Capital punishment debate: Dr. Feser and Msgr. Swetland

[Rau]

You have asked this question now multiple times, across years I might add, and you have received the answer…and you have received it repeatedly.

Is it correct that in this context “inadmissible” means “immoral”? Could you outline the basis for it being immoral with reference to the 3 fonts?

 

[Wesrock]

You have asked this question now multiple times, in threads across years I might add, and you have received the answer…and you have received it repeatedly.

Your posing the question, yet again, is nothing more than a charade. And that reminds me of the Lord’s admonition about where not to cast pearls.

Father, I’ve not been following all of your discussions with Ender, and if anyone else can clarify what was said previously, please do, but is capital punishment always and everywhere intrinsically evil? Not just in society with our capabilities?

Would one say that Moses commanded that intrinsically evil acts be done when he had the 3,000 killed and (if so) misattributed this as being God’s will?

Exodus 32: 27 And he said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.’” 28 And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

And other times he commanded specific executions? And the question is whether it is intrinsically evil, not just whether it was a prudent decision?

This is not a “gotcha” attempt, and I’m no scriptural litreralist, but I’m being honest in my confusion about this seeming to go too far.

The USCCB’s position is “if non-lethal means are available.” So it would seem that it’s not intrinsically evil in itself, only immoral under certain circumstances. Do you concur?

 

[Rau]

The USCCB’s position is “if non-lethal means are available.” So it would seem that it’s not intrinsically evil in itself, only immoral under certain circumstances. Do you concur?

The further question is “what criteria are to be used in judging the ‘availability of non-lethal means’”. I’d suggest that there is more to it than noting the presence of escape-proof prisons. Is keeping THE criminal away from the rest of us the sole objective of the punitive justice system?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Substantiate your charge with an example. If I distort every text I cite you should have no end of examples as I cite more sources in defense of my position than anyone else. It would seem that the real problem is not that I distort what my sources say but that I can find so many citations that support the arguments I make your only rebuttal is to claim they didn’t mean what they so clearly said. The citation from Archbishop Chaput being an excellent example of this.

Ender

It is pervasive Ender, I have observed many examples over the years, it is some sort of minor cognition deficit that becomes apparant in more subtle types of logical argumentation. It also involves an apparant inability to realise that symbols of reality (words, concepts etc) are not wholly the actuality they represent. They have limitations. Hence scholars and academics do not readily believe that reality always mimics the logic we impose on symbols or conclude from relatings the symbols. You completely lack this high level skill.
Even Aquinas observed this deficit in some of his interlocuters, it is not unusal in the dogmatic. Personally I believe it is a mild form of aspergers.

Thus you cannot intuit when you are forcing your nominally correct meanings of “CP”, “justice”, etc etc in contexts where their limits are clearly reached and the conclusions simply fail common sense regardless how appealing the speculative “logic”.

I not that your “logic” especially seems to fail whenever wholes and parts or universals versus many particulars are concerned. This is what I observed in my post below re semi autistic children who lookat the tip of a pointed finger rather than the reality pointed to.

What compounds your mild academic deficit above is that you clearly exhibit symptoms of the Dunning Krugger syndrome. See here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

As does Donald Trump.

I bear you no animosity, you asked me to explain.
I dont expect you to accept it.
But there is no more to say if you cannot.
By definition, one who suffers from the above is colorblind and will not hear of any talk about color because it is all foam and blather .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It is nothing more than an assertion with no argument to support it and it simply ignores the problems, and what seem to me contradictions, that arise from such a position.

Ender

Obviously if you define the two words CP as not intrinsically evil killings by the State…you would be correct. But most people (including past Fathers and Doctors) were and are dealing to the real world realities those two words attempt to coralle.

Change the phrase (unjust State killings) or invent a new word perhaps…you will see new possibilites open before your eyes. As did thinkers in time past who realised that the superset of “killings” which also is not intrinsically evil…contains subvariants…some of which are intrinsically evil .

So if your logic cannot accept that some types of CP can be intrinsically evil then just go with some types of State killings can be intrinsically evil.
Its the same thing for many of us.

 

[LucyEm]

It is pervasive Ender, I have observed many examples over the years, it is some sort of minor cognition deficit that becomes apparant in more subtle types of logical argumentation. It also involves an apparant inability to realise that symbols of reality (words, concepts etc) are not wholly the actuality they represent. They have limitations. Hence scholars and academics do not readily believe that reality always mimics the logic we impose on symbols or conclude from relatings the symbols. You completely lack this high level skill.
Even Aquinas observed this deficit in some of his interlocuters, it is not unusal in the dogmatic. Personally I believe it is a mild form of aspergers.

