50% of the states in the world that are UN members/observers have abolished capital punishment completely. Of these, several of them, such as Mexico and Brazil, have some of the highest rates of murder per capita in the world. In fact, Honduras, which bans capital punishment, has an intentional homicide rate of 90.4 per 100,000 people, the highest in the world (it's nearly double the very next country down, Venezuela, which has also banned capital punishment). So no, there are not ten countries with lower murder rates for every country that supports capital punishment. I don't think the ratio is even as high as one-to-one.

Also note that more than 60% of the world's population live in a country that supports capital punishment. The four most populous countries in the world, China, India, The United States, and Indonesia, representing approximately 44% of the world's population, all support capital punishment and have a per 100,000 murder rate of 1.0, 3.5, 4.7, and 0.6 respectively. China, India, and Indonesia are well into the bottom half of the list of countries by murder per 100,000 people.

It seems to me that trying to base your opinion on capital punishment by looking at murder rates is not going to do you much good given the huge variation in murder rates vs legality of capital punishment.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate (UNODC references are linked within the article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country (Same as above)

Comparing the United States to Mexico and Brazil is not really saying much. Note that only 18% of the countries still have the death penalty and use it, so you're bound to find many examples to suit your case. Why don't you do the research and find out the difference between the US states which banned the death penalty and the states which haven't. Wouldn't that give a much fairer view?

Also: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/files/DeterrenceStudy2009.pdf

 

[Drakkith]

Comparing the United States to Mexico and Brazil is not really saying much. Note that only 18% of the countries still have the death penalty and use it, so you're bound to find many examples to suit your case. Why don't you do the research and find out the difference between the US states which banned the death penalty and the states which haven't. Wouldn't that give a much fairer view?

I'm not getting into the nitty gritty details of this argument. I was only responding to William White's claim.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I believe the basic idea is pretty simple. You execute criminals so that they no longer pose a danger to others. In addition, their execution serves to discourage others from performing certain crimes.

I don't think this is the official reasoning behind the death penalty. It's called a "penalty" for a reason. It's intended as a punishment, and I believe the origins of it here in the US are from Old Testament Justice: an eye for an eye, etc.

pen·al·ty/ˈpen(ə)ltē/
noun

1. a punishment imposed for breaking a law, rule, or contract.

re·venge/rəˈvenj/
noun

1. the action of inflicting hurt or harm on someone for an injury or wrong suffered at their hands.

A punishment/penalty is often indistinguishable from revenge. The difference is that the former is officially sanctioned by society, or, at least, the government, and the latter is usually an unsanctioned personal attempt at justice.

 

[Gaz]

I think killing them not only is a great idea it is logical to do so. Us Brits killed of all our dangerous animals long before I was born and it is great. And as for destroying the habitat I think you will find that cheaters and the likes would prosper and cover for the lack of lions.
We should definitely kill all the whales. No whales = more plankton = more photosynthesis. Just by killing the remaining whales we can save the planet from global warming and have a nice fresh planet for the next generations.
Whilst were at it we should kill all fish we can't eat so there's more food for the ones we do. Defo kill all sharks can't have them eating our good fish.
Extinction is a natural occurrence not killing them all is the wrong way of doing things.
Polar bears in fact all bear's - Yes
Crocks - Yes
All dangerous snakes - Yes
Kill all insects if you can creepy little git's them we can genetically modify all plants to pollinate without them.

 

[Enigman]

See #68

And as for Apex predators being unimportant -

Primary or apex predators can actually benefit prey populations by suppressing smaller predators, and failure to consider this mechanism has triggered collapses of entire ecosystems.

Cascading negative effects of surging mesopredator populations have been documented for birds, sea turtles, lizards, rodents, marsupials, rabbits, fish, scallops, insects and ungulates.

The economic cost of controlling mesopredators may be very high, and sometimes could be accomplished more effectively at less cost by returning apex predators to the ecosystem.

Human intervention cannot easily replace the role of apex predators, in part because the constant fear of predation alters not only populations but behavior of mesopredators.

Large predators are usually carnivores, but mesopredators are often omnivores and can cause significant plant and crop damage.

The effects of exploding mesopredator populations can be found in oceans, rivers, forests and grasslands around the world.

