The Death Penalty--With a Twist!

Thanks to Kbub for a great debate! At this point, I will address Con's R3 Comments. OVERVIEW While I can agree that violent killing is normally wrong...but why is it normally wrong? Because most of us have our right to life, violent killing is typically an infringement of that right. However, there are two exception to that norm, one of which I explored primarily in my case, the second which I explored in my rebuttal. The first idea is that the choice of an individual, as the embodiment of their autonomy--the most fundamental moral element of a person, can override those rights. For example, if I chose to steal something from a store, I am choosing to be punished. So, even if my right is in place, my ultimately right is to have my choices respected, and therefore this outweighs other concerns. Secondly, I can opt to waive my rights. By stealing something, I give up my right to move freely, and must submit to imprisonment. These are clear exceptions that work in my favor insofar as (1) The Criminal chose death--so he has a right to death that supersedes other rights, and (2) The Criminal chose death, thus waiving his right to life. CON's CASE Con asserts that my points 2 and 3 misrepresent Con's case; i.e. that "revenge isn't inherently wrong...it's just not an appropriate excuse for murder (the DP)." Ultimately, the crux of my point was not about the wrongness of revenge, but rather that it wasn't morally wrong to kill someone who had waived their right to life, even if that death was motivated by revenge. This is because was make something WRONG is that it violates a right. When there is not right to violate, it cannot be wrong. Con suggests that rights are fickle, yet, if not our rights, then what determines our moral sphere in life? The only alternative I can see is some conception of human dignity, affirming my case. Moreover, claiming that rights are vague seems rather disingenuous, as most proposed criteria for morality are also vague or "fickle." Next, we can say that certain rights, life the right to life, are fairly straightforward--you're either alive, or your not. Violations of that right are pretty clear. Additionally, Con suggest that rights forfeiture theory leads to a slippery slope. I am not saying that by doing X crime, I give up all rights. merely, I give up those rights I expected to lose through my choice. For instance, if the penalty for X is 1 year in jail, I give up my right to 1 year of freedom. Thus, a slippery slope is largely averted; there are limits. Con then seems to make a contradiction...claiming that everyone's endowed with inalienable rights, but then denying the utility of the right paradigm. Moreover, Con's commits a logical fallacy here. Con asserts that just because the Declaration of Independence says we have inalienable right, we have inalienable rights. While not quite a bare assertion fallacy, Con puts forth an argument and just assumes its validity, without providing any analysis as to why it's true. Since it s con's argument, Con has the BOP to warrant the claim. My direct counter to Pro's claim would be that since choice is key in upholding one's human dignity, choice trumps rights, since choice is the most fundamental expression thereof. Con, moving on to my point 3, seems to shift the goal posts. First, Con says that " "there is no amount of immorality that excuses the State from acting immorally." The clear implication here was that revenge, as a form of demonization, is immoral. Thus, there is indeed a contradiction as I observed last round. My argument re: my first rebuttal is not that The Criminal literally kills themselves, but rather that they choose death. by knowingly doing something that I know could lead to death, I submit to my fate. con then misconstrues my point--I agree that the DP isn't about rehabilitation; but I am arguing that the choice itself is worth respecting out of an understanding of human dignity. therefore, even if the DP doesn't make the criminal better, Con is non-responsive to my assertion that the choice itself needs to be respected. Also, in this way the state isn't actually acting on a sense of vengeance, but is rather affirming the validity of The Criminal as a moral agent. Again, my case is not about demonizing the Criminal; it's whole premise is based on affirming the dignity of the all persons through respecting their power of choice. If you refer to last round, Con has yet to explain how his own remarks are demonizing. PRO's CASE Con has seen fit to give barely sufficient response to my case--all of which lack substance. I advised Con of my internal warrants, which Pro has neglected to respond too. Additionally, I have expanded on my arguments re: choice throughout this debate in all rounds. Essentially, it seems that Con has neglected to read my case, as Con has yet to address any of its logic directly, and who clearly see the connection I am drawing between autonomy and the DP, and autonomy and dignity. As yet, Con's dropped this warrants, and it's a bit late in the debate to rebut them, as it would leave me scarce time to respond. Thus, I rest. I turn thins over to Con...