Penn & Teller Bull****: Death Penalty - 04/17/06
#1
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Penn & Teller Bull****: Death Penalty - 04/17/06
Showtime 9:00pm CDT. Repeated one hour later.
This is probably going to be the biggest disagreement I've ever had with P&T. I don't exactly like the system as it is but I am not against it in principle.
We understand the feelings of rage felt by crime victims and their families. But - studies show there is no deterrent effect to State executions. And, DNA evidence has exonerated 122 men formerly on death row! If we're killing inmates to satisfy a primitive emotion, if we can't be sure the criminal is guilty as charged, and we have ways to keep someone locked up and out of circulation for life and for less cost, why does our government still support the archaic, primitive, cruel and costly BULLSHIT known as the Death Penalty?
#2
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not against the death penalty in principle, either, but knowing how frequently juries are wrong, I certainly wouldn't be against a moritorium.
I'm looking forward to what P&T have on the subject.
I'm looking forward to what P&T have on the subject.
#3
DVD Talk Legend
Good for them. I haven't followed them in a long while (never have seen this "Bullshit" show), but Jillette always struck me as much more an affable, no-nonsense liberal than a solipsistic, self-involved libertarian.
Last edited by Norm de Plume; 04-17-06 at 03:13 PM.
#4
DVD Talk God
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 130,261
Received 614 Likes
on
493 Posts
There is no libertarian consensus on the death penalty. None that I'm aware of anyway. Therefore, just because Penn is anti-death penalty doesn't mean that he is diverging from libertarianism. I see little indication that Penn is a liberal. Bashing Chomsky pretty much proved that.
I'm pretty lukewarm on capital punishment. I support it presently as the ultimate punishment but that's only because LWOP isn't strong enough - hard labor, no amenities, and extremely limited family visitation should be added for me to support outlawing capital punishment.
I'm pretty lukewarm on capital punishment. I support it presently as the ultimate punishment but that's only because LWOP isn't strong enough - hard labor, no amenities, and extremely limited family visitation should be added for me to support outlawing capital punishment.
#5
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
Good for them. I haven't followed them in a long while (never have seen this "Bullshit" show), but Jillette always struck me as much more an affable, no-nonsense liberal than a solipsistic, self-involved libertarian.
And actually, Penn is far more a libertarian than a liberal. See episodes on gun control, second hand smoke, environmental hysteria, recycling, P.E.T.A. and endangered species for example. Not at all in line with liberalism.
The death penalty is one of the few issues upon which reasonable libertarians may vehemently disagree (like abortion).
Last edited by movielib; 04-17-06 at 05:10 PM.
#6
DVD Talk Legend
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people, and I don't like the idea of the government having that right. The government should not be so powerful that it does not follow its own laws.
It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
#7
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Jadzia
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people, and I don't like the idea of the government having that right. The government should not be so powerful that it does not follow its own laws.
It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
It reminds me of parents who hit their kids to teach them that hitting is wrong.
#8
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
It's a tough thing for me to get a handle on. I don't support it, but then people like this guy who killed that helpless 10 year old girl and planned to eat her does something like that and I can't say that I would blame the parents for wanting him dead and, having a young daughter myself, I wouldn't mind killing him if given the opportunity.
#9
DVD Talk God
Originally Posted by movielib
The death penalty is one of the few issues upon which reasonable libertarians may vehemently disagree (like abortion).
Well, it's a subject that I have absolutely no passion for, so I can certainly be persuaded to let my apathy back a different camp.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Red Dog
There is no libertarian consensus on the death penalty. None that I'm aware of anyway. Therefore, just because Penn is anti-death penalty doesn't mean that he is diverging from libertarianism. I see little indication that Penn is a liberal. Bashing Chomsky pretty much proved that.
I'm pretty lukewarm on capital punishment. I support it presently as the ultimate punishment but that's only because LWOP isn't strong enough - hard labor, no amenities, and extremely limited family visitation should be added for me to support outlawing capital punishment.
I can only speak for myself when I say I one day had an atheistic epiphany - like a sudden, irrefutable personal realization - that officially sanctioned and performed murder (definition: killing somebody against his/her will) is wrong if one is to consider oneself part of a truly civilized community. While I can understand the primal urge to exact revenge, intellectually, soberly, I must reject it.
Originally Posted by movielib
So do the adjectives slipsistic and self-involved automatically go with libertarian?
Originally Posted by movielib
And actually, Penn is far more a libertarian than a liberal. See episodes on gun control, second hand smoke, environmental hysteria, recycling, P.E.T.A. and endangered species for example. Not at all in line with liberalism.
