As in condemnation for another human and then to destroy them with the death penalty? This equation is puzzling? Are we really that different than the animal. If so where is the difference in the way of killing?
2006-11-04 11:24:58 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
This not just about criminals this is about all. Like a doctor who has a concept that he is God and decides that because he cant find the answers for a cure, no one else can, so he does not pursue and lets a patient die, or does something called malpractice with the intention of termination of a life. Is he any different than a murderer? Or is that what is called in the name of Medicine?
2006-11-04 17:15:32 · update #1
It is not right to condemn and destroy.
2006-11-04 11:28:19 · answer #1 · answered by ontheroadagainwithoutyou 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is wrong to kill just for the sake of killing. You don't walk up to a complete stranger or someone you dislike and kill them. As far as condemnning another human, If that person murders your child or your parent, are we condemning them by giving them the death penalty? On the contrary, their actions condemn them to their fate. We are different than animals in that before action we have thought. We have choice. Our actions define who and what we are. Did God condemn Adam and Eve to death for eating the fruit they were told not to eat, or did Adam and Eve condemn themselves to their fate by their choice of action?
2006-11-04 12:32:58 · answer #2 · answered by qpi 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Death penalty is given to prevent the killer from repeating his act.
There are enough cases of many serial killers who got bolder and bolder before they were caught and punished. A deliberate killer has no soul so goes with the philosophy "after all i can be hung only once " The penalty is given to reiterate that it is wrong to kill. It is like injecting vaccine made of snake venom to prevent a disease from spreading.
2006-11-04 16:16:22 · answer #3 · answered by Brahmanda 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Oh, I am sorry, but if someone is getting the death penalty.. they killed someone.. I am ok with that... I agree.. killing is wrong.. soo if someone kills someone.. they need to die too.. eye for an eye.. our crime rate here in the u.s. went sky high when they did away with the death penalty.. all states should bring it back.. and use it .. right now? think about this.... bad guy says to himself "I wanna kill this person, and the worse thing that could happen to me is free rent, cable, food, medical expenses paid etc.. " small price to pay.. but.. if the worse thing that could happen is death.. then.. he might think twice.. sorry.. I disagree with you.... I am against crime, violence, death.... and all that.. but but but.. I am 100% for the death penalty.. but not lethal injection.. I hate that.. they should not die peacefully.. the punishment should fit the crime.
2006-11-04 11:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by tootsie38 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not right to kill, and it is also not right to condemn and destroy. But, one thing I am sure of, in the Bible it is said that when you do something wrong you will pay for it, and sometimes this payment is death.
2006-11-04 11:40:54 · answer #5 · answered by Sexy Mama 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A society has two clear rights. To protect itself and not to commit sucide. If a person is, by a jury of their peers, deemed to pose an on-going threat to society, that society has the right to either ostracize them from society or kill them. Dead people only pose a temporary health proble.
2006-11-04 11:35:41 · answer #6 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it is based on saving lives. if somebody chooses to destroy other peoples lives through murder, rape, torture, etc. then we are morally obligated to end that person's life for the good of our society. some people may think it cruel, but it has to be done. the murderers cannot be allowed to continue harming others. the criminal's life is worth nothing.
2006-11-04 12:44:26 · answer #7 · answered by Stand-up Philosopher 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think there is a difference. Perhaps if you thought the person was dangerous even when locked away, you could make the case that it is a from of self defense. i can't really imagine a situation like that though.
2006-11-04 11:29:14 · answer #8 · answered by greeiore 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We kill everyday. We kill weeds for crowding favored plants, insects for annoying us, trees for homes, animals for food, sports, and what have you. If you believe to kill is wrong then it follows it's wrong to destroy. But we as humans have learned to fudge the line to justify our actions in order to assuage our conscience, morals, ethics....
2006-11-04 11:57:22 · answer #9 · answered by McDreamy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not right for people to kill to start with and when they kill they need something done to them,. I don't care what others say. I believe it is An Eye For an Eye..
2006-11-04 11:35:12 · answer #10 · answered by StarShine G 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