This is a genuine question.
I have a hard time with this. My righteous side wants him to face an appropriate sentence, but my pessimistic side thinks this might have set a great example for CEOs to always maintain a level of humanity or face unforseen consequences.
P.S. this topic is highly controversial and I want actual opinions so let’s be civil.
And if you’re a mod, delete this if the post is inappropriate or if it gets too heated.
It is in some cases justifiable, but I don’t think it’s necessarily the only option in the majority of cases where people might jump to it if given the chance.
I don’t really agree we’ve been trained to respond that way, when I quite often see the exact opposite. Killing is a fast and easy solution that many people are quick to advocate for. I’m quite steadfast in my belief that being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us, to be better than the cruelty of nature.
I don’t agree that breaking the social contract means death is appropriate, justifiable or even necessarily to be celebrated, but it does mean we can seek to undo that injustice and reduce the harm by other forceful methods. Acting in vengeance is not justifiable.
Let me clarify my view on this whole thing: Someone has died and I’m sad about that as an objective fact. I don’t expect this death will lead to anything good, it doesn’t remove the exploitative structure and so won’t lead to any better outcomes for any of the exploited. The only relatively tiny positive is that now that one specific person can’t profit from that exploitation, but now someone else will take that place instead. Nothing worthwhile has come of this.
Sure.
We are all animals (some more than others). And we have learned the hard way that to instantiate more of the transcendental values that humans occasionally exhibit as rational creatures — to bring more courage, wisdom, and meaning into this world — we should preserve life whenever possible. But there’s nothing fundamentally sacred about life… We kill all the time. Literally non-stop. Billions of animals, just like us, sentient and desperate to live, butchered for your use and pleasure. So unless you’re a vegan, you do not get to discuss “the sanctity of life.” It’s gibberish.
I am vegan, and that’s exactly the reason why.
I think it’s quite simply the case that we should make the choice to try and make life as uncruel as possible. It’s not really about the sanctity of life, I don’t believe in that. I just think we can literally choose to be better, so why shouldn’t we? That’s what I believe and I understand that many people won’t agree with me.
Also hey, I’m just having a discussion here, we’re all friends. There’s no need to be mean and say I’m talking gibberish.
Well, you have my respect! I’m willing to have my mind changed. Why don’t you think we should kill evil people? I don’t get it.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m absolutely an idealist and I acknowledge that.
Let me be clear, I specifically think we shouldn’t immediately jump to killing as the first choice. If killing an evil person is going to lead to actual good outcomes, and is seemingly the best/most viable option, I’m not necessarily against it even if I don’t care for it. Violence is a tool we can use, but I prefer to limit it where possible.
Reform would be great if possible, it likely may not be. I think taking away the ability to do harm is probably the best place to start, imprisonment is certainly an option there but it’s not the only one (and doesn’t need to look like the current prison systems we have). If killing leads to a good outcome, and it’s not possible to do anything less (for example we don’t have the power to just round up all the billionaires and corrupt politicians to do these things), then it’s justifiable.
Once approaching justice after the harm has been stopped, one also needs to consider how victims feel and what they’re going to need to try and reduce the impact of the harm they’ve suffered. I’m no expert on any of this and I don’t pretend to be, but I know there are better ways than the current judicial systems. In all honesty I think it’s a case by case kind of thing. The Leftist Cooks have a great video about it that I more or less vibe with. (It is quite long though)
My main concern with this whole affair, is that it hasn’t changed any power structures, people will still be exploited. I want to see structural change, not just blind revenge.
As you slightly edited your question, I’ll just address that specifically. In stopping evil, I think it’s important that we don’t become evil. Killing purely for revenge is something I consider an evil act, that said I’m not one to judge for it, I think it’s extremely understandable. I’m as human as anyone else and I’ve certainly had my fair share of revenge fantasies.
There’s probably also a whole conversation we could have around the fact that killing can ruin someone’s life just in terms of the mental impact, and plenty of other similar arguments.
Thanks for the reply. This is a genuinely tricky question, because most of us acknowledge that revenge under some circumstances isn’t just permissible but desirable, yet the devil is in the details. Consider revenge
For instance, it would be devastating to lose a loved one, but it would hurt even more if those who killed her were out there enjoying themselves consequence free.
Yeah, at this point the discussion starts getting to the edge of my knowledge, I don’t think killing is good in either case. I don’t think it’s a way to repair hurt and I can’t imagine it helping me, I’d much prefer imprisonment (though there are more radical approaches I’d massively prefer over that).The Leftist Cooks video I linked talks about approaches that are far better than I’m capable of describing in a Lemmy comment (I tried and failed lol). In it they discuss what it’s like to be a victim of SA and how one reconciles that experience with being a prison abolitionist. tl;dr being a victim isn’t really a contradiction and there are better ways to heal that aren’t revenge based.
As for a deterrent, for one that doesn’t seem to work. This is one of the only reasons that supporters of the death penalty can give (other than a desire to inflict pain) and it’s generally shown to be very ineffective. This is one of the things I alluded to in a previous comment when I said I didn’t need to explain why the death penalty is bad. The other is that you can just get it wrong and kill people you shouldn’t, I’m more interested in moving beyond violence as a tool for suppressing further violence. We are capable of being better, I see it quite often in the radical groups I work with.
I think valid practical reasons would be things like bringing an end to harm, for example had Trump actually been assassinated, I might not have to be so damn worried about all the trans people in the states. Killing Netanyahu or Putin might save a lot of lives, though in all these cases there are a lot of people who would carry on that work, and they may even decide to inflict greater suffering as a response.
There’s an interesting edge case where the killing of Shinzo Abe was driven by revenge, but ultimately put such a spotlight on an issue that it caused the government to take action. I honestly don’t know how to feel about it, it wouldn’t be possible to predict the result so I can’t see it being justified beforehand, but at least it lead to something good in the end.
To be quite frank, I want to build a better world, and I don’t want killing to ever be a part of it. It might take a lot of death to build that world, but we should move beyond it. I don’t feel like people can be deserving of suffering, however they can and should be made to repair what suffering they’ve caused where at all possible, and prevented from causing more. It’s these points that I’m referring to when I say I’m an idealist.