Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Elle

Pro Choice = Pro Death Penalty?

Rate this topic

It was stated by my philosophy prof that those who claim to be Pro-Choice, must also be in favor of the death penalty in order to be morally consistent. Which statement most closely represents your position.  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. It was stated by my philosophy prof that those who claim to be Pro-Choice, must also be in favor of the death penalty in order to be morally consistent. Which statement most closely represents your position.

    • I am Pro Choice and Pro Death Penalty.
      47
    • I am Pro Life and Pro Death Penalty.
      2
    • I am Pro Choice and Anti Death Penalty.
      19
    • I am Pro Life and Anti Death Penalty.
      1


Recommended Posts

I was just curious to see what you all are going to say, and how you will explain it so I hope once you vote you will post and let me know what you think but more importantly why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would have been helpful if you had given your prof’s argument for why the two positions are thus tied. While the consistent position is in fact to be pro-choice and pro death-penalty, the usual argument for this position is that death-penalty and abortion are an acceptable de-valuation of human life in order to benefit the “common good” by eliminating orphans and criminals. This argument is bunk, of course. (The opposite is equally ridiculous.) Neither abortion nor the death-penalty devalue human life in any way.

The correct connection between the two is that human being have rights because they are rational individuals. Neither fetuses nor criminals can be dealt with as rational individuals, which is why they either do not possess or forfeit their rights. Of course the degree to which a criminal forfeits his rights is debatable.

Btw, since philosophy itself should be an integrated and consistent whole, any two ethical statements must be either consistent or inconsistent with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone does realize of course, that the statement attributed to the prof is a logical fallacy, right? It is not true that an individual MUST accept both positions to be morally consistent (note, the qualifier is morally consistent, not morally correct).

While I shouldn't be, given the nature of education in this country, I am none the less surprised that it was a philosophy teacher who supposedly made this assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I shouldn't be, given the nature of education in this country, I am none the less surprised that it was a philosophy teacher who supposedly made this assertion.

I would assume that it's fairly common for Philosophy professors to make claims like this not because they believe them, but to make their students think and thus encourage the formulation of arguments against them. The Philosophy professor should ideally want to teach both philosophy and critical thought rather than to force his own beliefs onto the class, and if 'pretending' to hold a position that he can personally find flaws in can help further this aim, so be it.

As to the topic, I am pro-choice and have no real opinion on the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

Before I discovered Objectivism, I had already reconcilled my views on these two issues. I found it hard to justify being pro-life, and then to support capital punishment. In my own pursuit of reason, and rationality in this insane world we live in, I had finally settled the arguement. I even took to calling it the "Pro-Death" stance. This not only includes abortion, and the death penalty. It also includes my views on assisted suicide.

It seems to me that to be consistent, one should be either pro-life. No abortion, No death penalty, no assisted suicide, no meat, no animal research, etc...

Or one should be Pro-death. Being the opposite of the above.

To be consitent in my beliefs I choose the latter of the two.

When I discovered Rand, I realized that the individual could and should be paramount. I have since taking to calling the opposing views, as Pro Freedom (Pro-death), and Anti Freedom (Pro-life)

As an aside, I will attempt to quote Ron White from the Blue Collar Comedy tour.

"In Texas if you are found guilty of murder and there are three credible witnesses we will kill you back."

Personally I think we ought to bring back the hanging tree. I get so tired of hearing about criminals that are going to jail for their third or fourth murder. If an animal is a threat to humans we kill it. Why not if a human is a threat to other humans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...