You know what, I’ll help you out. Why not. We put down rabid dogs for two reasons. They pose a danger to everyone around them, and we can’t cure them. Psychopathy has these same relevant features. If you want to defeat this argument, your goal should be to attack the dog-human component of the analogy, not the disease component. Why? Well, because even if I granted that rabies and psychopathy do not share the relevant features of being incurable and dangerous, we would just be back to square one, when I point out that:
We put down dogs that attack children. And since dogs and humans are both animals, we should put down humans who attack children, too.
If you follow my advice and instead attack the human-dog comparison, you stand a better chance of defeating this analogy. Spoiler alert though, your efforts will fail. This is a really good analogy.
To succeed you’ll need to abandon your focus on moral justification and turn instead to the practical matters of administering a government. Why? Well, because despite your own feelings on the matter the vast majority of people have a strong intuition that evildoers should be destroyed, and you’ll have a better chance convincing them to get rid of the death penalty by pointing out that killing dangerous psychopaths is impractical rather than immoral.
You’re welcome. Don’t bother responding, because I blocked you.
thats fine but for others I never argued anything but that it was not a good analogy. You have blocked me so its to late but if you had used something better to begin with to argue your point then I would likely have had no part in the convo. that being said early on I said mercy killing. it sounds from your ending you view killing psychopaths as mercy killing but from their viewpoint they are not suffering. those with rabies from their own viewpoint are suffering greatly.
You know what, I’ll help you out. Why not. We put down rabid dogs for two reasons. They pose a danger to everyone around them, and we can’t cure them. Psychopathy has these same relevant features. If you want to defeat this argument, your goal should be to attack the dog-human component of the analogy, not the disease component. Why? Well, because even if I granted that rabies and psychopathy do not share the relevant features of being incurable and dangerous, we would just be back to square one, when I point out that:
If you follow my advice and instead attack the human-dog comparison, you stand a better chance of defeating this analogy. Spoiler alert though, your efforts will fail. This is a really good analogy.
To succeed you’ll need to abandon your focus on moral justification and turn instead to the practical matters of administering a government. Why? Well, because despite your own feelings on the matter the vast majority of people have a strong intuition that evildoers should be destroyed, and you’ll have a better chance convincing them to get rid of the death penalty by pointing out that killing dangerous psychopaths is impractical rather than immoral.
You’re welcome. Don’t bother responding, because I blocked you.
thats fine but for others I never argued anything but that it was not a good analogy. You have blocked me so its to late but if you had used something better to begin with to argue your point then I would likely have had no part in the convo. that being said early on I said mercy killing. it sounds from your ending you view killing psychopaths as mercy killing but from their viewpoint they are not suffering. those with rabies from their own viewpoint are suffering greatly.