Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Catholic publications call for end to capital punishment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
    Conservative Catholics, like the Evangelicals with whom they have been allies for a few decades, are at least somewhat less likely to oppose the death penalty. If you look into the comment boxes on the Register site, you'll see for yourself how some segments of their readership feel about it.
    Yes, I was thinking more of the Catholic Church as a whole. Polititicians tend to loosen their standards on religious issues. I've seen plenty of that with conservative Catholic polititicans regarding fiscal issues, and liberal Catholic politicians regarding social issues.

    I am not personally acquainted with any pro-life organizations that do not offer resources to mothers and children after birth. The talking point you raise refers most directly to nominally anti-abortion (Republican) politicians who also favor austerity with respect to welfare, and to a certain extent, I can grant that point. Politicians, most particularly on the right, don't all take the implications of an anti-abortion stance to heart, but in my own experience, people on the ground are quite willing to give of their own time, talent, and treasure to support young women and their children.
    Well said.
    Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Spartacus
      The stance on the death penalty is a prudential one: because we have the means to reliably prevent criminals from causing any further harm to society without killing them, we should rely on those means rather than taking a life. It is no longer necessary for the defense of the common good for the government to take the lives of criminals it has apprehended such that it is able to put them on trial, therefore it is no longer moral for them to claim that right.
      What exactly are the means that we can use to prevent criminals from doing any more harm to society?

      Keeping them in overcrowded prisons that we as taxpayers are funding?

      "Rehabilitating" them, allowing them out on parole? I have to tell you that this one is risky. So many people let out on parole reoffend, no matter how "rehabilitated" they are. One murderer in Canada was released on parole this past week and promptly disappeared and a warrant is out for his arrest, which stretches the police further.

      With the modern advances in science using dna and so on, there is no reason for fear that the wrong person will be executed any more. Which, aside from "human rights", is the best argument for abstaining from the death penalty.

      Nowadays, not so much a good argument. And I can guarantee that the person executed in a swift and humane manner will never perpetrate another crime against anyone, and it WILL be a deterrent to others.


      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
        It functions as one major argument. Careful readers will not that I have not used it in anyway to dismiss the anti-death penalty stance; I merely note it as a form of terrible argumentation that is part of the trend.

        The other arguments, which you claim are rational don't interest me because I post in this thread not to argue on the issue of death penalty.
        If arguments about the morality of the death penalty don't interest you, then you're only dragging the thread off-topic. You have no business here. If not for the fact that I see a need to correct what I said last night (that's what I get for posting after midnight), I'd tell you to get out of my thread.

        It is ironic and rather amusing that you accuse me of being emotivist given your defense of 'abhorrent', projecting your own flaws when your defense of that line of argument fails. Why indeed, some persons would consider it tu quoque.
        Emotivism does not refer to moral statements that stem from emotional reactions, but to the school of thought that attempts to reduce all moral statements to emotional reactions. If one believes that moral judgments are, in the end, just expressions of emotional reactions, then one is an emotivist. If, on the other hand, one believes that our emotions are given to us by God and that they can offer us some insight into the natural law imprinted on our hearts-- that is, that both the anger of the victims' families and the sorrow of the perpetrators and their families point us toward a deeper understanding of both divine justice and divine mercy-- and that we can reflect deeply upon these insights, systematize them, and use them to create a more just society, then one is anything but an emotivist. You are contributing to the trend of emotivism; the authors of the editorial most certainly are not.
        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Yttrium View Post
          Yes, I was thinking more of the Catholic Church as a whole. Polititicians tend to loosen their standards on religious issues. I've seen plenty of that with conservative Catholic polititicans regarding fiscal issues, and liberal Catholic politicians regarding social issues.
          http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...-death-penalty

          That piece discusses some of the relevant statistics r.e. Catholics' stances on capital punishment. You may find it of interest.
          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by mossrose View Post
            What exactly are the means that we can use to prevent criminals from doing any more harm to society?

            Keeping them in overcrowded prisons that we as taxpayers are funding?
            Hyper-incarceration is a problem all its own. Personally, I'd rather be funding schools and promoting strong families than building more prisons.

            "Rehabilitating" them, allowing them out on parole? I have to tell you that this one is risky. So many people let out on parole reoffend, no matter how "rehabilitated" they are. One murderer in Canada was released on parole this past week and promptly disappeared and a warrant is out for his arrest, which stretches the police further.
            Sure, it's risky. Mercy is always risky. But I don't think we're talking about paroling the sorts of people for whom we would be entertaining the possibility of the death penalty. We need to think seriously about what constitutes rehabilitation, and I'd be open to that conversation.

            With the modern advances in science using dna and so on, there is no reason for fear that the wrong person will be executed any more. Which, aside from "human rights", is the best argument for abstaining from the death penalty.
            The fact that DNA evidence has exonerated not a few death row inmates should lead us to think carefully about what it is about our justice system that made us so ready to condemn people to death on such apparently flimsy evidence.

