I don't think you understood what OP said lol. He's advocating abandonment of statutes of limitations. Idk wtf you're going on about. I'm pretty sure everyone knows people aren't bikes.

I understand what OP said; he presented an argument of comparison via analogy. I was demonstrating why the comparison does not work by pointing out a logical misstep in that analogy.

I don't see the misstep.

I would like to play devil's advocate here with respect to both you and the op, as I appreciate the thought you put into your response. Whether or not the murderer is killed, what difference does it make, why does it matter? If they live, it makes no difference. If they die, it still means nothing. When I say 'matter' I refer to the cosmos as a whole, or the 'grand scheme of things' if you will. Does not it seem as though rightiousness does not exist? Perhaps that morals do not exist, and it is merely subjective opinion. In other words, what justifies life itself, to provide any sort of ground for morality, which may then be used to make a decision as in the case you present. Here is the secenario I present to you; The driving force of the universe, as well as its entirety, results in the conclusion that all events are beyond good and evil, thus the death penalty (regardless of its use or not) is an absolutely truly meaningless and utterly unjustified choice either way. Thoughts?

All actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of things. This is where the philosophical school of Existentialism becomes important: the TL;DR is that things are only meaningful if made so by a person. So while their might not be an objective morality in which utilizing the death penalty is correct or incorrect; the society itself deems the choice important, thereby giving meaning to the decision for those who choose to partake. For example: trophies/gamer score are just numbers that are granted for meeting arbitrary requirements. In the grand scheme of things, they do not impact our social, political or economic status...yet, they are status symbols to some and are compulsively hunted down, because the individual deems them important.

I am glad to see that you recognized my hidden references to Nietzsche, but the question still remains; even if the subject ( übermensch) posits meaning to any and all things, how is that justified? How does our giving meaning to things carry any weight? Also, in all honesty, I am truly only interested in the philosophical significance of the topic, not the death penalty itself.

Social Contractarianism is your best bet: in short, rules can be enforced (legally or morally depending on the type of contractarian) because those living within a sovereign state have agreed to them. So by living within a state you promise to abide by the rules, and promise to submit to punishment when in violation. TBH, this is a flimsy defence, but it is the best one available; no matter what people like to think, tons of awful shit (I.E. Slavery) has been allowed because it was enforced by the law. Might makes right. You can pretty much do whatever the hell you want, so long as you have the power to fend off the repercussions. The issue is that most people don't have the power to fight off an angry town, or whatever the case may be. So they enter the social contract - they agree to refrain from certain actions in exchange for some protection. Inside this contract, promise keeping becomes important, as it is an indicator of whether an individual will supply their obligations of the contract. Again, this leads back to the existentialist struggle. TL;DR - there is no objective measure for good and evil on a universal scale; pragmatically though, we exist on a smaller scale in groups, where existential meaning at least helps us feel better about the ambiguous choices we make.

I understand the social contract aspects completely, but I am strictly concerned with the deep existential problem at hand; Are our choices and judgments self-justified, and if so how/why? If they are not self-justifying, is there anything else that might justify these aforsaid choices and judgments, if so, what might that be? I am genuinly asking this question, as I struggle with it myself and I do not claim to have an answer for it.

[quote]I would like to play devil's advocate here with respect to both you and the op, as I appreciate the thought you put into your response. Whether or not the murderer is killed, what difference does it make, why does it matter? If they live, it makes no difference. If they die, it still means nothing. When I say 'matter' I refer to the cosmos as a whole, or the 'grand scheme of things' if you will. Does not it seem as though rightiousness does not exist? Perhaps that morals do not exist, and it is merely subjective opinion. Here is the secenario I present to you; The driving force of the universe, as well as its entirety, results in the conclusion that all events are beyond good and evil, thus the death penalty (regardless of its use or not) is an absolutely truly meaningless and utterly unjustified choice either way. Thoughts?[/quote] Wooooo, Let's do whatever we want. [spoiler]That was a thought out response. But I've heard it before.[/spoiler]

Just to complicate things further. Why should we simply do whatever it is we please? What would be the reason for any choice at all? Also, you can't just say, 'I want to do "x" because I want to do "x"' as it is circular and gets us nowhere. Perhaps a better way to put it, what [i]justifies[/i] us doing anything?

