Author Topic: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?  (Read 2404 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?

Quote
As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.” The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.

Please consider this excerpt only for its ethical position, not who wrote it, as that derail will lead to a political discussion, which is not the topic of this thread.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/ron-paul/government-ritual-murder/
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2015, 07:51:14 AM »
One could posit that the DP upholds the sanctity of life via demonstration that some things are so horrific, as in the taking of a life, mandate that person face the True God and one forfeit this life by an agent that upholds a true moral code, ideally the objective state in this case and not a vengeful and passionate mob.
It is a moral issue for the state to show justice.
The taking of innocent life for utilitarian moral principles is a perversion of the moral good. In your cited case, it would be the opposite, as "the greater good" is not the moral good, since there would be no appeal to justice but merely to animal-ism of fear and other lower ways of life, as it is not affirming life, thus violating Natural Law.
No soap.

Q: in error free cases and certainty is guaranteed, what would be the argument against capital punishment?
(this is in response to Ron Paul's issues in the cited piece)
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 07:58:06 AM by LenInSebastopol »
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2015, 07:55:54 AM »
The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

There are no such things as absolute metaphysical rights.

thus violating Natural Law.

Natural law, like natural rights, is nonsense upon stilts.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty.

Romans 13:4

Whether the death penalty should be abolished on practical grounds is another question altogether.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 08:06:22 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2015, 08:50:27 AM »
The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

There are no such things as absolute metaphysical rights.

thus violating Natural Law.

Natural law, like natural rights, is nonsense upon stilts.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty.

Romans 13:4

Whether the death penalty should be abolished on practical grounds is another question altogether.

Says the almost lawyer....when you get to the most prestigious law school, soon I pray, find that one prof that knows about such. He will be the quietest (and correct one).
Due to our American approach to cost, it should be abolished.....other than that, never.
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2015, 09:09:23 AM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:21:48 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2015, 03:33:13 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

As I understand it, Supreme Court Justice Clarence has a thing about Natural Law.
Maybe that's why he says next to nothing?

Given another life, I would find it "fun" to study law, both Natural and .........but being older than dirt......you young ones can carry on.... and it is such a breath of fresh air to know that we have good ones we are leaving behind.....since we really messed it up....just means a bit more work for y'all.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 03:35:45 PM by LenInSebastopol »
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2015, 04:03:27 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2015, 04:04:34 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 04:08:07 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2015, 04:16:54 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

On what then can we base our laws?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2015, 04:19:39 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

On what then can we base our laws?

What are laws based on these days? Not natural law, that's for sure. Practical expediency and popular morality, I suppose - if those two can be distinguished to any meaningful degree.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 04:20:08 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2015, 04:27:46 PM »
Seems current American law is based on utility, no?
Way out of my depth here, but I guess killing the most vulnerable creature on Earth is not N.L.
Thus there is no longer a compass in our laws?
And then there is the Positive Laws coming out to fill the voids?
Maybe I should go to the coffee shop proximal to the most prestigious law school in America?
Zounds!
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2015, 04:37:19 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

On what then can we base our laws?

What are laws based on these days? Not natural law, that's for sure. Practical expediency and popular morality, I suppose - if those two can be distinguished to any meaningful degree.
What if the popular morality leans toward totalitarianism?
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2015, 04:37:56 PM »
Seems current American law is based on utility, no?
Way out of my depth here, but I guess killing the most vulnerable creature on Earth is not N.L.
Thus there is no longer a compass in our laws?
And then there is the Positive Laws coming out to fill the voids?
Maybe I should go to the coffee shop proximal to the most prestigious law school in America?
Zounds!
Who knows what the heck our laws are based on now, certainly not the Constitution.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2015, 04:38:57 PM »
What if the popular morality leans toward totalitarianism?

Then totalitarianism is what they'll get and deserve.

Maybe I should go to the coffee shop proximal to the most prestigious law school in America?

I don't live in America.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 04:40:11 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2015, 05:11:39 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

I agree with this.  "Natural Law"  is incoherent.   Hume and his is/ought solution seems pretty solid.  It should be noted that this is not a call for "legal positivism", which has its own problems.  I think if an argument gets framed that way, you are given a false dilemma.  Looks at "common law" should help show that to be the case.

The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:18:53 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2015, 05:24:40 PM »
The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

The author is entirely caught up in his ideology, which requires the acceptance of certain axioms that he assumes everyone already embraces. Natural rights theory and natural law being amongst them. Kick those away and the entire edifice crumbles.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:25:05 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2015, 05:37:23 PM »
It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

I agree with this.  "Natural Law"  is incoherent.   Hume and his is/ought solution seems pretty solid.  It should be noted that this is not a call for "legal positivism", which has its own problems.  I think if an argument gets framed that way, you are given a false dilemma.  Looks at "common law" should help show that to be the case.

