As an aside, I find it rather in congruent how some Objectivists are for abortion, but against the death penalty. It makes no logical sense that one would be in favor of killing the unborn, yet be hesitant in putting to death a murderer. Since Ojectivism places such a high value on life I would think that one would nurture and protect the most helpless and innocent life and condemn the man who has committed atrocities. not the other way around.
As an aside, I find it rather in congruent how some Objectivists are for abortion, but against the death penalty. It makes no logical sense that one would be in favor of killing the unborn, yet be hesitant in putting to death a murderer. Since Ojectivism places such a high value on life I would think that one would nurture and protect the most helpless and innocent life and condemn the man who has committed atrocities. not the other way around.
This is the death penalty thread. If you have something new to say about abortion, I suggest you go and post it in the abortion thread.
I won’t go into explaining the absurdity of saying we favor killing the unborn, but the other thing, “Objectivism places high value on life” is somewhat relevant to the thread. Politically (which is what we’re discussing), it would be a fair statement to say that Objectivism places high value on the individual. But to say that it places high value on life is not true.
Good idea. Juvenal would disapprove, but who cares about some old poet, and the fact that you’re doing your best to live down to his view of humanity:
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who
once upon a time handed out military command, high civil
office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and
anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses
Collisseum it is. And if there’s a rebellion, we’ll crucify them on the side of the road all the way to Rome, to set an example for the others:
Pfft, right now there are too many people who would object to that for us to become a society that just wants “bread and circuses”.
Anyone who paid up for such a thing would never admit to it, and wear one of those masks
As an aside, I find it rather in congruent how some Objectivists are for abortion, but against the death penalty. It makes no logical sense that one would be in favor of killing the unborn, yet be hesitant in putting to death a murderer.
They are hesitant in putting to death an innocent man, not murderers. Also, a fetus is not an individual man, so I find these people entirely consistent: they defend the lives of individual, living human beings.
What is the question really? Does it make sense to ask: Is it moral for a “society” to enforce capital punishment on criminals?
I think of morality as something that is specific to an individual’s choices and actions. If we accept that government is a monopoly on force and the power of government comes from the consent of the governed, then what follows is the possibility of sanctioned lethal force. I don’t accept that a government can be moral or immoral. That seems to shift the concept from a definable individual to an abstract “society” where any direct responsibility for morality is lost.
For the government, if its constitution allows for capital punishment then it is fine. If the constitution prohibits it, then it is not.
I don’t accept that a government can be moral or immoral.
Governments are beyond judgement? They transcend mere mortal considerations such as good and evil?
Ah, no and no. Your hierarchy is breaking down between ethics and politics, because everything discovered about morality applies to government.
Governments are beyond judgement? They transcend mere mortal considerations such as good and evil?
Ah, no and no. Your hierarchy is breaking down between ethics and politics, because everything discovered about morality applies to government.
I don’t think my hierarchy is breaking down, I am just focused on the action and choice inherent in morality. Yes, you can make value judgments about particular forms of governments. I just think that there are distinctions that should be made between man (who makes choices and takes action via his free will) and an interdependent system of laws which are the construct of moral or immoral individuals.
Would you say your family is moral or immoral? If so, what exactly are you saying? Must it not always be reduced down to the individuals and their specific choices and actions?
I do understand that one might say, “that is an evil government,” or even contemplate a potentially “moral government”. I suppose that I just view that as improperly focusing only on standards as opposed to a more complete unification of standards, choice and actions.
As an aside, I find it rather in congruent how some Objectivists are for abortion, but against the death penalty. It makes no logical sense that one would be in favor of killing the unborn, yet be hesitant in putting to death a murderer.
It makes very logical sense when you take into account the differences in the principles involved and the relative context. The only context you seem to be considering is that both actions have one element in common without considering several other elements that are not in common. This is aside from how poorly you have misconstrued the two different issues as Jake has addressed.
If you want a better explanation of why the two are not the same you should start a thread that compares the two.
I do understand that one might say, “that is an evil government,”
That is a moral evaluation of that government.
