capital punishment

[adrift]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

The consequences of a human act must be on balance good for the act to be moral.

This doesn’t answer my question. Common good was mentioned please point out the place where the words common good occur.

 

[adrift]

You do understand that not excluding something opens perhaps a very narrow door? It merely says circumstances can exist where the act would be moral. The Church is telling us that these days, that crack is exceedingly narrow.

What I don’t understand is your sentence it isn’t making sense. Not excluding what? Perhaps you should rephrase.

 

[Ender]

And it’s use can be absolutely be immoral. Even when the punishment, per se, is just. To go ahead and deploy it if one knows it is a “bad idea” (adverse consequences outweigh the good) is an immoral act.

I think we’re all agreed that doing something one knows will turn out badly is immoral, but that has never been the issue. Since it is not possible to know all of the consequences before hand two people can legitimately come to opposite conclusions with neither position being immoral

Of course, it may be difficult to weigh the consequences, though recent Pope’s have done that.

Yes, they have certainly offered their opinions on the subject, but let’s not forget that “weighing the consequences” is a judgment, nothing more.

Ender

 

[Rau]

This doesn’t answer my question. Common good was mentioned please point out the place where the words common good occur.

LongingSoul should respond. I took that notion to be central to assessing the balance of consequences.

 

[Rau]

What I don’t understand is your sentence it isn’t making sense. Not excluding what? Perhaps you should rephrase.

It seems perfectly clear to me so not clear how to make it plainer. The Church does not exclude capital punishment. That can be an extraordinarily weak endorsement of it. The circumstances when it is OK can be arbitrarily narrow, and still attract that description of “not excluded”.

 

[Tomdstone]

Are all moral judgements easy, and answerable with certainty by reference to a book? Of course not. Intrinsic evil is definitive, prudential judgement is not.

So, intrinsically speaking then, if someone is convicted of a capital crime, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with burning her at the stake? Even though it may be somewhat painful and bad PR, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it?

 

[Tomdstone]

Tom, do you live in the real world?

I guess that this is another one of your ad hominem arguments. The fact that there are 10 commandments should tell us something about the danger of assuming the morality of an action is subjective and depends entirely on the circumstances.

 

[adrift]

It seems perfectly clear to me so not clear how to make it plainer. The Church does not exclude capital punishment. That can be an extraordinarily weak endorsement of it. The circumstances when it is OK can be arbitrarily narrow, and still attract that description of “not excluded”.

Perhaps because you understand your position but it was clear as mud to me. I am not trying to endorse capital punishment. Arbitrarily? narrow. That seems to be a weak argument against its use.

 

[Rau]

I think we’re all agreed that doing something one knows will turn out badly is immoral, but that has never been the issue. Since it is not possible to know all of the consequences before hand two people can legitimately come to opposite conclusions with neither position being immoral
Yes, they have certainly offered their opinions on the subject, but let’s not forget that “weighing the consequences” is a judgment, nothing more.

Ender

One does not need to know with certainty the balance of consequences is bad in order to choose not to use CP. CP is not some kind of default.

The position of 3 popes and the statements in the Catechism are Prima facie evidence of the balance of consequences in the indicated circumstances.

It is wrong to say that assessing consequences is always mere prudential judgement, though in CP (and putting aside the statements of the Popes) may well be that.

 

[Ender]

The Church does not exclude capital punishment.

You should be careful going further than this. This is the doctrine. The decision of whether to apply it in particular circumstances is a judgment about which people may come to different conclusions.

That can be an extraordinarily weak endorsement of it.

The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. This seems pretty clear

The circumstances when it is OK can be arbitrarily narrow, and still attract that description of “not excluded”.

The circumstances when it is OK to use it are dependent on two criteria: is it an appropriate punishment for the crime, and it is it a good idea to use it in a particular circumstance.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Perhaps because you understand your position but it was clear as mud to me. I am not trying to endorse capital punishment. Arbitrarily? narrow. That seems to be a weak argument against its use.

Speaking generally - if a thing is moral in very narrow circumstances, that seems to be an excellent reason to use extreme care in contemplating its use to ensure the circumstances are appropriate, for we know that in most circumstances, it will not be moral.

 

[Ender]

One does not need to know with certainty the balance of consequences is bad in order to choose not to use CP. CP is not some kind of default.