Thus you cannot intuit when you are forcing your nominally correct meanings of “CP”, “justice”, etc etc in contexts where their limits are clearly reached and the conclusions simply fail common sense regardless how appealing the speculative “logic”.

I not that your “logic” especially seems to fail whenever wholes and parts or universals versus many particulars are concerned. This is what I observed in my post below re semi autistic children who lookat the tip of a pointed finger rather than the reality pointed to.

What compounds your mild academic deficit above is that you clearly exhibit symptoms of the Dunning Krugger syndrome. See here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

As does Donald Trump.

I bear you no animosity, you asked me to explain.
I dont expect you to accept it.
But there is no more to say if you cannot.
By definition, one who suffers from the above is colorblind and will not hear of any talk about color because it is all foam and blather .

WOW. Just Wow.

You don’t provide the requested concrete example, but then you go on to announce that Ender has:

• some sort of minor cognition deficit;
• completely lacking in some or other "high level skill (that you suspect is mild Asperger’s);
• a failing logic also observable in semi-autistic children;
• a cognitive bias (observed in people of lower ability) - “Dunning Krugger syndrome”;

And then you justify this personal attack by saying that it was requested!

How do such personal attacks - I’m sure you’d call it psychological counselling , have a place on CAF?

 

[Ender]

It is pervasive Ender, I have observed many examples over the years…

You have observed many examples, but you can’t supply even one? This illustrates the ease of making an accusation and the difficulty of substantiating it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

How do such personal attacks - I’m sure you’d call it psychological counselling , have a place on CAF?

Thank you. I have wondered the same thing myself, yet attacks such as this have continued for some time, my objections notwithstanding.

Ender

 

[Ender]

(Vatican Radio) Capital punishment is cruel, inhuman and an offense to the dignity of human life. In today’s world, the death penalty is “inadmissible, however serious the crime” that has been committed. That was Pope Francis’ unequivocal message to members of the International Commission against the death penalty who met with him on Friday morning in the Vatican.

In a lengthy letter written in Spanish and addressed to the president of the International Commission against the death penalty, Pope Francis thanks those who work tirelessly for a universal moratorium, with the goal of abolishing the use of capital punishment in countries right across the globe.

Pope Francis makes clear that justice can never be done by killing another human being and he stresses there can be no humane way of carrying out a death sentence. For Christians, he says, all life is sacred because every one of us is created by God, who does not want to punish one murder with another, but rather wishes to see the murderer repent. Even murderers, he went on, do not lose their human dignity and God himself is the guarantor.

Capital punishment, Pope Francis says, is the opposite of divine mercy, which should be the model for our man-made legal systems. Death sentences, he insists, imply cruel and degrading treatment, as well as the torturous anguish of a lengthy waiting period before the execution, which often leads to sickness or insanity.

The Pope also condemns the use of the death penalty by “totalitarian regimes” or “fanatical groups” who seek to exterminate “political prisoners”, “minorities”, or anyone seen as a threat to political power and ambitions.

But he makes quite clear that the use of capital punishment signifies “a failure” on the part of any State. However serious the crime, he says, an execution “does not bring justice to the victims, but rather encourages revenge” and denies any hope of repentence or reparation for the crime that has been committed.

This citation was given by Don Ruggero in post #35, and the question I have asked is this: is the pope saying that capital punishment is now to be considered intrinsically evil? It’s a yes or no question, but it would surely clarify the discussion if someone would take a stand on the matter. My own position is that the comment does not change the traditional teaching of the church that capital punishment is not in fact intrinsically evil. So that’s a no.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This citation was given by Don Ruggero in post #35, and the question I have asked is this: is the pope saying that capital punishment is now to be considered intrinsically evil? It’s a yes or no question, but it would surely clarify the discussion if someone would take a stand on the matter. My own position is that the comment does not change the traditional teaching of the church that capital punishment is not in fact intrinsically evil. So that’s a no.

Ender

Have you stopped beating your wife yet Ender?
Its a yes or no question …

 

[Ender]

This citation was given by Don Ruggero in post #35, and the question I have asked is this: is the pope saying that capital punishment is now to be considered intrinsically evil? It’s a yes or no question, but it would surely clarify the discussion if someone would take a stand on the matter. My own position is that the comment does not change the traditional teaching of the church that capital punishment is not in fact intrinsically evil. So that’s a no.

