Is beheading more humane than long winded chemical and electricity executions?

In the time of the Roman Empire, beheading was reserved for Roman citizens who were convicted of crimes. It was a considered a privilege. Others died more painful, drawn-out deaths, as we know.
Interesting definition of privilege. Lois hmmm, spending a few hours hanging on a cross, with nails in your wrists slowly suffocating Or the swing of a large sharp blade. Sounds like a reasonable definition of being privileged, or would it just be lucky? I know which I'd be begging for, if my number was up.
In the time of the Roman Empire, beheading was reserved for Roman citizens who were convicted of crimes. It was a considered a privilege. Others died more painful, drawn-out deaths, as we know.
Interesting definition of privilege. Lois hmmm, spending a few hours hanging on a cross, with nails in your wrists slowly suffocating Or the swing of a large sharp blade. Sounds like a reasonable definition of being privileged, or would it just be lucky? I know which I'd be begging for, if my number was up. If your number was up it would hardly matter. Lois
What we need is to take the worst criminals out of society. That's the only thing prisons should be used for. Deterrence doesn't work in most cases, though it may be worth a try for some lesser cases. Lois
OK although we need empirical evidence for what does and doesnt work. I think we would be less punitive and work on better ways of getting people to behave well if we were just interested in what works and keeping suffering to a minimum. But the problem is people general aren't because they believe people are morally responsible in a way they just can't be, so simply think people can deserve to suffer. This is why saying people aren't morally responsible in the traditional sense and don't have the sort of free will that is supposed to support that is not just of philosophical interest, it makes a great deal of difference. Stephen
What we need is to take the worst criminals out of society. That's the only thing prisons should be used for. Deterrence doesn't work in most cases, though it may be worth a try for some lesser cases. Lois
I think we would be less punitive and work on better ways of getting people to behave well if we were just interested in what works and keeping suffering to a minimum. But the problem is people general aren't because they believe people are morally responsible in a way they just can't be, so simply think people can deserve to suffer. This is why saying people aren't morally responsible in the traditional sense and don't have the sort of free will that is supposed to support that is not just of philosophical interest, it makes a great deal of difference. Stephen OK although we need empirical evidence for what does and doesnt work. We have plenty of evidence that imprisonmemt and probation don't work to reform criminal behavior. Just look at the recidivism rates. It doesn't appear to me that people have free will, either. Lois Lois
In the time of the Roman Empire, beheading was reserved for Roman citizens who were convicted of crimes. It was a considered a privilege. Others died more painful, drawn-out deaths, as we know.
Interesting definition of privilege. Lois hmmm, spending a few hours hanging on a cross, with nails in your wrists slowly suffocating Or the swing of a large sharp blade. Sounds like a reasonable definition of being privileged, or would it just be lucky? I know which I'd be begging for, if my number was up. If your number was up it would hardly matter. Lois Au contraire :red: I believe I appreciate the difference between 'living my days' and 'being in the history books'. I'd beg for the swift sword, thankyouverymuch. :kiss:
It doesn't appear to me that people have free will, either.
I've seen a lot of talk about "free will" but usually pass it by. I'm not even sure what they mean by free will, we live within the confines of our bodies, for better or worse depending… we live within our families, were conflicts and patterns developed in first years play out till our dying days… we live within society that has expectations that better be respected, or else… Janis sang it well, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." and that seems so totally true to me. I have great latitude and freedom, precisely because I have very little materially to lose, because my requirements are modest, I have the freedom to make work a game, and the freedom to escape work altogether for periods to do my thing. But, that wouldn't be possible without also having learned how to play by the rules, and to respect their spirit and the need for those rules. Without my three decades of double shifts and more, to gain the experiences and skills and temperament I possess today, I'd have no freedom to play with at this stage of my life. To bring this back to "free will" I hear the mantra "you can be anything you dream… or you want… etc" Bull shit. That's a sick joke. We can not be anyone we want. We are who we are, we can only succeed by developing that that is within us to the best of our abilities and opportunities and experiences. Free will without recognizing our shackles is only a cartoon poster for marketeers to manipulate in order to sell stuff.

As for “free will” and today’s society.
