It is quite simple.
Given this definition, “inadmissible” is nothing more than a judgment that its use is unwise. That judgment may or may not be accurate, but as it is a judgment it does not compel assent, and, while it would be inadmissible for anyone who agreed with that judgment, it would be admissible to those who disagreed with it.
The death penalty is or was not merely for justice. After all, Justice will be done in the Judgment. Rather, it is or was justice in addition to other benefits that it acquires.
Justice is never an ultimate end in itself. And justice never stands by itself in a vacuum. Justice and mercy are a seamless garment.Kei:
All punishment is primarily about justice. Yes, there are several other ends (protection, rehabilitation, deterrence) but the one thing required above all for every punishment is that it is just. The death penalty is no different in that regard.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making here. If human life was always and in every case the ultimate good then how do we reconcile church teaching that allows the taking of human life (in however extreme the circumstance)? The church has never adopted this extreme pacifist position so it would seem that while human life is an undoubted good, it is not always the ultimate one.
Sanctity of human life.goout:
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making here. If human life was always and in every case the ultimate good then how do we reconcile church teaching that allows the taking of human life (in however extreme the circumstance)? The church has never adopted this extreme pacifist position so it would seem that while human life is an undoubted good, it is not always the ultimate one.
Given your opinion, that indicates that “admissible” only means ‘wise’. Wise then being according to the prudential judgement of civil governments serving the common good in the past.Emeraldlady:
Given this definition, “inadmissible” is nothing more than a judgment that its use is unwise. That judgment may or may not be accurate, but as it is a judgment it does not compel assent, and, while it would be inadmissible for anyone who agreed with that judgment, it would be admissible to those who disagreed with it.
I agree. There is divine justice which is Gods part and there is human justice which is symbolic of divine justice. The end of human justice is the common good and that involves punishing crime in a manner that serves society and human dignity first and foremost.Emeraldlady:
The death penalty is or was not merely for justice. After all, Justice will be done in the Judgment. Rather, it is or was justice in addition to other benefits that it acquires.
Yes, and “inadmissible” is a judgment that it is unwise in current circumstances. It is a practical judgment about which action will have the more beneficial result; it is not a moral judgment that a particular act is immoral.
Not exactly. People are punished now as before, not for what they threaten to do in the future but because of what they have already done. Yes, it is pursuant to what is good for society, but the good at which punishment is aimed primarily is not protection. It is justice, and justice is no less significant now than it was in the past.
Correct. Not sure what you are arguing about. We have prisons. Fines. Confiscations. Restitutions.goout:
Not exactly. People are punished now as before, not for what they threaten to do in the future but because of what they have already done. Yes, it is pursuant to what is good for society, but the good at which punishment is aimed primarily is not protection. It is justice, and justice is no less significant now than it was in the past.
What is the nature of the Church’s guidance on the subject if not in it’s capacity as a moral guide?Emeraldlady:
Yes, and “inadmissible” is a judgment that it is unwise in current circumstances. It is a practical judgment about which action will have the more beneficial result; it is not a moral judgment that a particular act is immoral.
Determining what works best is not a moral calculation; it is a practical one. It is the church’s role to tell us what the moral rules are, but It is our responsibility to apply them in particular circumstances. She specifies the ends, we determine the means.
Is your position then, that any time in history the Church has addressed the death penalty, it is just an opinion with no moral weight?Emeraldlady:
Determining what works best is not a moral calculation; it is a practical one. It is the church’s role to tell us what the moral rules are, but It is our responsibility to apply them in particular circumstances. She specifies the ends, we determine the means.
Of course not. The question of whether the death penalty is ever valid is a moral issue, just like the question of whether abortion is ever valid. The church has said yes to the former, and no to the latter. The issue of whether an action that is not per se immoral in character is the right solution in particular instances is a judgment; it is not a moral choice. The church teaches that states have the moral right to employ capital punishment for serious crimes. That carries doctrinal weight. Church doctrines are silent on exactly when the state should apply it or refrain from it. Opposition to the application of the penalty is a judgment. That’s what we’re seeing today.
lol. It’s like trying to walk around on a moving floor, reading your posts. Or running around the field chasing moving goal posts.Emeraldlady:
Of course not. The question of whether the death penalty is ever valid is a moral issue, just like the question of whether abortion is ever valid. The church has said yes to the former, and no to the latter. The issue of whether an action that is not per se immoral in character is the right solution in particular instances is a judgment; it is not a moral choice. The church teaches that states have the moral right to employ capital punishment for serious crimes. That carries doctrinal weight. Church doctrines are silent on exactly when the state should apply it or refrain from it. Opposition to the application of the penalty is a judgment. That’s what we’re seeing today.