Where did everybody go? “What do you believe the pope was saying?” is not a trick question. Is no one willing to offer an opinion? I will grant that one can rarely feel sure he has interpreted this pope’s comments accurately, but that’s no reason not to take a stab at explaining them. Anybody?

Ender

 

[Rau]

Where did everybody go? “What do you believe the pope was saying?” is not a trick question. Is no one willing to offer an opinion? I will grant that one can rarely feel sure he has interpreted this pope’s comments accurately, but that’s no reason not to take a stab at explaining them. Anybody?

Ender

Of course Don should answer first since he provided the quote. Evidently the truth to be taken from it can’t be that CP is intrinsically evil. “In today’s world…” removed the “intrinsically” from the assessment. The statement lists the very negative characteristics (consequences) of CP - the implication being that (in today’s world) there are other alternatives with a far preferable balance of consequences and thus no justification to choose CP.

 

[Ender]

Of course Don should answer first since he provided the quote. Evidently the truth to be taken from it can’t be that CP is intrinsically evil. “In today’s world…” removed the “intrinsically” from the assessment. The statement lists the very negative characteristics (consequences) of CP - the implication being that (in today’s world) there are other alternatives with a far preferable balance of consequences and thus no justification to choose CP.

This argument had not occurred to me but it’s a very good one - and convincing. For something to be intrinsically evil it must be so in all circumstances, and not limited to “today’s world.” The fact that the condition is qualified implies that outside of that qualification it would not be prohibited, which means that it cannot be intrinsically evil.

Ender

 

[Rau]

This argument had not occurred to me but it’s a very good one - and convincing. For something to be intrinsically evil it must be so in all circumstances, and not limited to “today’s world.” The fact that the condition is qualified implies that outside of that qualification it would not be prohibited, which means that it cannot be intrinsically evil.

Ender

Some will respond that “CP in the face of other alternatives/good prisons etc” is “intrinsically evil”. IMHO that is a contradiction in terms - a misuse of the term “intrinsically evil”. There is no need to characterize it in that way. If one keeps folding circumstances into the act itself, then there might be infinitely many “immoral” acts called intrinsically evil. What would be the point of that? CP in those particular circumstances may certainly be immoral and the Church might have s strong argument in favor of that conclusion. But it’s a decision for each to make.

If alternatives do as much good as CP, then it becomes difficult to support CP in view of the death it entails.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If one keeps folding circumstances into the act itself, then there might be infinitely many “immoral” acts called intrinsically evil.

You mean like killing the innocent?
My apologies, I didn’t mean to fold in an “innocent” victim circumstance…that would make killing intrinsically evil and we all know that killing is not intrinsically evil .

 

[Rau]

You mean like killing the innocent?
My apologies, I didn’t mean to fold in an “innocent” victim circumstance…that would make killing intrinsically evil and we all know that killing is not intrinsically evil .

“Innocent” is not a circumstance (in the moral theology context). Killing is an insufficient description of an act to assess morality, let alone whether it might be intrinsically evil.

 

[Ender]

You mean like killing the innocent?
My apologies, I didn’t mean to fold in an “innocent” victim circumstance…that would make killing intrinsically evil and we all know that killing is not intrinsically evil.

Well, we do know that killing per se is not intrinsically evil because that’s what the church teaches. Some killing is in fact legitimate. Capital punishment either is or is not intrinsically evil, but if it is then there are no cases where it is legitimate. It does not mean that there are specific cases where it is illegitimate.

Ender

 

[Blue_Horizon]

“Innocent” is not a circumstance …

If you had done any decent moral theology studies you would understand that both the object and “circumstance” fonts have their own defining details which are also called “circumstances” in the English language. The trick is to understand the principles by which we distinguish which belong to which font. You just failed your moral theology final exam methinks .

Do you believe aircraft blackboxes are actually painted black?
The same novice mistake.

Another theologically untrained layperson who wades beyond their depth and who looks at the pointing finger rather than the reality pointed to .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

State killings either are or are not intrinsically evil.

If “personal killings” can be both … then pray tell why “State killings” MUST be only one or the other?

Look to the reality not the pointing finger (ie the words “capital punishment”) …think about it.

 

[Rau]

…both the object and “circumstance” fonts have their own defining details which are also called “circumstances” in the English language. The trick is to understand the principles by which we distinguish which belong to which font.

Obfuscation. The double use of the word does not deflect from the valid point I made (Post #93) which provided the context for Post #95. Try to keep up Blue.