Second-hand smoke: I assume his position is that non-smokers should stop whining about it. There is truth to the contention that a few other human activities impact upon the health of others much more than errant cigarette smoke (such as driving), but banning the use of internal combustion vehicles is not yet realistic. Restricting smokers to areas away from those who don't want to be affected by their activities is attainable and reasonable. My view is, smokers can smoke as much as they want in places where others are not engulfed in their fumes, not including in their private houses, where they can do what they want (although the presence of children should be a proviso to that liberty, since minors can't leave their parents' houses). Of course, under a publicly-funded healthcare system like up here in Canada, it might be wise to exclude smokers, because they are an immense cost to everyone else. However, that is an almost inconceivably complex slippery slope, since one wouldn't know where to stop legislating (eating bacon, bicycling, walking out one's door). A very commendable initiative the health system here is taking is to provide smokers with free stop-smoking patches or whatever, on a voluntary basis of course.
Environmental "hysteria": Whoever is still not convinced there is a problem cannot be helped, I'm afraid.
As for recycling, it is the perfect issue to identify libertarians, or apolitical people who just don't care. Recycling does not demonstrably or visibly make a difference, unless one happens to hang out at landfills. It is simply something civilized people do - like picking up after your dog - who view themselves, to one extent or another, as part of a society, and not just an island unto themselves.
As for abortion, I am agnostic; pro-choice in the absence of omniscience, but I am neither militantly for nor against abortion, because I feel no one can define exactly when a life is a life (aside from perhaps when it can survive on its own), not to mention opposing sides agreeing to the parameters of the debate.
Apologies for the digression. Back to Penn & Teller's bullshit
#11
DVD Talk Hero
The only way I can wrap my head around the death penalty issue is to establish an obnoxious double-talk position: I do not believe the State should kill a murderer, but if the State decides it wants to, I do not believe the murderer has any right to object. Once you take another life, you give up the rights to your own and put it in the hands of the majority. While I may disagree with what that majority decides to do with that life and would never directly support killing an individual, I do not necessarily oppose them exercising their ability to it.
(Un)Fortunately, I don't have to defend that backwards logic, because the State is so fucking inept when it comes to convicting people. When innocent people are being killed, the line isn't so blurry.
das
(Un)Fortunately, I don't have to defend that backwards logic, because the State is so fucking inept when it comes to convicting people. When innocent people are being killed, the line isn't so blurry.
das
#12
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Norm de Plume
Not necessarily or automatically, as there are, by definition, always exceptions to every generalization, but, fairly or unfairly, libertarianism is often associated with Rand, who infamously said selfishness and greed are virtues. Ergo, "solipsistic" and "self-involved", or, euphamistically, wanting the government off your back.
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth...lfishness.aspx
Virtue of Selfishness
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?
Answered by J. Raibley
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.
In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.
Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.
Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.
To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. (For the Objectivist view of benevolence and its component virtues—civility, sensitivity, and generosity—see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence).
To elaborate on the second point: Rand argues that the conventional understanding of selfishness implies an altruistic framework for thinking about ethics. Within this framework, the question, "Who is the beneficiary of this act?" is the most important moral question: right acts are acts undertaken for the "benefit" of others and wrong acts are acts undertaken for one's own "benefit." Rand believes that this approach passes over the crucial ethical questions: "What are values?" and "What is the nature of the right and the good?" In addition, the altruist framework suggests a dichotomy between actions that promote the interests of others to one's own detriment and actions that promote ones own interests to the detriment of others. Rand rejects this dichotomy and affirms the harmony of human interests (cf. "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," VOS 57-65).
Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix).
For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others. This value-orientation is brilliantly dramatized in the character of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. The further elements of selfishness - the character traits that, when translated into action, implement a concern for one's own real interests - are discussed and illustrated in that work, in Atlas Shrugged, and throughout Rand's non-fiction.
Finally, one might ask why Rand chose to use the term, "selfish," to designate the virtuous trait of character described above rather than to coin some new term for this purpose. This is an interesting question. Probably, Rand wished to challenge us to think through the substantial moral assumptions that have infected our ethical vocabulary. Her language also suggests that she believes that any other understanding of selfishness would amount to an invalid concept, i.e., one that is not appropriate to the facts and/or to man's mode of cognition (see VOS vii-xii, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, esp. Ch. 7). In addition, one might interpret Rand as asserting that her definition captures the historical and etymological meaning of the word. But certainly, her praise of selfishness communicates instantaneously and provocatively the practical, this-worldly, egoistic, and profoundly Greek orientation of her ethical thought.
What does Ayn Rand mean when she describes selfishness as a virtue?
Answered by J. Raibley
Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue.