I wonder if there are any lessons for us in this

John Calhoun's Mouse Utopia, 195? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM
What we need is to take the worst criminals out of society. That's the only thing prisons should be used for. Deterrence doesn't work in most cases, though it may be worth a try for some lesser cases. Lois
I think we would be less punitive and work on better ways of getting people to behave well if we were just interested in what works and keeping suffering to a minimum. But the problem is people general aren't because they believe people are morally responsible in a way they just can't be, so simply think people can deserve to suffer. This is why saying people aren't morally responsible in the traditional sense and don't have the sort of free will that is supposed to support that is not just of philosophical interest, it makes a great deal of difference. Stephen OK although we need empirical evidence for what does and doesnt work. We have plenty of evidence that imprisonmemt and probation don't work to reform criminal behavior. Just look at the recidivism rates. It doesn't appear to me that people have free will, either. Lois Lois Empirical evidence is very hard to come by. There are several variables affecting how a nations crime rate is. Even in controversial things like the death penalty, we also have to consider the method of execution, when it is used, etc. Where I have seen criminologists agree in one case, it was on an entire system of laws, rather than just a single one. Professors Sheptyki and Wardick have written about this hear: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=TRANSnational+and+comparative+criminology+low+arabian+crime+rate+to&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=Most+scholars+attribute+the+low+Saudi+Arabian+crime+rate+mainly+to+the+strong+influence+of+Islam+in. But then again, even many places that have low crime rates may have other problems so that is something to keep in mind as well.
What we need is to take the worst criminals out of society. That's the only thing prisons should be used for. Deterrence doesn't work in most cases, though it may be worth a try for some lesser cases. Lois
OK although we need empirical evidence for what does and doesnt work. I think we would be less punitive and work on better ways of getting people to behave well if we were just interested in what works and keeping suffering to a minimum. But the problem is people general aren't because they believe people are morally responsible in a way they just can't be, so simply think people can deserve to suffer. This is why saying people aren't morally responsible in the traditional sense and don't have the sort of free will that is supposed to support that is not just of philosophical interest, it makes a great deal of difference. It doesn't really. IMO, people are determinded to act in certain ways and trying to impose moral responsibility from outside doesn't have much effect. This is proven every day. We've had millions of churches throughout history preaching moral responsibility and people in the churches are nevertheless committing every kind of immoral act. Lois Stephen
It doesn't appear to me that people have free will, either.
I've seen a lot of talk about "free will" but usually pass it by. I'm not even sure what they mean by free will, There is more than one meaning of free will and people usually believe in more than one version. There is one version which a number of people such as Sam Harris see as harmful because it increases hatred, strengthens the desire for revenge and lengthens it's duration, amongst other things. I'll tell you what that is. I need to start with a little bit about determinism, the consensus amongst philosophers is that any version of free will that makes sense must be possible in a deterministic universe.The reason for that is indeterminism can't possibly give us free will. So it makes sense to assume determinism when thinking about free will since indeterminism can't change anything. So assuming determinism we couldn't have done otherwise without our distant pasts having been appropriately different, since given the distant past we had there was only one physically possible outcome. What this means is we couldn't have done otherwise without circumstances beyond our control, i.e our distant past, having been appropriately different. So when we don't do what we should do we are simply unfortunate that our distant past wasn't set up as it needed to be for that to have been the one physically possible future that followed. And that's what people deny on mass, what they think is we could have done otherwise in the actual situation without the need for anything out of our control to have been different to have brought about that behaviour. So what they believe and what I mean by free will in this context is that we could have done otherwise without anything out of our control having been different. It's this concept of free will that the usual view of moral responsibility is based on. The usual view being that it could make sense for god to punish or reward us after death for what we have done. Atheists generally believe in this version of moral responsibility just as Christians do. But of course it makes no sense at all (assuming determinism) because what god would see is we're all merely fortunate or unfortunate to have the distant pasts he gave us. So we are not morally responsible by the usual view of moral responsibility and we don't have the version of free will that is supposed to give us that moral responsibility. Both of which people ordinarily believe in.

Well Citizens challenge I’m guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over.
The thing is if you haven’t given that version of free will much thought you almost certainly
believe in it.
Why? Because we are wired up that way. When we look back at what we or others could have
done we imagine we are thinking about the circumstances as they actually were, rather than
slightly altered circumstances. That combined with the idea of choices being up to us gives rise to
the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us, rather than we would have needed to
have been in slightly altered circumstances (internal or external) to have selected a different option.
What a lot of us experience when we realise this is that compassion and empathy rise and hatred
and the desire for revenge recede as we recognise that there but for circumstances go I and that
“blameworthy” people were merely unfortunate not to be in slightly altered circumstances.