Reversing and preventing mesopredator release is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive as the world's top predators continue to edge toward obliteration.

"These problems resist simple solutions," Ripple said. "I've read that when Gen. George Armstrong Custer came into the Black Hills in 1874, he noticed a scarcity of coyotes and the abundance of wolves. Now the wolves are gone in many places and coyotes are killing thousands of sheep all over the West."

"We are just barely beginning to appreciate the impact of losing our top predators," he said.

http://www.livescience.com/9716-loss-top-predators-causing-ecosystems-collapse.html

As for killing all whales, I presume you have some literature to back up your claims? I would be very interested.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think this is the official reasoning behind the death penalty. It's called a "penalty" for a reason. It's intended as a punishment, and I believe the origins of it here in the US are from Old Testament Justice: an eye for an eye, etc.

I'm not arguing the 'intended' purpose of capital punishment. I'm only answering the question:
"how is executing a human being - who may be innocent - enhancing anybody's life?"

 

[William White]

In addition, their execution serves to discourage others from performing certain crimes.

do you live in a society that is so unstable that the revocation of the death penalty would lead to an increase in murder?

Are there people walking around your streets thinking "if only there as no death penalty! this damn law is discouraging me from murder!"

seriously?why is every argument for the death penalty the same cliche?

either murder is right or wrong. It should not matter who does the murdering.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not arguing the 'intended' purpose of capital punishment. I'm only answering the question:
"how is executing a human being - who may be innocent - enhancing anybody's life?"

No, you weren't merely answering the question. Your post was phrased as an explanation of the motivation behind execution:

I believe the basic idea is pretty simple. You execute criminals so that they no longer pose a danger to others. In addition, their execution serves to discourage others from performing certain crimes.

"You execute criminals so that..." describes a motivation, an intended purpose.

 

[Drakkith]

Make up your mind!

I'm not sure why you think I haven't made up my mind. The basic idea of how capital punishment enhances peoples lives is simple. What's complicated is determining how effective it is.

Who is being deterred?

No idea. I'm not arguing for or against capital punishment, I merely pointed out the flaw in judging its effectiveness by going off of murder rates by country.

do you live in a society that is so unstable that the revocation of the death penalty would lead to an increase in murder?

Haven't a clue!

No, you weren't merely answering the question. Your post was phrased as an explanation of the motivation behind execution:

Then I phrased it poorly.

 

[Tosh5457]

Why don't we kill all the animals that
1. can have humans as food
2. top of the food chain
3. eats other animals that can be food for humans
4. no apparent use to humans.

Lions and tigers come in this category. They do not seem to have any particular use to the humans. We could keep a few in order not to get them extinct; other than that, we don't need them. Lions and tigers come in the top of the food chain, so it should not have much impact on the eco system. Humans can eat pretty much all types of food a lion or tiger eats (other than humans). This can help solving a part of food scarcity for humans. What is incorrect in this logic, in an eco system point of view (not the morality part)

They're not even a remote competition for us, so why would you do need or want to do that? You're a bit of a sociopath are you not?

 

[Bandersnatch]

This thread is a bit of a train wreck, is it not?

 

[Bystander]

bit of a train wreck

It had potential ---

Face it, we're all just bored.
OK, and which one of those implies that morality should not apply to animals?
Also, I personally only accept 1, 3 and 4 as bases of my personal morality.

--- but, no longer.

 

[256bits]

This thread is a bit of a train wreck, is it not?

That makes me wonder if morality should be applied to machines.
I really feel bad when I have to put a car down when it has passed her prime of life and looses her sense of purpose.
How embarrassing it must have been for her - like even leaking from orifices that who new existed.
The last poor thing was in such bad shape, even the professional disposal guy said I waited just about too long, but she will be out of her misery before too long and painlessly.

 

[Bandersnatch]

This in turn makes me wonder if morality should be applied to threads.

What if caters - our resident big cat enthusiast - reads this thread and gets a heart attack?

 

[Dale]

Don't worry. The thread didn't feel any pain.

 

[Evo]

This thread is a bit of a train wreck, is it not?

It's being cleaned up, it helps when people hit the "report" button. Maybe I should give infractions to people that respond to a post that should be reported?

Edit: I see Dale killed it, better still.