[MD] Capital Punishment

[Ham Priday]

Evenin' Arlo --



> I've renamed the thread, hoping it will draw the attention and input of
others.

That's probably a good idea -- also, I won't feel as "morally compelled" to
respond :-).

> [Arlo]
> Yes, the difference between "executioner" and "murderer" is "societal
backing".
> But to me this is just "pc speak" to soften the idea of state-sanctioned
> murder.

It seems that you and Platt are trying to set up an idealistic morality that
would oversee society and its laws on the basis of some philosophical
principle.  That would be commendable if there were such a principle, and I
don't think it's contained in the MOQ.  By contrast, the moral principle of
Essentialism is Individual Freedom, and what makes it viable is man's
autonomy.  If man's behavior was regulated by a Supreme Law or absolute
standard, he could not be autonomous.

This does not mean that there is no "right" or "wrong" in human behavior; it
simply means that man can only determine what is right provisionally -- that
is, based on the contingencies of the relational world in which his society
participates.  Thus, both the individual and his society maintain the
freedom to choose their values, while bearing full responsibility for the
consequences.

> Society does not have the right to take the life of an impenitent or
> repeat offender, unless that individual poses a serious threat to the
> existence of society. Otherwise, incarceration and punishment
> (non-capital) must be used to protect the value of life and even
> seemingly insignificant or impossible odds of DQ inspired evolution."

Who gives or denies this right except society itself?   Humans can establish
rights by social consensus, such as by drafting a constitution or code of
ethics, or by appointing a legislature to enact the laws of the land;
otherwise, what is morally right or wrong is a subjective decision.  The
justice in that arrangement may not be understood or appreciated by those
affected, but in the cosmic scheme of things, it upholds a higher principle
which is the autonomy of man, the choice-maker.

> Unless you, or someone else, can prove to me that MY life was threatened,
> or society itself was threatened, by the continued incarceration of a hard
> core criminal, then taking that prisoners life is, according to the MOQ,
> an immoral act.

That is Arlo's personal morality system as a loyal MOQ supporter, and I will
not attempt to
refute it.  Indeed, it has much merit, and I'd like to believe everyone in
the world community would live by it.  Unfortunately, the world is not a
utopia and they don't.  In addition to demanding revenge for brutal acts,
most people still feel that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime, and
I'm not sure all the evidence is in on this issue.  If there is sufficient
prison space for all the hard-core criminals, perhaps it would be feasible
to commute the death sentence for life imprisonment; but society would never
rest easy with the possibility of time off for good behavior or early
release.

> Does anyone else find it ironic that the so-called "collectivist", who is
often
> rhetorically paired with Mao and Stalin, is the one condemning the murder
of
> individuals by society (except when under clear and serious danger), while
the
> self-professed "individualists" are the ones arguing in support of the
right of
> the state to take the lives of its citizens even when no clear or serious
> threat exists??? Just wondering....

No, I don't see this as ironic.  Most collectivists are liberals, and the
liberal mentality is governed more by sentiment than by logic.  Thus, the
cry for more welfare programs, which fosters dependence on the state instead
of advancing the underclass; multiculturalism, which would reward everyone
equally irrespective of merit; distribution of the nation's wealth, which
penalizes the productive and reduces the incentive to achieve; and, of
course, world peace at any cost.

> However, your statement that we could not exist as a "free nation" without
> executing criminals ignores the fact that the rest of the western world
exists
> exactly as such.

You've misconstrued my statement.  What I said was "it would be naive to
think that we could survive as a free nation without taking appropriate
action against an enemy that is morally committed to destroying us."  I was
referring to the terrorists, not domestic criminals in this assertion.  Of
course we could do away with capital punishment and still be a free nation.

[Ham, previously]:
> As for the morality of euthenasia as applied to "brain-dead" patients, I
think
> this is a matter to be resolved by the patient's family and attending
> physician.

 [Arlo]:
> I disagree with your split. "Execution" and "euthenasia" are fundamentally
> similar (when the prisoner poses no threat to society). Although one is
done
> for retribution and the other for convenience, the end result is the same.
The
> continuancy of an individual's life is determined by the state.

If you're saying that the state should determine whether a comatose or
brain-dead patient lives or dies, I disagree.  I don't think the state
should be involved in medical decisions regarding the fate of malformed or
non-viable fetuses, either.

> But, not to muddy the waters, you should know that I support an
individual's
> right to die, when such a decision is made under lucid conditions.

I don't believe an individual has any more right to take his own life than
the life of another.  Life is a sacred gift, and we're here for a purpose.
It may be more honorable to "die with dignity" by this act, but it is not
more moral in my opinion.

> But, historically, then, what about the South pre-Civil War? This was a
"free
> society" that condoned the murder of non-white slaves (at least, the ones
you
> personally owned, or the ones that attempted to run away). Was the murder
of
> these slaves "moral" because it received societal justification?

Slaves were regarded as "common property" prior to the Civil War, and their
owners could do what they wanted with them.  This clearly was not freedom
for all men; and, although the murder of slaves by their owners was a rare
occurrence, it was immoral by any standard.

> But, since you draw the distinction, let me ask for clarity. Does "murder"
> become "execution" when a certain percentage of the population supports
it? Is
> this the only test for the morality/immorality of taking a person's life?

You're reducing morality to semantics again; but I would say that
"execution" in reference to the KKK clan or a Chicago gang's "shoot-out" is
equivalent to murder.  In the case of a legitimate state or sovereign
nation, the majority of whose citizens endorse capital punishment,
the act of execution takes on a different context, no matter what you think
about its morality.

> And, I think this "eye for an eye" tradition is exactly what capital
punishment
> of prisoners IS! With Pirsig's caveat always in mind, it is really nothing
more
> than revenge and retribution that drives the support of capital crimes.

You're certainly welcome to this opinion; but I'd rather it be yours than an
influence of Pirsig's caveat which is a fallacious argument.

> Are you arguing that a certain percentage of popular support is
> needed to turn "state sanctioned murder" into "state sanctioned
execution"? And
> again, I think there was a large segment of popular support in Germany for
the
> extermination of the Jews, just as there was large numbers in support of
the
> extermination of Native Americans, and lynchings in the south.

Nazi Germany was a military dictatorship closely monitored by Gestapo agents
and civilian informers.  With a populace in fear for their lives, it would
have been virtually impossible to assess the prevailing public sentiment.
The colonialists in America warred with the Indians in regions where they
met with savagery; I know of no mass extermination plan.  In fact, there
were numerous efforts to trade with the Indians and establish settlements
for them.  The southern lynch mobs left a black mark in our history and
created a racial divide from which we may never fully recover.  This was a
type of gang warfare that was repulsive to mainstream America and could
hardly be an expression of our national morality.

You can trot out examples from populations ruled by tribal chiefs, monarchs,
warlords, dictators, military juntas, etc., but my answer remains the same:
every culture has it own morality system.  This is demonstrated in the
behavior of people when they are free to express their values.

> So I'm not sure what other difference you might mean when you (seemingly)
> propose that America's "justifications for execution" are somehow superior
to
> China's, or Germany's, or even to our own historical past?

Since I never compared "justifications for execution", I don't know how you
arrived at that conclusion.  It seems to me that you are still pushing for a
moral standard where there is none.  In that regard, you and Platt are
taking the same stance, although I had assumed you sided with me that
morality is relative.  Actually, I think we've exhausted this discussion,
and I fail to see what further arguments will resolve.

Anyway, your new title for this thread doesn't seem to have enticed anyone
else.  Shall we go back to comparing Quality and Value?

Best regards,
Ham

pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/