Well Citizens challenge I'm guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over. The thing is if you haven't given that version of free will much thought you almost certainly believe in it. Why? Because we are wired up that way. When we look back at what we or others could have done we imagine we are thinking about the circumstances as they actually were, rather than slightly altered circumstances. That combined with the idea of choices being up to us gives rise to the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us, rather than we would have needed to have been in slightly altered circumstances (internal or external) to have selected a different option. What a lot of us experience when we realise this is that compassion and empathy rise and hatred and the desire for revenge recede as we recognise that there but for circumstances go I and that "blameworthy" people were merely unfortunate not to be in slightly altered circumstances.
Yes, true. I, too am a derterminist. But what should people do to protect themselves and their families from those who are determined to attack and injure? The aggression does not recede because we feel and show compassion for the aggressors. By the time aggression recedes we and our families might be dead or seriously injured. What do we do until they stop being aggressive? Sit back and allow the aggression to work itself out? It could take years, if it happens at all. We have to be able to protect ourselves even if we accept that the aggressors have no control over their actions. How do we do it? Lois
Well Citizens challenge I'm guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over. The thing is if you haven't given that version of free will much thought you almost certainly believe in it. Why? Because we are wired up that way. When we look back at what we or others could have done we imagine we are thinking about the circumstances as they actually were, rather than slightly altered circumstances. That combined with the idea of choices being up to us gives rise to the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us, rather than we would have needed to have been in slightly altered circumstances (internal or external) to have selected a different option. What a lot of us experience when we realise this is that compassion and empathy rise and hatred and the desire for revenge recede as we recognise that there but for circumstances go I and that "blameworthy" people were merely unfortunate not to be in slightly altered circumstances.
Yes, true. I, too am a derterminist. Yes I know. And the thing is the implications of being a determinist go right over most peoples heads. Yet libertarian free will is the most pervasive false belief of all, so this is very strange and worth trying to do something about.
But what should people do to protect themselves and their families from those who are determined to attack and injure?
We do what's necessary with the minimum suffering possible. Few determinists will deny this so it's not the interesting point. If people were generally determinists they wouldn't have the negative influence of belief in libertarian free will which could lead to them being more compassionate, less hateful, fairer and so there would be less aggressive people. It's the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and moral responsibility as it's commonly understood that need to be got at. Also I suspect GdB is right that we need a concept of free will compatible with determinism too or we can go wrong in other ways although I didn't want to discuss that, just acknowledging it if GdB is reading.
Well Citizens challenge I'm guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over.
You make me laugh, because you hit it on the nail. But, not for lack of trying, I've read through it a few times and keep chewing on it, probably why I haven't made a comment about it. It's funny how some trains of thought just click in for me and others remain abstract. I've even gone and read a little about "Determinism" to get a better handle on what you've written, even read your post out loud to Paula and appreciate you writing down those thoughts. I came up with something much simpler regarding "controlling" my life quite early in my traveling experiences and it keeps making sense to me. I believe many people imagine they can (or should be able to) control their lives the way a dam controls a river. Whereas, it seems to me it's the loose control of a kayaker heading down rapids, provides the best analogy for "controlling" our lives. Lois, did you see my post about how the Albuquerque cops handle a threatening domestic situation? I think the devil is in the details, who determines someone else's level of "determination to attack and injure". Also, isn't your train of though sort of along the lines of the thinking that railroaded all those gullible Americans into climbing onto the Bush/Cheney War for Profits Bandwagon? just ask'n
Well Citizens challenge I'm guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over.
You make me laugh, because you hit it on the nail. But, not for lack of trying, I've read through it a few times and keep chewing on it, probably why I haven't made a comment about it. :-)
It's funny how some trains of thought just click in for me and others remain abstract. I've even gone and read a little about "Determinism" to get a better handle on what you've written, even read your post out loud to Paula and appreciate you writing down those thoughts.
Cool, it's an important philosophy for me, I'd call myself a determinist here or a Buddhist in other circles, it's the same thing, central to buddhism is "dependent arising" and the compassion that follows from accepting it.
I came up with something much simpler regarding "controlling" my life quite early in my traveling experiences and it keeps making sense to me. I believe many people imagine they can (or should be able to) control their lives the way a dam controls a river. Whereas, it seems to me it's the loose control of a kayaker heading down rapids, provides the best analogy for "controlling" our lives.
OK, I agree with that but what I and Lois try to get across is the sense in which we have no control whatsoever. You see if your distant past had been appropriately different you would be a murderer on death row now. Equally a murderer on death row now would not be a murderer if his distant past had been appropriately different. It's that which we try to get across.The difference is sheer luck since obviously we have no control over our distant past. That's assuming determinism and again the reason to assume that is indeterminism can't make any difference.
