[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Does this logic seem strange to anyone else or is it only me?

If its wrong to kill humans, then its always wrong to kill humans. Killing someone else to save your own life should not be the only exception to this rule. If you really feel its wrong to take someone elses life then the opposite should apply: you should sacrifice your own life to save the life of the other person. Even if the other person is the one who kills you.

I'm not surprised that one might consider it strange, but perhaps this will clarify my interpretation of it. I've assumed that the avoidance of killing is by no means an immutable law of nature, but rather a construct of society. Interpreting it in that light, it is a practical matter, rather than one of absolute morality. I would conjecture that these conventions tend to keep society from falling into disarray, and on that basis alone, there is significant merit. But that doesn't make them inviolable. (Conveniently, this opens the door to all sorts of extrapolations with respect to relative morality being abused in grevious ways. I'm not advocating any of that, and neither am I prepared to state in absolute terms exactly what actions I would consider to be moral—there are far too many considerations, and every judgment is made on the balance of the factors in play at that time, rather than on a codified set of axioms.)

I'm not going to go so far as to say that it is impossible to concieve of a situation where, on balance, a killing is warranted, but I think it is sufficiently clear that in the vast majority of circumstances, there are better options.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

Look at Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was a brutal dictator who would involke capitol punishment at the drop of a hat. People lived in fear for their lives, and it kept them in line. Remember how the Iraqis looted for weeks when his government fell?

Extreem examples, but none the less: when people actually believe they will be put to death for their crimes, the crime rate is lower.

There is inarguably some truth to this, but so far you've demonstrated correlation, not causation. There's much more that needs to be shown, before I would accept those conclusions, as stated.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

Say good-bye to Bill Gold's opinion, because apparently none of you seem to deserve it... at least until you guys piss me off enough to come back and set some people straight.

Uh-oh....

Edit: Here's an interesting article on the original subject of the thread. I think it offers the fairest portrayal of the events so far; no false heroes, no false villains—just an honest appraisal.