sundin13 said:
The death penalty is reserved for people after they have been caught and locked away for life. It is not "killing Hitler" (although you ignored option c: Imprison him for life), it is not killing out of self defense, it is not killing during war. The fact that you say "your argument is objective, my argument is subjective" and you still claim that you are right is quite strange... |
sundin, you're pretty much the reason I jumped into this thread. After reading through your comments I just couldn't help myself.
You, and others that think alike, view the death penalty as a punishment and it's within that description that your morality is best served and at its most distracting.
I view the death penalty differently. I don't see it so much as a punishment as I do a guarantee that the convicted will never, ever be given a chance to hurt another human being. I believe the process in which we convict and resign individuals to death row should be overhualed so there's aboslutely no possibility of an innocent person dying at the hands of the state, and in this age of DNA that shouldn't be a problem, but there's no question in my mind that there are people whose violent actions and disregard for the lives of others, preclude them from ever being part of society, in any way, whether that be behind bars or not. There are certain acts so heinous and vile, so beyond comprehension, that the perpetrators should be dealt with in the most assured way possible that protects the lives of innocents.
Honestly, the core reason why you and I think differently is our opinion on life. On what life is, more specifically.. human life.
I see us as nothing more than apex predators, animals sitting at the top of the food chain. Given that, it's within our rights as a social creature to rid ourselves of those whose actions hurt that structure at it's most basic level.
You view life differently. You see it as something more grand and mysterious, something of an ethereal nature.. in other words, you believe life has value beyond what we seem and that life is in some way 'given' to us and as a result, we ourselves are not the ones ultimately resposible for it.
That's where your morals lie. Mine reside in the everyday, in the existential, in the dirt so to speak.
You disagreed with me above about the death penatly taking life out of necessity. But that's exactly what it is and why I stated that. Regardless of whether or not we remove someone physically, locking them in a cell, or remove someone by capital punishment (their word, not mine) only one of those two absolutely ensure the safety of others. I'll take that one.
I brought up the Hitler scenario because I know it's a moral trap.. as does ACE, as do you, which is why he refused to answer it directly and why you decided to add your own twist and give it an option C.. lol. My scenario, not yours. You can't just change it to better fit your argument, that's cheating and a cowardly way out of an intellectual disagreement. No matter the context; taking a life to ensure the safety of others is what the question actually poses and that's where the morality of people who are staunchly anti-death penatly falters, because they would take that life. Again, that's what the death penatly is, it's not a punishment, it's an assurance.
Peace.
