The death penalty should be opposed in all circumstances.
I believe that the right to life is the cornerstone of human rights. It can therefore never legitimately be the purpose of the state to take life. There are of course cases where human life is taken as the consequence of other legitimate policies: e.g. the waging of a just war, a police operation to free a hostage, self-defence, etc. but in all these cases the loss of life is the consequence of the action, never its purpose.
It is from the protection of human life (even of evil-doers) that all other rights derive. (NB there are 12 US states which have no death penalty, so the US is not all bad on this issue.). No European country (except the dictatorship in Belarus) has a death penalty, nor does Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
Of course there are practical arguments against the death penalty: it’s irreversible in the event of mistake, it focuses attention on the criminal and not the victim, it equates the crime and penalty and therefore tells the criminal “yes’ you can kill, if you don’t mind dying, etc. But my fundamental objection is not practical but moral.
1 November 2017
Freedom: a couple of comments
Freedom needs to be considered in a social context for it to be fully meaningful.
At the core of the notion of freedom is personal is choice and absence of restraint, but there are three other ingredients to freedom that need to be considered.
First, freedom occurs in a social context, so the freedom of one person can be the unfreedom of another. (My right to play my piano against your right to quiet enjoyment of your property) To resolve this problem, we need the help of J. S. Mill’s rule that one has the maximum amount of liberty consistent with everyone else having the same freedom.
Second, the amount of freedom and the degree of choice one has is dependent on the level of development of society and the resources (wealth, education) available to its citizens. Poverty and ignorance restrict choice and therefore freedom.
Finally, collectives never enjoy freedom, individuals do, so the freedom of every individual counts. We therefore judge the level of freedom in society not by the average, but by the amount enjoyed by the person with the least freedom.
At the core of the notion of freedom is personal is choice and absence of restraint, but there are three other ingredients to freedom that need to be considered.
First, freedom occurs in a social context, so the freedom of one person can be the unfreedom of another. (My right to play my piano against your right to quiet enjoyment of your property) To resolve this problem, we need the help of J. S. Mill’s rule that one has the maximum amount of liberty consistent with everyone else having the same freedom.
Second, the amount of freedom and the degree of choice one has is dependent on the level of development of society and the resources (wealth, education) available to its citizens. Poverty and ignorance restrict choice and therefore freedom.
Finally, collectives never enjoy freedom, individuals do, so the freedom of every individual counts. We therefore judge the level of freedom in society not by the average, but by the amount enjoyed by the person with the least freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)