            Nowadays, not so much a good argument. And I can guarantee that the person executed in a swift and humane manner will never perpetrate another crime against anyone, and it WILL be a deterrent to others.
            The implementation of the death penalty is not swift-- the period from conviction to execution is fairly lengthy-- and the methods themselves (lethal injection most of all) are questionable at best with respect to how humane they are.
            Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
              http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...-death-penalty

              That piece discusses some of the relevant statistics r.e. Catholics' stances on capital punishment. You may find it of interest.
              That's pretty interesting. Some of the comments down below are interesting too.

              Personally, I have nothing against the death penalty on principle. I do realize that it's become so expensive and cumbersome that it's not really useful. I also happen to be a white American, although non-religious. I can understand the cultural influences on American Catholics.
              Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                If arguments about the morality of the death penalty don't interest you, then you're only dragging the thread off-topic. You have no business here.
                Not at all. The title of the thread is 'Catholic publications call for end to capital punishment', not something along the lines of 'Should we keep the death penalty?' Hence, commenting about said call and how it aligns with long-term cultural trends is perfectly apropos.

                You are contributing to the trend of emotivism; the authors of the editorial most certainly are not.

                I still await a coherent explanation of how I contribute to emotivism, but I doubt it'll happen.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Not at all. The title of the thread is 'Catholic publications call for end to capital punishment', not something along the lines of 'Should we keep the death penalty?' Hence, commenting about said call and how it aligns with long-term cultural trends is perfectly apropos.



                  I still await a coherent explanation of how I contribute to emotivism, but I doubt it'll happen.
                  I just provided one, but here's one in slightly more depth. Emotivism, in its most pernicious form, attempts to dismiss all moral statements as nothing more than expressions of an emotional approval or disapproval-- that "x is immoral," really just means "I don't like x". The emotivist refuses to entertain any further discussion, insisting that anything further is really just an elaboration on "i don't like x". That's precisely what you've done: you've seized on the word abhorrent as proof that, whatever else the editorial may say, they're really just trying to justify their emotional reaction.

                  Emotivism as a moral theory is ultimately not about legitimizing certain kinds of moral statements, but about reducing all moral judgments to the same plane, a point at which they can all be easily dismissed.
                  Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                    That's precisely what you've done: you've seized on the word abhorrent as proof that, whatever else the editorial may say, they're really just trying to justify their emotional reaction.
                    You are entirely mistaken. My point is that the editorial is advancing an argument to provoke an emotional reaction in readers that will be the foundation of their subsequent moral judgment.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                      The stance on the death penalty is a prudential one: because we have the means to reliably prevent criminals from causing any further harm to society without killing them, we should rely on those means rather than taking a life. It is no longer necessary for the defense of the common good for the government to take the lives of criminals it has apprehended such that it is able to put them on trial, therefore it is no longer moral for them to claim that right.
                      Were prisons only just invented? Was the court of law only just invented? What advance do you think makes capital punishment no longer necessary?
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        You are entirely mistaken. My point is that the editorial is advancing an argument to provoke an emotional reaction in readers that will be the foundation of their subsequent moral judgment.
                        If that's what you mean, then you were mistaken to invoke emotivism, and my error in interpretation is justifiable. I'm also not entirely sure how I might draw a line between what you refer to as "an argument to provoke an emotional reaction" and what is generally referred to as a thesis statement.
                        Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Were prisons only just invented? Was the court of law only just invented? What advance do you think makes capital punishment no longer necessary?
                          Prisons are far more reliable in modern times than in the past: we can be quite certain of our capacity to indefinitely prevent the imprisoned person from harming anyone else.

                          Under this general theory, capital punishment is only ultimately justifiable (whatever secondary social benefits it may have) as an act of collective self-defense. Just as we would not want a police officer to use a gun when a taser will suffice, we should not want our judicial system to employ the noose when cells and shackles will suffice.
                          Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                            The stance on the death penalty is a prudential one: because we have the means to reliably prevent criminals from causing any further harm to society without killing them, we should rely on those means rather than taking a life. It is no longer necessary for the defense of the common good for the government to take the lives of criminals it has apprehended such that it is able to put them on trial, therefore it is no longer moral for them to claim that right.
                            Agreed for those reasons. It's the difference between self-defense and cold blooded murder writ large.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Spartacus View Post
                              When a necessary evil is no longer necessary, it is simply an evil, and we can regard it as abhorrent.
                              a necessary evil????

                              God commanded the death penalty in the Mosaic Law for various crimes. If it is evil, then you are calling God evil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                a necessary evil????

                                God commanded the death penalty in the Mosaic Law for various crimes. If it is evil, then you are calling God evil.
                                God also allowed divorce under the mosaic law, and I seem to recall Jesus having said some words about that.
                                Don't call it a comeback. It's a riposte.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Today, 12:06 PM
                                1 response
                                29 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:43 AM
                                25 responses
                                144 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Backup
                                by Backup
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:27 AM
                                14 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by seer, 06-17-2021, 11:25 AM
                                7 responses
                                73 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by oxmixmudd, 06-17-2021, 11:16 AM
                                67 responses
                                433 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X