In the introduction to her collection of essays on ethical philosophy, The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS), Rand writes that the "exact meaning" of selfishness is "concern with one's own interests" (VOS, vii). In that work, Rand argues that a virtue is an action by which one secures and protects one's rational values—ultimately, one's life and happiness. Since a concern with one's own interests is a character trait that, when translated into action, enables one to achieve and guard one's own well-being, it follows that selfishness is a virtue. One must manifest a serious concern for one's own interests if one is to lead a healthy, purposeful, fulfilling life.
Rand understands, though, that the popular usage of the word, "selfish," is different from the meaning she ascribes to it. Many people use the adjective "selfish" to describe regard for one's own welfare to the disregard of the well-being of others. Moreover, many people would be willing to characterize any instance of desire-satisfaction in these circumstances as "selfish," no matter what its content. Thus, many people arrive at the following composite image: selfish people are brutish people who are oblivious to the negative consequences of their actions for their friends and loved ones and who abuse the patience, trust, and good will of all comers to satisfy their petty whims.
Rand certainly recognizes that there are people who fit this description, and she certainly does not believe that their behavior is in any sense virtuous. But she opposes labeling them "selfish." Rand believes that this application of the word blurs important philosophical distinctions and foreordains false philosophical doctrines. First, this understanding of selfishness construes both whim-fulfillment and the disregard of others' interests as genuinely self-interested behaviors, which they are not. Second, this understanding of selfishness suggests an altruist framework for thinking about ethics.
To elaborate on the first point: Rand believes that the elements of human self-interest are objective. All human beings have objective biological and psychological needs, and one's actual interests are identified by reference to these needs. Mere whim-fulfillment is therefore not constitutive of human well-being because one's whims might be at odds with one's actual needs. Moreover, the character traits of the "selfish" brute are not compatible with any human being's actual, rational interests. Humans live in a social world; in order to maximize the value of their interactions with others, they should cultivate a firm commitment to the virtues of rationality, justice, productiveness, and benevolence. A commitment to these virtues naturally precludes such brutish behavior. (For the Objectivist view of benevolence and its component virtues—civility, sensitivity, and generosity—see David Kelley's Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence).
To elaborate on the second point: Rand argues that the conventional understanding of selfishness implies an altruistic framework for thinking about ethics. Within this framework, the question, "Who is the beneficiary of this act?" is the most important moral question: right acts are acts undertaken for the "benefit" of others and wrong acts are acts undertaken for one's own "benefit." Rand believes that this approach passes over the crucial ethical questions: "What are values?" and "What is the nature of the right and the good?" In addition, the altruist framework suggests a dichotomy between actions that promote the interests of others to one's own detriment and actions that promote ones own interests to the detriment of others. Rand rejects this dichotomy and affirms the harmony of human interests (cf. "The 'Conflicts' of Men's Interests," VOS 57-65).
Rand writes, "[A]ltruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his own life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others … it permits no concept of benevolent co-existence among men … it permits no concept of justice" (VOS, ix).
For her, the truly selfish person is a self-respecting, self-supporting human being who neither sacrifices others to himself nor sacrifices himself to others. This value-orientation is brilliantly dramatized in the character of Howard Roark in The Fountainhead. The further elements of selfishness - the character traits that, when translated into action, implement a concern for one's own real interests - are discussed and illustrated in that work, in Atlas Shrugged, and throughout Rand's non-fiction.
Finally, one might ask why Rand chose to use the term, "selfish," to designate the virtuous trait of character described above rather than to coin some new term for this purpose. This is an interesting question. Probably, Rand wished to challenge us to think through the substantial moral assumptions that have infected our ethical vocabulary. Her language also suggests that she believes that any other understanding of selfishness would amount to an invalid concept, i.e., one that is not appropriate to the facts and/or to man's mode of cognition (see VOS vii-xii, and Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, esp. Ch. 7). In addition, one might interpret Rand as asserting that her definition captures the historical and etymological meaning of the word. But certainly, her praise of selfishness communicates instantaneously and provocatively the practical, this-worldly, egoistic, and profoundly Greek orientation of her ethical thought.
I'm kind of surprised that you associate Rand so closely with libertarianism. Al;though many (but by no means all) libertarians admire Rand (myself included) she did not return the favor. She thought is was a gross distortion of her Objectivist philosophy. The little she said about libertarianism was negative. Some of her followers have written monumental denouncements of libertarianism.
And if solipsism and self-involvement are equated with wanting government off one's back (which I deny) then a lot more people than just libertarians are solipsists and self-involved.
Oh, and I disagree with virtually everything you said about those other subjects. But I'm sure you know that.