Well Citizens challenge I'm guessing my last post just made your eyes glaze over. The thing is if you haven't given that version of free will much thought you almost certainly believe in it. Why? Because we are wired up that way. When we look back at what we or others could have done we imagine we are thinking about the circumstances as they actually were, rather than slightly altered circumstances. That combined with the idea of choices being up to us gives rise to the illusion that the choice was entirely up to us, rather than we would have needed to have been in slightly altered circumstances (internal or external) to have selected a different option. What a lot of us experience when we realise this is that compassion and empathy rise and hatred and the desire for revenge recede as we recognise that there but for circumstances go I and that "blameworthy" people were merely unfortunate not to be in slightly altered circumstances.
Yes, true. I, too am a derterminist. Yes I know. And the thing is the implications of being a determinist go right over most peoples heads. Yet libertarian free will is the most pervasive false belief of all, so this is very strange and worth trying to do something about.
But what should people do to protect themselves and their families from those who are determined to attack and injure?
We do what's necessary with the minimum suffering possible. Few determinists will deny this so it's not the interesting point. If people were generally determinists they wouldn't have the negative influence of belief in libertarian free will which could lead to them being more compassionate, less hateful, fairer and so there would be less aggressive people. It's the benefits of disbelief in libertarian free will and moral responsibility as it's commonly understood that need to be got at. Also I suspect GdB is right that we need a concept of free will compatible with determinism too or we can go wrong in other ways although I didn't want to discuss that, just acknowledging it if GdB is reading. Yes, I agree that taking a determinist approach would lead to more compassionate and effective responses. There has to be a better way than assuming that people are deliberately "bad" and need to be punished into compliance. But I disagree with GdB that we need a "concept of free will compatible with determinism." IMO there can be no "concept" of free will that is compatible with determinism because free will and determinism are in complete opposition to each other. Either free will exists or it doesn't and we shouldn't try to somehow "compromise" on that simple truth. You can't have a little bit of free will and a little bit of determinism. I don't think it does anyone any good to pretend that some kind of compromise is necessary, useful or possible. To me, that would be like saying that we need a concept of geocentrism that is compatible with heliocentrism. You can't compromise on scientific truths, no matter how much it might seem to make the truth easier to swallow. Lois
Yes, I agree that taking a determinist approach would lead to more compassionate and effective responses. There has to be a better way than assuming that people are deliberately "bad" and need to be punished into compliance.
Yep.
But I disagree with GdB that we need a "concept of free will compatible with determinism.
I know that is because you won't accept the term free will can be and is used to mean more than one thing.
OK, I agree with that but what I and Lois try to get across is the sense in which we have no control whatsoever. You see if your distant past had been appropriately different you would be a murderer on death row now. Equally a murderer on death row now would not be a murderer if his distant past had been appropriately different. It's that which we try to get across.The difference is sheer luck since obviously we have no control over our distant past. That's assuming determinism and again the reason to assume that is indeterminism can't make any difference.
No control at all is a big thing. Controlling your temper, with a loaded gun in your hand, seems a big thing to hang on your distant relative, even if that relative put a fiery temper into your blood. Do you think it's realistic to hang Armand Martin's] actions on his grandfather?
OK, I agree with that but what I and Lois try to get across is the sense in which we have no control whatsoever. You see if your distant past had been appropriately different you would be a murderer on death row now. Equally a murderer on death row now would not be a murderer if his distant past had been appropriately different. It's that which we try to get across.The difference is sheer luck since obviously we have no control over our distant past. That's assuming determinism and again the reason to assume that is indeterminism can't make any difference.
No control at all is a big thing. Yep. But I gave the sense in which it's sheer luck.
Controlling your temper, with a loaded gun in your hand, seems a big thing to hang on your distant relative, even if that relative put a fiery temper into your blood. Do you think it's realistic to hang Armand Martin's] actions on his grandfather?
What's realistic is that was the only thing he could do given his distant past and so he was unfortunate to have the distant past he had. To have controlled his temper he would have needed to have been fortunate enough to have an appropriately different distant past No I don't think it's realistic to hang his actions on his grandfather.

Sorry but that sort of world makes no sense,
we are back to the clock-maker with everything just being cogs ticking away endlessly.
What’s the point of an introspective life of trying to be the best one can with what we got?
or guess the point is there is no point?