Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
Those two scenarios have different consequences. One has death. The other has death and torture.
|
When I constructed the example in my mind, I was thinking of death in the first scenario as a consequence from getting shot by a bullet fired from a rifle and, in the second scenario, as a consequence of getting tortured. If you can accept that, then the question becomes whether or not one action is worse than the other when the result is the same. If you can't, then the example doesn't work and can be safely disregarded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chainsawkitten
Offtopic, about morale:
I believe that what is moral is based solely on consequences. That doesn't mean I believe that people who kill by accident should get as hard a punishment as people who kill purposely. You see, punishment for punishment's sake is entirely pointless. If you act immoral, that doesn't mean you have to be punished. Punishments need to be moral themselves, have a point. Punishing the murderer out of revenge for the murdered is pointless. The punishment needs to have positive effects, otherwise it would be immoral. And what are the positive effects of punishment? Preventing further crime.
Basing morale on consequences only makes sense if you always use that approach. The notion that immoral acts should be punished is not based on consequences but rather on feelings.
|
The bolded statement, how can you say that this notion is always based on feelings? That's not a statement which describes what I see in the justice system where I live.
You write yourself that punishment can have positive effect in that it can prevent more crime. Isn't that also a notion behind punishment?