Death Penalty

Hey again! I'm sorry that we seem to be going in circles...lol. It seems you dont understand my points for disagreeing so I'll be more explicit... So your argument as I understand it: The death penalty is wrong in a moral since because all killing is wrong. Govt executions (killing of offenders) are more wrong because it is the guardian or authority on what is right and wrong for us all (the society) and if it states that killing is wrong, then to kill people in the name of justice is hypocritical. You also offer the life-improsonment as a humane alternative to the dealth penalty, as it allows them the offender to continue to live. I hope I represented you accurately so that we can move on to the your response to my rebuttals. 1. Claims of right and wrong My first issue is with the moral judgment of right and wrong for any act, because it incorrectly assumes that everyone has/holds the same beliefs, that is to say, that what is right and wrong is universal and we know that this is not the case. People have different experiences and perceptions, and with those perceptions different values of what is good or bad for that individual. For example, some believe that it is wrong to kill or harm anything. Others believe its wrong to kill or harm humans, but necessary/natural (not wrong) to kill or harm animals. Still others believe that killing humans is not wrong, if it in self-defense. And still others believe that it is right to take a life in payment for another life (eye for an eye). Morality is based on one's experience, which is subjective, so in order to convince anyone of your point of view, you must appeal to something that is commonly held. This is why condemning anything as 'wrong' is pointless means of debate. The other more obvious fact of the ineffectiveness of claiming that something is morally wrong is that human beings act in contrary to their personal/moral beliefs all the time, meaning that we do things we consider 'wrong' all the time. So again, this is why I say that calling it wrong makes no difference, because we are all hypocrites, for some act or another. The same applies for your value judgments like barbarity, cruelty, antiquated, unprofessional; they don't demonstrate rationally why the death penalty should be abolished as a means of justice, just your preference among all the other preferences. 2. Your assumption that the govt execution is more wrong and hypocritical is problematic for me because killing and murder are not the same thing. Neither is revenge and justice...which i will attend to afterward... Killing is the act of extinguishing/destroying life. Murder is specifically, to kill unlawfully i.e., without valid justification. So if the application of the law for unlawful killing/murder is the death penalty, then it is hardly hypocritical unless they are killing people without just cause (caused established by the govt, not you or me) as the law states that the sentence for certain crimes is death. Your most recent response just slings around more terms of condemnation instead of addressing my problems with value judgments: So executions are now revenge for murder and not justice. But if justice is society's response to crimes committed against it or its citizens, then you're saying that any enforcement of law is revenge! Life imprisonment included!! This implies that your against all applications of the law...as law is only applied to actions already passed. You also say that nothing can "justify the killing of anyone who is not in the process of harming or attempting to harm someone" as though you're trying to make them seem innocent. I should remind you then, that justice is not carried out for the govt, but the citizens. If you were to say this during the sentencing of a convicted murderer, you might be attacked! Lol. This exhibits the same callousness as your 'too costly' argument. The whole point of freedom is personal accountability. I personally believe that if one wants to avoid the death penalty, he/she should exercise restraint i.e.,not commit capital offenses in those jurisdictions that warrant such justice, lol. As you said, the govt. is authorized by us to deciding what is best for society (making and enforcing laws). If it is to defend and uphold the autonomy of the citizen, then the citizen must accept responsibility for his/her actions, which includes knowing what actions are unlawful and the possible consequences. 3. Life imprisonment is more humane. Your proposal that for imprisonment as the humane option is also questionable considering the effect that prison has on inmates. Please see the link provided for the current state of the penal system. (https://aspe.hhs.gov...) The dehumanization of individuals who are incarcerated is well documented. So simply allowing an individual to continue to live out his life in captivity is not as humane/ civil as you say. If you'd propsed a valid means of rehabilitation/reintegration into society for the offenders, I might be able to give ground. But your proposal completely overlooks quality of life, which kind of discredits your claim. Yes, they are alive, but living in contrary to their design. Would you say that slave owners were humane because they fed clothed their slaves? What does human mean to you? Is it just a scientific classification? Have you seen the film Blackfish that documents the life of orca living in captivity at Seaworld? Lol. If you can say 'at least they are alive'...in the face of suffering so replete that it denies a human, or any other species the environment/experience for which it was intended, in which it flourishes, then you are issuing nothing less than a death sentence, because you have denied its right to BE. Captivity denies this right! A dog is not be a dog when chained. An orca is not an orca in a aquarium pool, and a human is not a human when caged or imprisoned for life. So, if imprisonment takes away that which defines us as man, our humanity, then I sincerely fail to see how it is more humane. On the whole, as I said before, I do think you have a valid motive, and so do others, as evidenced by the fact that the abolition of the death penalty is still occuring. See link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...) I'm just saying that your argument leaves much to be desired in the way of convincing, especially as you have yet to attend directly to my rebuttals and the alternative you offer is a poor solution.