Perhaps contradictory but, philosophically speaking, I have reached a conclusion where I can no longer believe in hell.

Many theories which are all interesting to research, but I will write out my reasoning to clear my head

In short: Violence as self defense can be morally justified.

Violence (or even the intention to inflict harm) as punishment is morally wrong.

The only justifications for punishment that remain are the prevention of future harm ie deterrence or “incapacitation” (I hate that word as it is dehumanising).

The state should not have the right (or power) to end life. Humans don’t have that right either. That’s why murder is wrong. Execution is only distinguished from murder in that it is the “lawful” killing of another and that this other is a “guilty” person.

The deontological theory of moral desert is laughable to me. The frankly circular, rationalist reasoning that is protected from philosophical criticism by the normative (read human egoism) force of the associated ideas.

If one couldn’t tell by now, I am pro life whole life.

The desert framework basically follows: X deserves Z because Y. Where Y is simultaneously the justification and the argument.

So X deserves to die. Why? Because X has committed crime Y. Why? ... How does X committing Y make it so that X deserves Z? Because people who do Y deserve Z & and X did Y.

So to straighten it out:
1) People who do Y deserve Z.
2) X did Y.
3) Therefore, X deserves Z.

Cogent yes but sound? The argument begs the question because the theorist already assumes people who do Y deserve Z. So from here, we can press them by asking why? Due to the format of desert claims, they should have a reason attached to the statement.

If they do, you can finally start picking apart their argument. I haven’t had the chance to talk to someone who believes in prisons/the death penalty strongly in awhile so I can’t give an example just yet. But I will add to this thread accordingly.

And yes this connects to hell, I will get there eventually.