The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

Only if you assume the Hume's metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2015, 05:38:51 PM »

It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

I agree with this.  "Natural Law"  is incoherent.   Hume and his is/ought solution seems pretty solid.  It should be noted that this is not a call for "legal positivism", which has its own problems.  I think if an argument gets framed that way, you are given a false dilemma.  Looks at "common law" should help show that to be the case.

The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.




Only if you assume the Hume's metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions. And while space here does not provide for a full-throated defense of teleology, I suggest browsing Edward Feser's Blog or reading his book, Scholastic Metaphysics. What is interesting about Feser is that even though he is a Thomist, he engages Thomism from a contemporary, analytical view point.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:39:38 PM by Papist »
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2015, 05:41:43 PM »
The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

The author is entirely caught up in his ideology, which requires the acceptance of certain axioms that he assumes everyone already embraces. Natural rights theory and natural law being amongst them. Kick those away and the entire edifice crumbles.

These approaches are common.  If you see a Marxist interpretation of Hamlet, what you get is Marxism using Shakespeare's words.  When it asks you about ethical dilemmas they are completely contingent on the Marxist system (substitute the word "peace and love" for "dictatorship of the proletariat" or whatever.   The problem with thsee approaches is that they are a form of rationalism that can't be applied to human society.

So when someone asks if you are you for or against the death penalty and paint everything in these stark duelist terms....I think it's best to say you are against there methodology.

And yes, I am probably anti death penalty.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:42:44 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2015, 05:41:46 PM »
And again, I think a fair reading of this article by Thomist Philosopher Edward Feser is in order: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/10/whose-nature-which-law.html#more
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2015, 05:47:31 PM »

It wouldn't surprise me that some law profs use the natural law theory.

It's very convenient to be able to bring down divine laws surpassing human laws as if you're some sort of Moses, especially if you're a lawyer. Since there's very little evidence that there is such a thing as natural law, and since there's no consensus among natural law theorists what exactly the natural law is, it is useless, except for rhetorics.

You are right. When there is a lack of consensus it must not be true. I guess we need to do away with religion now.

I didn't say natural law wasn't true because of a lack of consensus, just that this lack of consensus makes natural law unusable in politics or the courts, and thus useless for anything more than coffeeshop philosophizing. Laws need to be widely known, agreed upon and enforced to be any good. Natural law lacks all three of those elements.

I agree with this.  "Natural Law"  is incoherent.   Hume and his is/ought solution seems pretty solid.  It should be noted that this is not a call for "legal positivism", which has its own problems.  I think if an argument gets framed that way, you are given a false dilemma.  Looks at "common law" should help show that to be the case.

The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.




Only if you assume the Hume's metaphysical and epistemological presuppositions. And while space here does not provide for a full-throated defense of teleology, I suggest browsing Edward Feser's Blog or reading his book, Scholastic Metaphysics. What is interesting about Feser is that even though he is a Thomist, he engages Thomism from a contemporary, analytical view point.

If you can put things in a means/ends framework when describing a human actor, I actually do defend teleology to a degree when looking at human sciences (history, psychology, etc).  But that has nothing to do with a theory of law.  It's effects on ethics, I think are overplayed though it's far from useless.

Aquinas and Aristotle  are the only two systematic philosophers to be worth reading in ethics...even if I'm not a thomist.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:50:24 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2015, 05:51:20 PM »
I'll look at those articles later, thanks for posting the links.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 05:52:54 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline Sinful Hypocrite

  • Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,292
  • The Lord helps those who help others
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2015, 07:21:45 PM »
Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?

Quote
As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.” The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.

Please consider this excerpt only for its ethical position, not who wrote it, as that derail will lead to a political discussion, which is not the topic of this thread.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/ron-paul/government-ritual-murder/


Remember that Jesus said "Only God is good" (Luke 18:19), and that our belief is based on the fact that we are all sinners, guilty.

 Jesus sacrificed His life, the only truly Innocent who ever lived among us, so that we could be forgiven. And He made clear in the Lord's prayer to forgive others , so that we may also be forgiven, if I think I am innocent, then I am not a believer in Him.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 07:33:33 PM by Sinful Hypocrite »
The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #23 on: June 24, 2015, 08:20:14 PM »
Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?

Quote
As strong as the practical arguments against the death penalty are, the moral case is much stronger. Since it is impossible to develop an error-free death penalty system, those who support the death penalty are embracing the idea that the government should be able to execute innocent people for the “greater good.” The idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their right to life for imaginary gains in personal safety is even more dangerous to liberty than the idea that the government should be able to force individuals to sacrifice their property rights for imaginary gains in economic security.

Opposition to allowing the government to take life is also part of a consistent pro-life position. Thus, those of any ideology who oppose abortion or preemptive war should also oppose the death penalty. Until the death penalty is abolished, we will have neither a free nor a moral society.

Please consider this excerpt only for its ethical position, not who wrote it, as that derail will lead to a political discussion, which is not the topic of this thread.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/06/ron-paul/government-ritual-murder/

Let me just take this quote:

1.  In so much as you have human judgment that is relevent  to human actions, you are subject to human error.  Including  a look at hardcore moral perscriptions and rational articulations.
    a) the very nature of a court and trial system acknowledges human error as the reason why we have courts and trials.

