- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ENGLISH subtitle enabled - - - - - - - - - - - - -（使用中文的觀眾 請點下方cc關閉字幕）- -
Evening, evening, good evening
I am Kris from P. P. C. C.
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?"
Wait, let me finish
Whether death penalty should be abolished or not is a heated issue
It's a public decision
Not only will it impact on events going on now
but it will also impact the future
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
through discussing the death penalty
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
(ignore)
Let's welcome out guest to help us clear it up
(ignore)
Let's welcome our guest…
Ah! Hi everyone, I am the combination of wisdom and logic, Princess Idiot
Let's begin
About supporting or opposing death penalty
we can take a closer look at the debate
Though we can't conclude which is the definite answer
we can at least learn critical thinking
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
An Eye for an Eye
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"
Does it make sense?
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
I think… nobody cares about that
so, when seeing this kind of argument
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
seems doubtful
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
Version 1
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"
Version 1 presents a more complete idea
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
For example, sexual harassment
Ah, a pervert is touching my butt
So what? You can also touch mine
Oh! So those who said "an eye for an eye" are totally idiots!
Hehehehehehehehehehehe
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?"
Version 2
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
Government Kills
Some people pointed out, since citizens must not kill, governments must not kill either
The reason behind this argument might be
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"
Do you think this deduction is reasonable?
From "an eye for an eye" to "government kills", we come to two conclusions
First, we should check whether our understanding of an argument is the best version before judging it
Second, when making sure that whether a certain argument makes sense, we should try to find if it brings any unfavorable results
After discussing both arguments
can we know whether death penalty should be abolished?
Of course not, because these two arguments are only a tip of an iceberg
We believe you can come up with more reasons to support or oppose the death penalty
like deterrence, miscarriage of justice, human rights...etc.
But due to time constraints, plus our main focus today is not to discuss right or wrong
We just hope that through these discussions
We can remind ourselves to use this kind of thinking process on other issues
Maybe it will bring smoother discussions
Finally, we can take our puff pastry strips out of the oven
Dip the strips into chocolate and leave them to dry
Tasty chocolate mille-feuille are ready to be served!
Come, have a bite
You gonna feed me? How sweet