So what is the distinction? I mean that as a genuine question - Vidarh's position seems to be that the death penalty is intentionally taking a life, and shouldn't have a different moral standing to murder.
The response seems to be that that's a bad argument, they don't really believe that there's no distinction, and it would be stupid to believe that.
If I don't see a distinction of moral significance between the death penalty and, say, the CEO of a company deciding to painlessly execute one of their reports that they discover has gotten away with serious embezzling for multiple years, scorn doesn't help me understand the distinction someone else does see.
The response seems to be that that's a bad argument, they don't really believe that there's no distinction, and it would be stupid to believe that.
If I don't see a distinction of moral significance between the death penalty and, say, the CEO of a company deciding to painlessly execute one of their reports that they discover has gotten away with serious embezzling for multiple years, scorn doesn't help me understand the distinction someone else does see.