The death penalty is likely a significant deterrent if done in a swifter manner (as opposed to endless appeals). The probability of an innocent person receiving the death penalty is likely far lower than that same person being murdered by a criminal. That probability is likely even lower for a black person given the dramatically higher homicide rate of blacks, for whom so many guilt-ridden whites wring their hands. But their priority is saving blacks from the evil, white supremacist state, not blacks themselves.
I am very impressed in general with what you write. However, this one reeks of what I consider one of the most dangerous aspects of smart people. Where the far majority of the population has a very good instinct & common sense but can't handle logical arguments, smarter people tend to out-reason their intuitions.
Our intuitive respect for life, called it sacredness, is I think a Chesterton fence. It is there for a reason although it that reason is hard to articulate.
In one of Haidt's books he refers to a story of incest. He makes it completely safe: In France it is not illegal, the actors fully agree, they use all the protection in the world, nobody sees it, etc. Any practical objection was voided. I.e. it is similar to your eloquent article. I remember that I still felt uncomfortable. No harm was done so why not allow it? I hate putting barriers in people's way, so I had no arguments to make it a taboo. However, it still felt yucky and wrong.
Then one day it hit me that this only looked at a part of the problem. If we'd allow siblings to have sex, inevitably there will be cases where some the preconditions are not true. Maybe smaller siblings would be copying the elder and don't realize some of the necessary precautions. Whatever, it would be bound to cause harm to others.
What I realized at that moment that the eloquent argument being made left out a lot of the real world.
Since then, I've got a very serious respect for what could be Chesterton fences. And this case a government that legally kill people with an injection is a giant big YUCK for me. Regardless of the eloquence of the arguments.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Peter. The article was mainly an attempt to show that one particular objection to the death penalty isn't fatal, so in principle one could agree with the argument while still opposing the death penalty.
I don't think you succeeded there anyway because you equate a state managed killing with an agent of the state making an unintended killing.
When a man rapes a woman, it is only the man that is wrong. When a woman falsely accuses a men, it is the full power of the state that is used to harm him. These are not symmetric crimes. Nor is an officer accidentally killing a bystander and a nurse legally putting a lethal injection in someone's arm.
There is a yuck factor to the state killing someone but there is also a yuck factor associated with the criminal’s heinous crimes and a yuck factor associated with the crimes we will likely deter.
That is Noah's point. But you also seem ignore the difference between a cold blooded legal intentional killing by a state that represents me or an individual doing a heinous crime/mistake.
All three are yucky but I'd categorize these killings quite differently.
The death penalty is likely a significant deterrent if done in a swifter manner (as opposed to endless appeals). The probability of an innocent person receiving the death penalty is likely far lower than that same person being murdered by a criminal. That probability is likely even lower for a black person given the dramatically higher homicide rate of blacks, for whom so many guilt-ridden whites wring their hands. But their priority is saving blacks from the evil, white supremacist state, not blacks themselves.
nope
Care to elaborate?
I am very impressed in general with what you write. However, this one reeks of what I consider one of the most dangerous aspects of smart people. Where the far majority of the population has a very good instinct & common sense but can't handle logical arguments, smarter people tend to out-reason their intuitions.
Our intuitive respect for life, called it sacredness, is I think a Chesterton fence. It is there for a reason although it that reason is hard to articulate.
In one of Haidt's books he refers to a story of incest. He makes it completely safe: In France it is not illegal, the actors fully agree, they use all the protection in the world, nobody sees it, etc. Any practical objection was voided. I.e. it is similar to your eloquent article. I remember that I still felt uncomfortable. No harm was done so why not allow it? I hate putting barriers in people's way, so I had no arguments to make it a taboo. However, it still felt yucky and wrong.
Then one day it hit me that this only looked at a part of the problem. If we'd allow siblings to have sex, inevitably there will be cases where some the preconditions are not true. Maybe smaller siblings would be copying the elder and don't realize some of the necessary precautions. Whatever, it would be bound to cause harm to others.
What I realized at that moment that the eloquent argument being made left out a lot of the real world.
Since then, I've got a very serious respect for what could be Chesterton fences. And this case a government that legally kill people with an injection is a giant big YUCK for me. Regardless of the eloquence of the arguments.
So ... nope.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Peter. The article was mainly an attempt to show that one particular objection to the death penalty isn't fatal, so in principle one could agree with the argument while still opposing the death penalty.
I don't think you succeeded there anyway because you equate a state managed killing with an agent of the state making an unintended killing.
When a man rapes a woman, it is only the man that is wrong. When a woman falsely accuses a men, it is the full power of the state that is used to harm him. These are not symmetric crimes. Nor is an officer accidentally killing a bystander and a nurse legally putting a lethal injection in someone's arm.
So still nope :-)
There is a yuck factor to the state killing someone but there is also a yuck factor associated with the criminal’s heinous crimes and a yuck factor associated with the crimes we will likely deter.
That is Noah's point. But you also seem ignore the difference between a cold blooded legal intentional killing by a state that represents me or an individual doing a heinous crime/mistake.
All three are yucky but I'd categorize these killings quite differently.