No no no, our positions have very different supportive requirements. I don't need philosophy because I can show you what's tangible. You still haven't shown me any unbiased sources which would define this killing as unethical. Mine is easy because all I have to do is point to legality and votes. I say ethics are developed by society and 32 states in the US are cool with it, thus ethical in those states. In this circumstance, ethical and legal can be used synonymously, imo.
If I wanted to get philosophical, I'd tell you that since we have no clue what happens after death, we also have no clue if our negative perception of death has any foundation whatsoever. In which case, who is he to decide to end someone's life without having to try it for himself? You don't force your kids to eat something that you refuse to. You don't push someone down without expecting to be pushed down yourself. Why is this any different? How do you know whether or not dying is good, or bad? (watching Flatliners doesn't count)
What I tried to post apparently disappeared for whatever reason, so here's the quickie version.
Making a philosophical argument doesn't work that way. If I was to examine the nature of this case I would construct a logical argument and an argument that appeals to existing moral philosophy. For instance, if we examine deontological philosophy (what one should do as their duty, or the philosophy of duty) I will say that under Kantian theory the killing of Mr. Holmes is unjustified because it doesn't satisfy the second categorical imperative of treating him like an end in himself. We are using him as a means to satisfy our bloodlust because killing him accomplishes (and really think about the meaning of that word)
nothing. If we were to do what I suggested, put him to work and pay the families of the victims, that accomplishes two things: punishing him and making up (in some way) for the harm he caused. That is beneficial to society.
I would also like to argue that killing is bad, loss of life is bad, and it should be avoided. If you disagree then you don't value the lives of those he killed, so his crime shouldn't matter. Anyway, because killing and loss of life is bad, and if it can be avoided that is good, and we can avoid killing him because the benefit of killing him is that it makes us feel like we're super for destroying the "evil" aspects of our society, which is bullcrap.
You are asking me for an unbiased source, but it doesn't work that way. A respected professor could say the same thing and it's still biased because it's his interpretation of the facts. This is unfortunately where philosophy feels more like literary critique and not science :/
Anyway, you are saying that you have the advantage of saying "look around you" and that proves ethics is an interpretation. However, you can't substitute the statement "this is the way things are" for "this is the way things
should be." What I see when I look around me is a bunch of ignorant plebs getting hate-boners, practically orgasmic with joy at the thought that we could end the life of someone who has done things they find reprehensible. That is repugnant as all fuck. I don't think that's the way things should be. Putting the burden of proof on me instead of you doesn't make you any more right.
By that merit, you apparently subscribe to cultural relativism, since you believe ethics to be a reflection of a society and its attitudes. Do you find things like female genital mutilation to be acceptable (and by your own standards, ethical) because it is an accepted and enforced practice in other places?
EDIT: So if death isn't necessarily bad, then killing children isn't necessarily bad, and he shouldn't be in jail. Riiiiiiight.
Reading Nagel's essay on Death right now. Will get back to you on that.
