9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Philosophical debate
==Philosophical Debate==
==Philosophical Debate==
While the Biblical references cited above and the biblical phrase 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' are often invoked in favour of the death penalty, there are those who also point out the relevance of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Those who disagree with the death penalty point to the tautological nature of the moral argument wherein a State compels its subjects to not kill, yet retains the power to legally kill for itself. This places the moral authority of the State over that of the Individual, and the same laws do not apply. Because of this, opponents suggest that without a removal of the blanket ban on killing of all kinds, it is impossible to make a morally logical argument for the death penalty. Whatever the political position, the nature of a killing is technically [[Homicide]] - the debates occur over whether it is believed the homicide is justified or not.
While the Biblical references cited above and the biblical phrase 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' are often invoked in favour of the death penalty, there are those who also point out the relevance of the Commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Those who disagree with the death penalty point to the tautological nature of the moral argument wherein a State compels its subjects to not kill, yet retains the power to legally kill for itself. This places the moral authority of the State over that of the Individual, thus the same laws do not apply.
There is also an inherent logical inconsistency in the views of the supporters of the death penalty - traditionally, supporters tend to lean right politically (although this is certainly not always the case), and also tend to:
1. support the rights of the Individual over the rights of the State;
2. support absolutist moral rights over 'societal' rights;
3. support to the right of society not to have to pay taxes for the upkeep of the condemned;
4. support and a tendency to favor the support of the victim.
The logical inconsistencies in these arguments are evident:
1. Support of the moral authority of the State over the Individual is inconsistent
2. The death penalty is consistent with a morally absolutist viewpoint
3. Same inconsistency as 1)
4. Same inconsistency as 1)
Because of this, opponents of the death penalty suggest that without a removal of the blanket ban on killing of all kinds, it is impossible to make a morally logical argument for the death penalty. Put simply, Either All Killing is Legal, or All Killing is Not Legal. It is impossible to make a logically consistent argument that says that All Killing is Not Legal, except when practised by the State.
Whatever the political position, killing another human is [[Homicide]] - the debates occur over whether it is believed the homicide is justified or not.
== See also ==
== See also ==