For the government, if its constitution allows for capital punishment then it is fine. If the constitution prohibits it, then it is not.
- How is the constitution relevant?
Either option A is better, or option B is better - all depending on the context (what judicial system they have, in which cases will capitol punishment be implemented, etc). Both options can not be equally optimal. And whether the constitution says so or not is not relevant when it comes to what is the better option.
I am having a difficult time finding out the Objectivist position on the Death Penalty on the internet. Could someone clarify for me if the death penalty would be allowed in an Objectivist society, and why? Could someone clarify if it is moral and why? At what point does a person deserve the death penalty over life imprisonment without parole (which is, debatebly, worse, because they must live the rest of their life without freedom, etc. and then meet the same fate in the end).
Thanks
I can’t tell you what the Objectivist position is but I will say that it is immoral to execute the innocent. As the innocent are sometimes convicted, I cannot condone the death penalty.
I can’t tell you what the Objectivist position is but I will say that it is immoral to execute the innocent. As the innocent are sometimes convicted, I cannot condone the death penalty.
From a look about the internet, this seems to be the conclusion by the Objectivist school of philosophy, and I believe by Ms. Rand.
I find this argument at odds with Objectivist Epistemology. Can you not know someone is guilty then? The mere possibility of being wrong (i.e. you imagine you could be wrong) trumps the actual evidence that you are right? I can see where a rigorous standard of proof would be required, but I do not see an objective argument against the death penalty from a philosophical standpoint.
As a mental exercise, assume that science figures out how to cure aging. Human life becomes unbounded (we are not immortal, but we have no “expiration date”). What punishment is enough for a murderer in that scenario? 300 years in prison? 500? Life in prison for eternity (or until an accident or random ailment claims him)? In that scenario, only death seems to be punishment proportionate to the crime.
Back to the real world, as it is today, that insight shows us that sentencing a murderer to “life”, or 60 years, is actually an implicit death penalty (the person is expected to die and not ever rejoin society). We are just counting on aging to do the dirty work.
If you discover a man is innocent of the crime he was convicted in his youth of and release him at the age of 85 - that is really not much better than a wrongful execution (unless prison is a glorified hotel - which it should not be).
Can you not know someone is guilty then?
You can. Jack Ruby, Nidal Hassan, Sirhan Sirhan and others are known to be guilty.
The mere possibility of being wrong (i.e. you imagine you could be wrong) trumps the actual evidence that you are right?
No, because imagination is not a source of knowledge. Recall the discussion of certainty in OPAR ch. 5. Automatic gainsaying does not constitute counter-evidence. Reasons grounded in perception and its derivatives do.
You can.
(…)
imagination is not a source of knowledge
(…)
I agree. Why is the “death penalty would be appropriate but the risk of convicting an innocent makes it unacceptable” argument given credit as an Objectivist stance then?
I agree. Why is the “death penalty would be appropriate but the risk of convicting an innocent makes it unacceptable” argument given credit as an Objectivist stance then?
I would consider it to be a correct statement of reality and the Objectivist stance in the context of contemporary legal epistemology. In the current legal system, conviction of innocents is not just an arbitrary conjecture, it’s an established fact. Until that problem is resolved, the death penalty is in fact a huge injustice and moral obscenity.
I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there’s always that one chance that we can get it wrong
I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there’s always that one chance that we can get it wrong
Can you define “one chance” in mathematical terms? (one is a number, so you are in fact appealing to math, you should define your terms) Is it a 1% probability? 0.1% probablity? 0.01% probablility? And how do you calculate it?
What I’m getting at is that you’re wrong, there isn’t always a possibility that we’re wrong, there are cases in which we’re right.
I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there’s always that one chance that we can get it wrong
Let’s make this non-hypothetical. Can you tell me what the forensic issue could be in determining whether Nidal Hasan committed 12 murders?
I am really, really not sure about the death penalty. You can always kill a wrongly accused victim. No matter how much more advanced our forensics get, there’s always that one chance that we can get it wrong
That is prior commitment to philosophical skepticism even before examining the particulars of any case.