The hypothetical doesn’t need to exist in reality. It’s part of the thought process. It’s not meant to be an argument for a realistic applicant of the death penalty. Again… I oppose the death penalty.
Now imagine a society (this can be fictitious) without the resources to house criminals indefinitely. How do you manage using resources, to the detriment of the innocent, to house criminals with a life sentence?
We don’t need to imagine it. It’s on that map I posted. All those non-dictatorships that don’t have the death penalty are able to manage it. i.e. the entirety of Europe save Belarus, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.
Again, a hypothetical isn’t necessary when we have dozens of real world examples of what you’re talking about that you’re just hand waving away as if none of them count but your imaginary country does.
Again a hypothetical is exactly intended to avoid this minutia. What originally started this was when I said there are people that deserve to die. This would necessarily avoid the question of actual guilt vs wrongfully convicted. You’ve seemingly not balked at that while continuing to run with your “real world” shtick that has no bearing on the underlying ethical question. And again it’s perfectly fine if you don’t think there is anyone that deserves to die no matter what evil they get up to. The problem is that you will continue to flail and bang your head against the wall if you refuse to understand there are other people in the world who think differently.
It’s not a schtick. It’s like you want to discuss astronomy and tell me to imagine a gas giant and when I say, “ok, I’m imagining Jupiter,” and you respond that you are talking about a hypothetical gas giant and Jupiter does not apply because it exists.
If you wish to discuss things outside of your fantasies that happen in the real world, let me know.
The hypothetical doesn’t need to exist in reality. It’s part of the thought process. It’s not meant to be an argument for a realistic applicant of the death penalty. Again… I oppose the death penalty.
Now imagine a society (this can be fictitious) without the resources to house criminals indefinitely. How do you manage using resources, to the detriment of the innocent, to house criminals with a life sentence?
We don’t need to imagine it. It’s on that map I posted. All those non-dictatorships that don’t have the death penalty are able to manage it. i.e. the entirety of Europe save Belarus, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and many other countries.
So you can’t entertain a hypothetical?
Again, a hypothetical isn’t necessary when we have dozens of real world examples of what you’re talking about that you’re just hand waving away as if none of them count but your imaginary country does.
Again a hypothetical is exactly intended to avoid this minutia. What originally started this was when I said there are people that deserve to die. This would necessarily avoid the question of actual guilt vs wrongfully convicted. You’ve seemingly not balked at that while continuing to run with your “real world” shtick that has no bearing on the underlying ethical question. And again it’s perfectly fine if you don’t think there is anyone that deserves to die no matter what evil they get up to. The problem is that you will continue to flail and bang your head against the wall if you refuse to understand there are other people in the world who think differently.
It’s not a schtick. It’s like you want to discuss astronomy and tell me to imagine a gas giant and when I say, “ok, I’m imagining Jupiter,” and you respond that you are talking about a hypothetical gas giant and Jupiter does not apply because it exists.
If you wish to discuss things outside of your fantasies that happen in the real world, let me know.