Subject:
|
Re: Excellent news!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:08:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1390 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
At this point I should restate my standard disclaimer that I see no reason to
conclude that any moral absolutes can be known by humans with certainty.
|
Why would you be so reticent to conclude that the taking of an innocent human
life for no reason or purpose, but for, say amusement, isn’t absolutely wrong
and evil for everyone, not just you yourself?
| |
With this in mind, any seemingly absolute statements I make along the lines
of “reality TV is absolutely evil” should be considered a paraphrase of
“reality TV is as completely objectionable to my aesthetic sense as I am able
to ascertain.” That is, I’m not addressing an actual, universal absolute.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Bruce has already mentioned the problem of certainty, which is a pretty
strong objection IMO. The current system has numerous examples of
convicted people who didn’t commit the murders of which they’re accused, so
we’re actually executing (or scheduled to execute) innocents.
|
Certainly not knowingly. Nothing in life is certain, death and taxes
notwithstanding, so I fail to see why this issue should be held to an
impossible standard. Yeah, it’s irreversible, but work as hard as humanly
possbile to make the system work correctly, and let it be.
|
For me the problem is simply that I’m not comfortable with the uncertainty.
|
Yes, but according to you, nothing is (or can be ascertained to be) certain,
so where does that leave your objection?
| |
With capital punishment in place, we seem to prefer erring in favor the
possibility of guilt, while to me it would be morally superior to err in
favor of the possibility of innocence.
|
I don’t understand looking at an issue through the lens of error possiblity. If
this type of introspective scrutiny were applied to everything, nothing would
ever get decided!
| |
And if the convicted person is
incarcerated, the level of possible harm to society-at-large is about the
same as if he’s been executed.
|
Yes, but where is the justice? You are merely addressing the issue of
protecting society from the killer. There is no justice in merely removing a
criminal’s freedom. Did we not agree that life is more precious than freedom?
| |
| |
Where is the indignation when innocents are murdered by murderers who are
released from prison (or who get off through a system that would rather be
safe than sorry)?
|
A fair objection. As an answer, I would offer that the murderer is a
murderer, after all, while I would hope to hold society to a higher standard
of conduct. Also, the issue in this particular hypothetical example is the
premature release of the murderer.
|
Which happens all of the time, and I’m not talking about parole.
Technicalities, smooth talking defense lawyers; things of that nature.
| |
I’d propose that murder carry a sentence
of life-without-parole rather than the current “life without parole for at
least the first few years.”
| |
How about frozen stasis? I know we don’t have the technology now, but what
if we did? Because I am hearing from this tangent that you think capital
punishment would be justified if 100% was possible. Or are you merely
requiring impossible criteria to essentially render the issue mute;-)
|
I agree that if they’re frozen, then they’re probably mute!
But for clarity, I’ll state it explictly: in my view capital punishment is
not justified if the intended recipient of that punishment can otherwise be
rendered permanently unable to harm society-at-large.
|
So you do equate “life” with “freedom”.
| |
I recognize the problems with this formulation. I would therefore add that
killing may be necessary in self-defense or when the killing would prevent
other deaths. For example, if my killing of five guys is the only way to
stop them from blowing up a bus full of people, then I’d have to conclude
that it’s necessary.
However, the purely mathematical component of this formulation gives me
trouble. If the murderer, for example, is driving an explosives-laden car
with four innocent people aboard, I don’t know specifically how I’d justify
those four deaths even if they’d save the whole busload.
Maybe we should leave in-the-moment self-defense aside until we’ve reached
some sort of conclusion re: capital punishment itself...
But if the murderer would be frozen in perpetuity, I don’t see that it’s
tangibly different from capital punishment, so my objection remains.
|
But I thought your rub with capital punishment was the permanency of it-- if
we merely freeze the murderer, the possibility still exists that in the unlikely
event that new evidence comes to bear which exonerates him, he can be thawed and
released, with no loss of longevity, no less.
| |
| |
In my mind, the murderer’s life is forfeit. He no longer possesses any
rights. He does owe the family a debt which can only be paid with his
life. This is the only way I can see that ultimately respects the sanctity
of life. The ultimate price must be paid or regard for life becomes
debased.
|
This formulation troubles me as well. How does the murderer’s death repay
his debt to the family?
|
Well, the debt would technically be to the victim, but they are obviously not
around to collect it. That is the job of the family and/or society, in order
for justice to be served.
| |
If the murderer kills a homeless man with no family,
to whom is the debt then owed?
|
To the homeless man, with society making sure the debt paid on his behalf.
| |
If the murderer kills himself immediately
after the murder, does that repay the debt?
|
Yes.
| |
I expect that in the last example the debt would not be satisfied, so I am
inclined to believe that the debt is not repaid by the murderer’s death but
by the process of execution itself. This is also morally objectionable to me
because it fosters a tit-for-tat sense of bloodthirst. Also (and again
without being flippant), it would seem to me that execution is not the
ultimate penalty under Christian thinking.
|
Well, I don’t recognize any set “Christian thinking”. Obviously not, because
Christians are all over the map on issues such as abortion or capital
punishment.
But generally speaking, if I person commits a crime, I believe that they need to
be punished, and I don’t think that that idea is anti-Christian. Love the
sinner, hate the sin stuff. So all I am arguing is that the punishment for
murder should be death.
| |
Oddly, this dredges up my ancient memory of
Antigone, in which the
ruler Creon forbade Antigone’s brother to be buried, thereby consigning him
to walk the earth as a spirit. In the play, this was considered the ultimate
penalty because the spirit was not allowed to rest.
| |
I think the most moral societies begin with the morality of their
individuals and their nuclear (W pronunciation;-) families.
|
Umberto Eco has written in a very similar vein. The individual tends to
justify action against another person by either including or excluding that
other person from the individual’s “group.” Someone who is considered
outside the group (say, a clone-brand-fan) can be more palatably excluded
from group-inclusive benefits (and that’s just a facetious example, mind
you).
|
The hope is that individuals raised morally by families will be less likely to
be influenced towards evil through group dynamics. That’s my strategy for my
children, at least....
| |
I think that the morally superior course is to value life rather than execute
people (even those who are grossly out of step with society). It strikes me
as logically inconsistent to value life by terminating life.
|
Yes, I agree that, at first glance, it sounds logically inconsistent. But where
is the unlogical in this: if one values life above all else, then the penalty
for taking life should reflect the degree of intolerance. So, if you hold that
life is the most precious thing, and murder is the ultimate crime, only the most
precious thing can be paid to satisfy murder’s debt.
I will come clean with you by saying that I have not fully assimulated this
argument for capital punishment-- I only came across it rather recently, and
thought I’d play the devil’s advocate and bounce it off of you. I am still of 2
minds about it. Thanks for your (and -->Bruce<--‘s -where to locate that
possesive?), Dave!
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Excellent news!
|
| (...) Because if a person is doing it for amusement, then chances are that it’s not absolutely wrong for that person. The most broadly inclusive conclusion I can draw is to say that the taking of life is generally considered to be objectionable to (...) (20 years ago, 7-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Excellent news!
|
| At this point I should restate my standard disclaimer that I see no reason to conclude that any moral absolutes can be known by humans with certainty. With this in mind, any seemingly absolute statements I make along the lines of “reality TV is (...) (20 years ago, 4-Mar-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
55 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
