A person can be killed instantly through many different means.

As we know it, to be killed painlessly, is to be killed instantly.

If you instantly destroy a person’s entire brain then they died without pain.

Yet the most effective ways of instantly destroying someone’s entire brain are considered inhumane.

If instantly killing someone by smashing their head with a massive rock, or shooting them in the brain stem is inhumane, then there is no humane way to kill someone at all.

    • ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because the death penalty exists.

      Because people are currently sentenced to execution even in the United States.

      To those humans who are sentenced to death, why not choose a method that is instantaneous death, rather than something that can potentially fail.

      I’d rather die instantly from a rock or a 12 gauge shell to the head than be injected or electrocuted.

            • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Death penalty isn’t the only way to kill people…

              Murder, War, “Police” Violence, “Military interventions (totally 3 days only)”…

              • Solumbran@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                And no one would qualify those as “humane” either. So the argument still stands.

                  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    It’s a weird edge case that is between killing and assisted suicide, assuming there is consent.

                    Euthanasia without consent seems not so humane to me, but once again it is an edge case that is still hard to define.

                  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    There is a difference, but if you start saying that shooting an invader is humane, you have a serious problem.

            • elephantium@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              10 months ago

              Most people are subject to the death penalty. The world population is approaching 8.1 billion souls. The ten most populous nations are India, China, the US, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia, and Mexico, adding up to 4.6 billion – over half the planet.

              Of those, only Mexico has abolished the death penalty (though Brazil is listed as “extreme only” and Russia is listed as “suspended”, having not officially executed anyone in the past decade*). Putting these together, at least 4.1 billion people out of the “first 4.6” that I looked at live under the specter of the death penalty.

              I don’t think you can no-true-scotsman your way out of the simple fact that it’s still “normal” for humans to kill other humans. I also don’t think that acknowledging that fact requires that you endorse the practice.

              *whoa, is this a case where RUSSIA is more sane than the USA?! Strange times.

              I looked up the population info on https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/ and cross-referenced with the site you posted.