Last edited by movielib; 04-17-06 at 06:58 PM.
#13
DVD Talk God
Woah. Too much philisophical speak here. My head is spinning.
Seriously though, I don't buy into the whole "we are all murderers" argument they present. Just because the government is a representative of me, doesn't mean it represents my views. (For the record, I'm pro-death penalty). As for the death penalty being a deterrent, that is such a hard thing to prove.
Seriously though, I don't buy into the whole "we are all murderers" argument they present. Just because the government is a representative of me, doesn't mean it represents my views. (For the record, I'm pro-death penalty). As for the death penalty being a deterrent, that is such a hard thing to prove.
#14
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Capitol of the Empire! Center of all Commerce and Culture! Crossroads of Civilization! NEW ROME!!!...aka New York City
Posts: 10,909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive been mulling over support for a moritorium on executions, so I WAS THE TARGET AUDIENCE for this episode...
they did a shitty job...should have kept away from the race card issue, Sean Penn, or how much it might hurt the person being executed...it will turn alot of people off...should have focused exclusivly on innocent people...
they did a shitty job...should have kept away from the race card issue, Sean Penn, or how much it might hurt the person being executed...it will turn alot of people off...should have focused exclusivly on innocent people...
#15
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, generally speaking, if a person is supportive of the death penalty, they probably don't care that it hurts the person being put to death. Many people I know would prefer that there be some pain inflicted on the condemned as part of the process.
#16
Moderator
Originally Posted by BigDan
Yeah, generally speaking, if a person is supportive of the death penalty, they probably don't care that it hurts the person being put to death. Many people I know would prefer that there be some pain inflicted on the condemned as part of the process.
#17
DVD Talk God
Originally Posted by Groucho
Depends on what that person thinks about the constitution and "cruel and unusual punishment."
#20
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
If we put the animals to sleep immediately upon the guilty verdict, the cost would be minimal. In fact I'm sure the victim's family would do it for free.
I have no problem debating the death penalty with anyone. But for me to debate this with anyone, you have to have one requirement: one of YOUR best friends has to have been stabbed 82 times in the head by 3 crack smoking maniacs. When that happens, I'll be more than happy to debate the merits of the death penalty with you. Until then, any anti-death penalty arguments don't mean shit to me.
I have no problem debating the death penalty with anyone. But for me to debate this with anyone, you have to have one requirement: one of YOUR best friends has to have been stabbed 82 times in the head by 3 crack smoking maniacs. When that happens, I'll be more than happy to debate the merits of the death penalty with you. Until then, any anti-death penalty arguments don't mean shit to me.
#21
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Deftones
As for the death penalty being a deterrent, that is such a hard thing to prove.
#22
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by Jadzia
I have a libertarian view of the death penalty. People don't have the right to kill people,
When you murder, you are an animal. (actually less than an animal, since animals don't kill for "fun"). Now what do you do when you have an animal that bites people at random (like a wild dog)? You put it to sleep. When you murder, you become nothing more than a bad animal that should be put to sleep. Yes, we humans are supposed to be above animals. That's exactly my point. And when you become an animal that is detrimental to society, you should be put to sleep like one.
#23
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 1,149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a pretty specific requirement for a debate. I guess I don't qualify since I only had a family friend murdered (by someone who was executed but would not be executed under current law since the killer was 17 at the time of the crime).
It's interesting to me that, even knowing that 123 (vs. just over 1,000 who have been executed) people on death row have been proven to have been innocent years after the crime that some people would still like to shorten or eliminate the window between conviction and execution. It's as if the problem isn't that there were innocent people wrongly convicted (and at least one, and probably more, wrongly executed), but that such a thing was discovered.
It's interesting to me that, even knowing that 123 (vs. just over 1,000 who have been executed) people on death row have been proven to have been innocent years after the crime that some people would still like to shorten or eliminate the window between conviction and execution. It's as if the problem isn't that there were innocent people wrongly convicted (and at least one, and probably more, wrongly executed), but that such a thing was discovered.
#24
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth
Of course it's a deterrent! You can't kill anyone if you're dead!
As it is, I think that the death penalty has been neutered enough. Vile murderers get to appeal and appeal and appeal. No. When you've been found guilty, when you've murdered someone, and the fact is beyond dispute?
Take them out of the courthouse and behead them.
It's not cruel to kill a murderer, nor is it unusual to behead them. Look at history.
#25
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Formerly known as Groucho AND Bandoman/Death Moans, Iowa
Posts: 18,295
Received 372 Likes
on
266 Posts
Originally Posted by nodeerforamonth
Of course it's a deterrent! You can't kill anyone if you're dead!