The default position is that the punishment be just, and we know that for some crimes the death penalty meets that criterion.

The position of 3 popes and the statements in the Catechism are Prima facie evidence of the balance of consequences in the indicated circumstances.

Opinions, even of popes, are not prima facie evidence of anything other than personal beliefs, in this case that using capital punishment is counterproductive. We are not evaluating facts here; these are judgments.

It is wrong to say that assessing consequences is always mere prudential judgement, though in CP (and putting aside the statements of the Popes) may well be that.

If assessing the consequences of an act is not a judgment, what is it? There is nothing that can inform us how an action, even taken with all due consideration, will turn out. We make a best guess, do what we think is right, and live with the consequences, whatever they are. Of course it is a judgment; there is nothing else it could be.

Ender

 

[Rau]

So, intrinsically speaking then, if someone is convicted of a capital crime, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with burning her at the stake? Even though it may be somewhat painful and bad PR, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it?

CP is not intrinsically evil. Torture is intrinsically evil. I think Ender addressed this earlier.

 

[Rau]

The default position is that the punishment be just, and we know that for some crimes the death penalty meets that criterion.

We have been over this before. CP is not the only just punishment, and Justness does not guarantee a moral act.

Opinions, even of popes, are not prima facie evidence of anything other than personal beliefs, in this case that using capital punishment is counterproductive. We are not evaluating facts here; these are judgments

. When offered in a running chat, you’re right. When written in an encyclical and the Catechism, they are elevated from mere opinion.

If assessing the consequences of an act is not a judgment, what is it? There is nothing that can inform us how an action, even taken with all due consideration, will turn out. We make a best guess, do what we think is right, and live with the consequences, whatever they are. Of course it is a judgment; there is nothing else it could be.

I made the general point - there are cases when the consequences can be weighed with certainty - honesty and adherence to moral principles is all that is required.

 

[Tomdstone]

CP is not intrinsically evil. Torture is intrinsically evil. I think Ender addressed this earlier.

Does burning alive at the stake qualify as torture?

 

[Tomdstone]

The circumstances when it is OK to use it are dependent on two criteria: is it an appropriate punishment for the crime, and it is it a good idea to use it in a particular circumstance.

An Islamic caliphate based on sharia law may hold that beheading is appropriate for treason and it is a good idea to behead those convicted of treason as they see it as benefiting the common good. OTOH, many people in the west would view such as evil. So which is it? Would it be intrinsically and morally acceptable for the Islamic caliphate to behead foreigners convicted of treason or not?

 

[Rau]

Does burning alive at the stake qualify as torture?

If the U.S. were to adopt it ( perhaps because they can’t use lethal Injection competently ), how would you feel about it?

 

[Rau]

An Islamic caliphate based on sharia law may hold that beheading is appropriate for treason and it is a good idea to behead those convicted of treason as they see it as benefiting the common good. OTOH, many people in the west would view such as evil. So which is it? Would it be intrinsically and morally acceptable for the Islamic caliphate to behead foreigners convicted of treason or not?

Is it right that CP is is a just punishment for treason? What about for petty theft?

 

[Tomdstone]

If the U.S. were to adopt it ( perhaps because they can’t use lethal Injection competently ), how would you feel about it?

I would feel bad about it. IMHO, it does look to me like burning a person alive at the stake is torture and should therefore be forbidden by the Church, since torture is taught to be wrong today. Although, death by hanging, the electric chair or by gas is not instantaneous and it can be argued that these too are methods involving torture, even though death, not torture, is the immediate goal of the execution. Beheading is said by some to be the most humane way of executing a person, which, if true, makes this method used by ISIS more humane than those used in the west?

 

[Tomdstone]

Is it right that CP is is a just punishment for treason? What about for petty theft?

There are many examples of where a country used CP as a penalty for treason. I don’t know of any country which has executed a hungry man for stealing a slice of pizza, although in the USA a hungry man was sentenced to life imprisonment for doing so. In some ways, life imprisonment in solitary confinement, can be worse than execution. The spy Robert Philip Hanssen was sentenced to such. But Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed. Hanssen and the Rosenbergs may not have been technically guilty of treason, but their crimes were in the general area of activities said to be treasonous.