[MD] Capital Punishment

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

Some quick thoughts, perhaps argreeing with your final thought...

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

[Arlo]
I want to make a couple points clear, that seem to be somewhat vague in these
posts. And then, as you wish, we can move on.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
At one point you express slight confusion at my initial "relativist" stance,
which now seems to have become "absolutist". Like you, I think what we call
"morals" (in the popular sense) are indeed culturally-grounded and relative.
Attitudes towards sex, for example, as I initially mentioned with regards to
Samoan sexual behavior that would be considered "immoral" by American
standards.

What Pirsig tried to do was present a coherent framework (I know you disagree
with his succcess in this matter) as to how a behavior can be "moral" in one
cultural setting, and "immoral" in another, without succombing to pure
relativism (anything goes). His response was to say that behavior that does not
bring lower levels into control of higher levels, or lower levels destroying
higher levels, is not "immoral". When such an inversion occurs, however, the
behavior is always "immoral".

For example (to get away from capital punishment for a moment), since Samoan
sexual behavior, within Samoan cultural context, does not violate the MOQ
hierarchy (the biological patterns of value do not threaten social patterns of
value), the behavior cannot be said to be immoral. However, that same behavior
imported into American culture does (the arguement goes) potentially undermine
social patterns and so one could argue that such behavior is "immoral".

This certainly comes across as relativistic (I like Ian's or Marsha's or
someone's "relationistic"), but the MOQ hierarchy itself is an absolute frame
for considering moral issues in that biological patterns that threaten or
destroy social patterns are always absolutely immoral, societal patterns that
threaten or destroy intellectual patterns are always immoral. Social patterns
that prohibit non-threatening biological patterns are immoral. Intellectual
patterns that prohibit non-threatening societal patterns are immoral.

So, although the cultural context alters the effect of biological-social and
social-intellectual level interactions, it does not provide an escape from the
MOQ hierarchy.

I would side with you that the vast majority of what we call "morals" are
contextually bound to specific cultures. However, those that violate the MOQ
are "immoral" in any cultural context.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
I don't disagree with this, as I've said, in most matters of "morality". I
simply believe that there is a cross-contextual, "absolute" aspect that
transcends cultural norms and values.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
To me, the burden of proof must rest with the executioners. That is, we should
not blindly accept capital punishment and wait for those who oppose it to make
their case, we should reject it and wait for those in favor of it to make
theirs.

But, keep in mind, I am not universally opposed to capital punishment. There may
indeed be situations where it is warranted. However, I do not feel revenge and
retribution are Quality reasons for the taking of a life.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
I am in favor of hard labor and life in prison. No parole (determined of course
by a jury). 

[Arlo previously]
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....

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
Ouch. Yes, yes, I hear the myth that "liberalism is emotions" trumpted on the
conservative media everyday. You can forgo it here, it's nonsense. But I
thought I was making a case resting on reason here, Ham. It's not like I'm
saying "aw, forgive those poor criminals, they are people too". 

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
You've made my point. This is not about "fighting terrorists", and I do believe
that society has a right to protect itself from threats (provided it is not a
"intellectual threat"). So we need an army to take appropriate action against
an enemy that is committed to destroying us. Certainly. And according to the
MOQ, such a thing is moral.

But, capital punishment is not military protection from an enemy. It is the
murder of incarcerated prisoners for revenge. We could, I agree, do away with
such immorality and still be a free nation. And a much more moral one.
 
[Arlo previously]
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.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
I'm saying just the opposite. The continuancy of an individual's life, whether a
prisoner or a patient, should NOT be determined by the state. We are in
agreement, I'm just extending my valuation of life to include incarcerated
felons and not just comatose patients.

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
How can something be immoral by any standard if all standards are contextually
derived? Seems like you, too, believe there are some "absolutes", such as
"freedom for all men". So, does that mean slavery is always immoral? Or am I
misunderstanding, can slavery be moral?

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
See, here I get confused. Only a majority in a "legitimate state or soverign
nation" can make "murder" into "execution" through popular support?

[Ham]
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.

[Arlo]
This confuses me as well. If morality is culturally bound, why does
Pennsylvanian opposition to slavery matter to the question of Alabama's
determination that slavery was moral?

The point is that, if I understand, you would agree that slavery is never moral.
Or, would it be moral in contexts where the majority of a nation supported it?

[Ham]
every culture has it own morality system.  This is demonstrated in the
behavior of people when they are free to express their values.

[Arlo]
You postmodernists baffle me.

On that note, I'll give you the final word, if you want it. If not, we can see
if maybe someone else will chime in, and if not, we can let the thread die a
quick and painless death.

Arlo