death penalty?

So... once the human genome project is finished, there is a chance they will find a "serial killer" gene. Will you advocate culling all those who possess such a gene?

 

Probably not. The nurture part of nature versus nurture still applies, and you cannot prove what a person will do based on genes alone.

 

So... in order for them to be justifiably culled by your admittedly "emotionless culling", they first have to do harm to others? One could argue, "If the serial killer gene is in them, they will kill." And... will be right oftentimes. Less death and suffering will happen if they are killed at the first sign of detection...

Doesn't that conflict with the principle you posted below?

Unless of course, you believe a better course of action is to mix the goals of Preventing Harm, Deterring Harm, and Punishing Harmful Action (what you call revenge) into one big concept? Well, that's what justice is.

EDIT: I Forget, its Makaze I'm dealing with, he doesn't like the word "crime." Edited.

 

No, but you have no reason to make someone learn from a crime that they have not committed in the case of a various sentences, and no reason for punishment in the case of death.

You could argue that, but first you would have to be able to prove that they will. Not all people with serial killer genes become serial killers; I have never heard it said that genes define actions. It is accepted fairly widely that serial killers are a result experiences and genes, and not one or the other. If you believe that killing them is necessary even when you know about a threat beforehand, then you need to state why it is necessary. If you differ with me in this, then please state why.

It does not, but it appears to if you believe that you can ascertain future actions based purely on genes.

I see no reason to do so and no reason to assume this from the things you quoted. Even if they were contradicting, there was nothing in them supporting this conclusion.

 

*Fixed*

Ok, I'm not presenting my argument here. I am presenting something along the same line of reasoning as you. You argue that "emotionless culling" is needed to reduce harm. I argue that such is not justified at all. If "emotionless culling" was justified, then genocide in cases where genes are dangerous is justified. Its a cold, calculated, logical decision that I would never make. Its not "justice".

If I was emotionless, I would look at the odds they would inflict harm on people. If odds were, they were more likely to be killers than not, then logically, I would kill them. Experiences cannot be controlled, and are very difficult to monitor... Genes on the other hand, can be studied, and theoretically, controlled.

If I was emotionless, I would not need to. Just preempt any possible damage.

I'm giving you a way out of this spiral you put yourself into. But you can freely deny it.

 

I edited it a minute or two before you posted.

If you believe that logic would allow one to cull based only on genes, then you are alone in it. What logic might actually do is allow one to make these people infertile so that more of them do not arise, taking care of the problem is the least harmful way.

Not so. Your argument assumes that you must kill someone if they are more likely to kill. I hold that you only need to kill someone if there is no other way to avoid the threat. You should not exclude the harm of the killer in your calculation of the least harm to the greatest number.

An inability to predict an experience does not permit you to fall back on genes if the results are inconsistent. If your goal is the least harm to the greatest number, then you cannot kill someone based on likelihoods, but on certainties.

Considering that your goal is the least harm to the greatest number of people, you may be emotionless, but you are failing to be logical while doing it. Culling on the level of which you speak would eventually lead to inbreeding, so logic denies it as a possibility.

It is not a spiral so much as your argument is. But you can freely deny it.

 

I believe the world will be far better off with less people running about. There is far too many humans on this planet while most of the ones who should be dead aren't necessarily criminals, the world doesn't need them.

So, obviously, I am not against the death penalty. And on top of that I have heard from some inmates before how being in jail for life is the same as death and they would prefer just be put out of their misery. So in those cases it's almost mercy.

However, in some cases, it is better to just let them sit there and suffer. Death is an escape, a release. Those truly rotten should be allowed no such thing. (Avoiding the topic of Hell. It could exist, but while we will never know that for certain in life I am just saying this because in case it does not exist they will get punishment.)​