Re: Cryo-suspension for death row

From: Samantha Atkins (
Date: Mon Oct 09 2000 - 22:12:45 MDT

Alex Future Bokov wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Brian D Williams wrote:
> >
> > From: Alex Future Bokov <>
> >
> > >> The biggest problem is that the victim is lost forever, as a
> > >>result I do not believe the killer should be allowed to live, nor
> > >>be suspended, I believe they should be treated equally with the
> > >>victim.
> >
> > >Interesting. Does this belief follow logically from an axiom or is
> > >this belief itself an axiom?
> >
> > I do not believe in life after death. I therefore believe that when
> > someone dies and the structure of the brain decays, they are lost.
> I agree, but that is a separate axiom from...

Y'all seem to be playing pretty fast and loose with "axiom" here or at
least what I understand an "axiom" to be. Any arbitrary belief is not
necessarily an "axiom" just because it is arbitrary. In particular the
notion of no life after death follows from particulars ideas of what
constitutes life, death and so on. Such derivative notions are not
"axioms". Axioms are primary assumptions not derivable from anything
else in a system of logic or philosophy.


> > It follows axiomatically that I believe the killer suffer an equal
> > fate.

Again, something that follows expressly does not follow
"axiomatically". It may be implied by (or follow from) an axiom by
applying some rules for extracting logical consequences of said

> ...this. The no life after death axiom I understand, because it
> meshes with my own Ockham's Razor axiom. The "eye for an eye" axiom
> I don't understand. But then again, I guess that's why they're
> axioms. They don't need a rational basis; one has to have *some*
> arbitrary point of reference (cf. Existentialism Plus).

Ockham's Razor is a general reasoning strategy. Again, it is not an
axiom. Incomprehensible conclusions do not axioms make. One does not
need to make things up or claim they are axioms to end argument and
rational debate about one's conclusions. That is an abuse of the
concept "axiom".
> > >If there was a technology for "fixing what's wrong" with the
> > >perpetrator, would you be in favor of allowing the perpetrator to
> > >opt for this treatment?
> >
> > This does not equate to justice for the loss of the victim, so the
> > answer is no.

Please define "justice". And don't tell me it is an "axiom".

- samantha

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT