C
Crocus
Guest
I’d say it involves morality when it has the potential to harm a person mentally and spiritually, whose job is to end the life of another human being whose dignity is God given.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why does the US and so many of its citizens continue to support the death penalty?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
Rau
Guest
It calls into question the necessity of utilizing killing as punishment. That’s all.In order to oppose the death penalty this destroys the relationship between sin and punishment, and of justice itself. It calls into question some of the most basic teachings of the church.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Counseling is a task for a priest.I’d say it involves morality when it has the potential to harm a person mentally and spiritually, whose job is to end the life of another human being whose dignity is God given.
The arguments OneSheep used denied the relationship between sin and punishment; that those who sin deserve to be punished as a matter of justice.It calls into question the necessity of utilizing killing as punishment. That’s all.
C
Crocus
Guest
More and more, it seems the prudent course, for a variety of reasons, is to examine support for the death penalty. Overall it is unhealthy as an option for the common good.Counseling is a task for a priest.
Loading…
theweek.com
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
And that can be legitimately pursued as a practical objection to its use. It is not, however, a moral objection.More and more, it seems the prudent course, for a variety of reasons, is to examine support for the death penalty. Overall it is unhealthy as an option for the common good.
R
Rau
Guest
I was refuting you’re mis-characterization of what it means to oppose CP. It need mean no more than a recognition that killing is not necessary to punish, even murderers. And that it may well do more harm than good.The arguments OneSheep used denied the relationship between sin and punishment; that those who sin deserve to be punished as a matter of justice.
R
Rau
Guest
It most certainly is. There are 3 fonts of morality Ender. We may disagree in our assessment of a font, but not the implications should we perceive evil in any one.And that can be legitimately pursued as a practical objection to its use. It is not, however, a moral objection.
Last edited:
C
Crocus
Guest
When a course shows itself to be against the common good, it ceases to be a moral option. All that remains is to recognize it as such, and to reject it.It is not, however, a moral objection.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
While that is correct, good people may not recognise it. And their failure is not sinful.When a course shows itself to be against the common good, it ceases to be a moral option. All that remains is to recognize it as such, and to reject it.
O
OnAJourney
Guest
Because Americans generally don’t hold themselves up to what other western nations do, be it with healthcare or the death penalty. In America there’s a diversity of thought because of the cultural melting pot. You’re much less likely to get a unanimous belief about something like the death penalty as you would in a country like Sweden, Norway or any Western European nation that is mostly homogenous.
If you want to convince an American of something you can’t just point to other countries and say “do things this way.” As an American I can tell you the way to appeal to someone on issues like the death penalty is questioning the power and authority of government to levy such a penalty. Do we want the government to have the power to kill its own people via the criminal justice system? Is it wise to give any government that power? And how we do put in place a system of checks and balances to prevent the innocent from being killed by the state? The answer is simple; you can’t. And that’s why the death penalty as a punishment can never be justifiable in my eyes.
If you want to convince an American of something you can’t just point to other countries and say “do things this way.” As an American I can tell you the way to appeal to someone on issues like the death penalty is questioning the power and authority of government to levy such a penalty. Do we want the government to have the power to kill its own people via the criminal justice system? Is it wise to give any government that power? And how we do put in place a system of checks and balances to prevent the innocent from being killed by the state? The answer is simple; you can’t. And that’s why the death penalty as a punishment can never be justifiable in my eyes.
C
Crocus
Guest
This is true. May our eyes be open and hearts receptive.While that is correct, good people may not recognise it. And their failure is not sinful.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
Well, anything moral that is done immorally becomes immoral. Even giving to charity can be an immoral act if it is done for immoral reasons such as hiding one’s criminality, trying to impress someone for sexual purposes, etc.
And if the decision can be made that under certain circumstances an instance of CP would do more harm than good to the public order, then the decision can also be made that executing the criminal would do more good than harm to the public order.
The fact that CP could be “delivered” in an immoral manner does not show that CP cannot be moral.
And if the decision can be made that under certain circumstances an instance of CP would do more harm than good to the public order, then the decision can also be made that executing the criminal would do more good than harm to the public order.
The fact that CP could be “delivered” in an immoral manner does not show that CP cannot be moral.
A
Annie
Guest
Well, yes. And witnessing a murder is traumatic, and having a loved one murdered is traumatic.
And certaining witnessing 100s of executions would be traumatic.
In fact, psychological trauma is probably what led to blanks being used in at least one rifle in firing squads.
Prison guards, police officers, combat military personnel also suffer psychological trauma. These are all really difficult things to deal with.
Rotating executioners, blanks for whatever method is used, etc, are ways to reduce psychological trauma associated with performing an execution.
To me, the ideal would be that CP would be legal and we would never have to use it.
Unfortunately, there will continue to be people who will commit crimes so heinous that the death penalty would absolutely be justice.
And certaining witnessing 100s of executions would be traumatic.
In fact, psychological trauma is probably what led to blanks being used in at least one rifle in firing squads.
Prison guards, police officers, combat military personnel also suffer psychological trauma. These are all really difficult things to deal with.
Rotating executioners, blanks for whatever method is used, etc, are ways to reduce psychological trauma associated with performing an execution.
To me, the ideal would be that CP would be legal and we would never have to use it.
Unfortunately, there will continue to be people who will commit crimes so heinous that the death penalty would absolutely be justice.
R
Rau
Guest
I think what you are saying is that a good moral object furs not assure us of a good Act. That matches what I said to you earlier.Well, anything moral that is done immorally becomes immoral.
That’s true, but I did not suggest otherwise. We know CP can be a moral act, because it is not intrinsically evil. The recent Popes (and now the Catechism) contend that these days it is “inadmissible” - meaning “almost unthinkable”. Despite all appearances to the contrary - this is itself a prudential judgement.The fact that CP could be “delivered” in an immoral manner does not show that CP cannot be moral.
E
Ender
Guest
I was referring to a specific argument, not generic opposition. You didn’t address either the comment or my response.I was refuting you’re mis-characterization of what it means to oppose CP.
This is pretty vague, and could apply to almost anything.It need mean no more than a recognition that killing is not necessary to punish, even murderers.
Of course it could; I have acknowledged this any number of times…just as I have pointed out that this is a prudential and not a moral judgment.And that it may well do more harm than good.
Which font applies to determining whether something will work out well or ill?It most certainly is. There are 3 fonts of morality Ender. We may disagree in our assessment of a font, but not the implications should we perceive evil in any one.
It is immoral to do something you believe will be harmful, but there is no moral question involved in making the determination as to whether or not it will be harmful in the first place.When a course shows itself to be against the common good, it ceases to be a moral option. All that remains is to recognize it as such, and to reject it.
Exactly.While that is correct, good people may not recognize it. And their failure is not sinful.
R
Rau
Guest
Which really should be the end of the matter…And that it may well do more harm than good.
R
Rau
Guest
Is that a serious question. The Circumstances includes the foreseen consequences.Which font applies to determining whether something will work out well or ill?
E
Ender
Guest
As a Catholic it’s worth knowing where that authority comes from:As an American I can tell you the way to appeal to someone on issues like the death penalty is questioning the power and authority of government to levy such a penalty.
For the foundation of secular power is not grace, but nature.… (Bellarmine)
…let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God
(Augustine)
For 2000 years the church has taught that states have that right.Do we want the government to have the power to kill its own people via the criminal justice system?
It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures… (Bellarmine)
E
Ender
Guest
Determining what the outcome will be is a very different question than deciding what to do based on that evaluation. The choice of doing or not doing something harmful is a moral question, but determining whether or not an action will be harmful is not.Is that a serious question. The Circumstances includes the foreseen consequences.
R
Rau
Guest
Is there some point to that statement? We form a judgement about the consequences and that becomes a factor in judging the morality of the Act we contemplate. [And moral principles are applied in judging the consequences.]The choice of doing or not doing something harmful is a moral question, but determining whether or not an action will be harmful is not.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.