[quote]Just to complicate things further. Why should we simply do whatever it is we please? What would be the reason for any choice at all? Also, you can't just say, 'I want to do "x" because I want to do "x"' as it is circular and gets us nowhere. Perhaps a better way to put it, what [i]justifies[/i] us doing anything?[/quote] I felt that you were saying that our choices are meaningless and their is no morality. If that is not what you are saying then please clarify. What justifies us doing anything? We give ourselves our own justification. Since the meaning of justify is what is right or reasonable. For example I choose to wear what I like because I find it right for myself. It's really that simple. Maybe you want me describe the way my brain sent out synapses when I choose what to wear. Which I can't, since I don't know everything. Now let's look at morality. Everyone makes their own justifications in what is right and wrong and because of this there are disagreements in what is right or wrong. But you already knew this. So I don't know why you're asking me. Let me ask you something. What justification do you make to make the choices you do? I wanna hear your point of view.

That's precisely the point I am trying to make. In essence, morality truly does not exist in any universal sense insofar as one does not posit any sort of entity which has the power to posit self-evidently objective moral values, but this is besides the point. This is exactly what I am genuinly curious about; even all the choices I make, I nor anyone else, seem to find any sort of justification for it. Doing something because one wants to still offers no justification for the very act. I choose to do many different things, but cannot seem to explain the true reason that is self-supportive. Hence, this is why I am asking; Are our choices self-justifying, and if so, how and why so?

[quote]You have made a mistake here; put simply people aren't bikes. You have convoluted a defence of the two.[/quote] I already explained this to another user. It isn't about the value of what's at stake, nor is merely about returning what was lost. It's about justified action, and how it doesn't change over time. [quote]Self-defence is a justification of a criminal act (I.E. Homicide) based on the grounds of necessity; you must prove that your life was in danger (critically), or that you had a legitimate belief of such, and that the person responsible for said belief had the capacity to carry out such harm. If the person has moved on and is no longer in a position to harm you, there is no legitimate threat posed - here there is room for an argument of a perceived threat of mental/psychological trauma. So if a person pulled a knife out and robbed you, you would not legally be able to use self-defence as a justification for hunting them down 3 weeks later, approaching them, and ripping their throat out (Roadhouse-style).[/quote] Whether or not deadly force is a reasonable response is for a court to decide, and that is not relevant to my argument. For purposes of explanation, we assume that the woman in the example is acting reasonably when she uses deadly force. Furthermore, it isn't about using self-defense as a justification for killing in the future. It's about a justified punishment. If somebody could have been rightfully killed during their outburst, then they can be rightfully killed as a form of legal punishment. I should stress that my point is [i]not[/i] that death is the only moral punishment. My point is that death would be a morally permissible punishment. [quote]People however, change their ideals, behaviours, etc. throughout the course of their lives. Depending on your definition of self (and identity), you may not even be punishing the same person depending on the interval between crime and punishment.[/quote] Time alone doesn't absolve one of their guilt. I'm willing to accept that people can change, but the fact that they initiated force against another person can't be ignored, even if our hypothetical attacker becomes a born-again Christian. [quote]Alternatively, ending a person's life eliminates all future actions of the person.[/quote] This bears no relevance to my point. Are we willing to forego justice because of the possibility of virtue in the future? [quote]Since as humans we are limited, utilitarian calculus such as this is not possible in a morally reliable way. So while retribution for an action may seem desirable, it may end up doing more harm in the long run.[/quote] I'm not approaching the issue from a "greatest good" standpoint.

[quote]Time alone doesn't absolve one of their guilt. I'm willing to accept that people can change, but the fact that they initiated force against another person can't be ignored, even if our hypothetical attacker becomes a born-again Christian. [/quote] So you're saying it's impossible to atone for ones sins by dedicating his life to helping others, maybe even saving lives himself? If so, that's pretty narrow minded. Since when is this argument about guilt?