Name: "死刑を語る" - 哲学的チキンケーキEP2 (『談談死刑』-哲學哲學雞蛋糕 EP2)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T06:06:50.000Z
Duration: 7 min 40 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENGLISH subtitle enabled - - - - - - - - - - - - -（使用中文的觀眾 請點下方cc關閉字幕）- -

Today we are making chocolate mille-feuille

This dessert is one of my favorites, cause it's really simple to make

First, we cut the store bought puff pastry dough into strips

Place it onto the baking tray and put it in the oven for 15 mins

Remember to preheat the oven at 180 degrees Celsius

Next, melt the chocolate over boiled water

While we're waiting for the pastry, let's talk about the death penalty

I know you wanna ask, "Kris, do you really want to talk about the death penalty, really?"

"Don't you want to keep your show running? Are you sure you want to talk about it?"

Whether death penalty should be abolished or not is a heated issue

Not only will it impact on events going on now

Those who debate over this issue hold different opinions on death penalty

and reaching consensus through discussions, will decide the future direction of the society

So discussing about the issue today is a good thing

Today we're not setting up the debate but in hopes of you learning something

For example, have you thought rationally before you support or oppose an issue?

And were we using the right methods when discussing an issue?

The follwing may be complicated, so let's welcome our guest to help us clear it up

Let's welcome out guest to help us clear it up

Ah! Hi everyone, I am the combination of wisdom and logic, Princess Idiot

About supporting or opposing death penalty

Though we can't conclude which is the definite answer

We will be standing in the shoes of the supporters and opposers

And give one possible argument from each side as examples

to demonstrate how you can analyze and understand a statement when you see one

First let's discuss one of the arguments from those who support death penalty

Some people support it because they believe in the idea of

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and also "a life for a life"

Sometimes people mention just one example when expressing thoughts

maybe he/ she only expressed a tip of an iceberg of their entire thought

No matter what, even if their statement isn't complete, it doesn't mean their thoughts are not as well

Just like the puff pastry in the oven are in strips now, but it doesn't mean that they came as strips when we bought it

I have no hair now, but it doesn't mean that my hair won't grow

the first step is to find the most persuasive version for it

in other words, the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

This is a very crucial step in the thinking process

because if the official, emphatic, advanced and complete version

then we can feel more comfortable with saying that this argument is really problematic

OK, back to the topic, what could the most persuasive version for "an eye for an eye" be

The main idea seems to be using the same method to take revenge on the perpetrators

When A did something bad to B, we should do the same thing back to A

and if possible, B should be the one who performs it

Comparing to the saying "an eye for an eye"

But we can easily tell that this theory still has some problems

Not all bad things have the same effect when it's done to the bad guy

Oh! So those who said "an eye for an eye" are totally idiots!

Wittgenstein, what you just said isn't correct

When a version of an argument sounds awkward

it doesn't mean that the argument itself is awkward

It might only be that the version itself is not good enough

Obviously, "letting victims perform the same harm back to perpetrators" is not persuasive enough

Can we find a better version of the argument for "an eye for an eye?"

When A did something bad to B, we should give the same degree of pain that B felt to A

Ok, this version unlike the first, it wouldn't have people touching each other's butt

But is it really more acceptable?  I'll leave this to you

Can Retributive Justice: Version 2. stand for the death penalty? Or will it cause other unfavorable results?

After watching the argument from the supporters of death penalty

lets discuss one of the arguments from the opposers of death penalty

Some people pointed out, since citizens must not kill, governments must not kill either

that when governments forbid killing, it means that governments consider killing bad

However, governments kill people themselves, isn't that a slap in the face?

This argument seems clear and simple, but is it reasonable?

If we take a further look at this argument, we will find that there's already a presumption

which is "when governments forbid citizens do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

However, as we inspect this, we can instantly smell something fishy

For example, charging tax, issuing tickets, pulling cars over, are things that citizens can't do but governments can

In fact, if we really tend to follow the idea of

"when governments forbid citizens to do something, the governments mustn't do it themselves"

then we'll find that under this circumstance government couldn't exist

Governments could only exist when it have more power than citizens

so they should be allowed to do things that citizens can't

If you try to argue that "citizens are forbidden to kill, so the government should also be forbidden as well"

then you should also be against jail based on believing "citizens don't have the right to imprison others"