2.  We still act, even with error.  The institutions we have inhereted all acknowledge that fact, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

3. When talking about "big ideas in society  " , It is more important to respect the rules of the game of the institutions we have inhereted than a positive "top down" moral perscription.  It's not about "sacrifice for the greater good", it is about looking at the rules under which we operate.  Who is the final judge jury and executioner of the alternative?  The pope, the president, the poltiburo, anarchy?  Whether the author of the article admits it or not, we are arguing about rules not individuals (and in this case "individual" is itself an abstraction).  Whatever  errors the author may be critiquing, I would bet a nickel his alternative would contain errors as well....I would bet another nickel that they are graver errors in human perscriptions to world problems.

This is not a debate about concern for the individual (let's assume everyone cares).....it's about a look at rules.  I think the "democratic" system of open trial by jury is going to be the best system that will lead to more humane  conclusions in spite of its faults....top down moral law will not.  I think the best arguments against the death penalty will be more arguments against scale of "top down" law theory.  It will not come from calling people  who oppose you evil, reactionary, bourgeois, or whatever.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 08:50:13 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #24 on: June 24, 2015, 08:34:09 PM »
And Edward  Feser  on capital punishment:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/03/capital-punishment-should-not-end.html


So there you have it, a natural law theorist using his rational  system to support his politics.  The first article  cited uses natural  law to abolish capital punishment, the latter defends it.  Ayn Rand uses natural law, so do Marxist "theologins".

Holy Toledo!

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2015, 09:11:43 PM »
What if the popular morality leans toward totalitarianism?

Then totalitarianism is what they'll get and deserve.

Maybe I should go to the coffee shop proximal to the most prestigious law school in America?

I don't live in America.

Lol,

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

- H. L. Mencken
Holy Toledo!

Online RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,136
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2015, 09:25:29 PM »
you know william t i thought you avatar was belle from beauty and the beast
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2015, 09:31:12 PM »
you know william t i thought you avatar was belle from beauty and the beast

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Serebriakova


I can't recall  that Pushkin line on your signature 
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:35:22 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2015, 11:18:09 PM »
The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

The author is entirely caught up in his ideology, which requires the acceptance of certain axioms that he assumes everyone already embraces. Natural rights theory and natural law being amongst them. [b]Kick those away and the entire edifice crumbles.[/b]

Allow me to ask, is that not the case with most ever construct?
And in this case the difference is....?
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 11:18:58 PM by LenInSebastopol »
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline William T

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,473
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #29 on: June 24, 2015, 11:45:19 PM »
The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

The author is entirely caught up in his ideology, which requires the acceptance of certain axioms that he assumes everyone already embraces. Natural rights theory and natural law being amongst them. [b]Kick those away and the entire edifice crumbles.[/b]

.

Allow me to ask, is that not the case with most ever construct?
And in this case the difference is....?
Law is not necessarily   (and I would say it is not primarily) a rational  construct.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 11:46:05 PM by William T »
Holy Toledo!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2015, 06:19:48 AM »
The prose in the article cited is too polemical for it to present a clear conception of much.  The writer has to already assume you agree with his general premises a d therefore  a sermon for insiders, or it is pure propaganda.

The author is entirely caught up in his ideology, which requires the acceptance of certain axioms that he assumes everyone already embraces. Natural rights theory and natural law being amongst them. [b]Kick those away and the entire edifice crumbles.[/b]

Allow me to ask, is that not the case with most ever construct?
And in this case the difference is....?

Don't get caught up in those constructs and embrace realpolitik, I'd say.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 06:22:50 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2015, 06:25:13 AM »
Law is not necessarily   (and I would say it is not primarily) a rational  construct.

Laws are more of an expression of the mores and culture of a people. Laws don't need to be at all rational.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 06:25:35 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2015, 07:51:41 AM »
Law is not necessarily   (and I would say it is not primarily) a rational  construct.

Laws are more of an expression of the mores and culture of a people.
Laws don't need to be at all rational.

SHUT UP!
You are fired!
I am shocked, truly.
Few, but a very vocal minority, in America wish to have marriage laws regarding homosexuals changed, however courts are changing them. Such do not express the mores and culture of this nation.

I was peripherally involved in a minor class action court case with the judge appointing me as an "expert" for the issue, then appointed a Special Master to arbitrate between the two parties outside the court. During one meet the Special Master declared that the specific amounts of monies for each item were ARBITRARY, but had to be set and determined via historical processes and rational. We did and all went was miserably worked out and fixed.
If that is what you mean, forgive me and I will hire you back. However I am shocked.....and you wish to enter law?
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2015, 02:50:13 PM »
Law is not necessarily   (and I would say it is not primarily) a rational  construct.

Laws are more of an expression of the mores and culture of a people.
Laws don't need to be at all rational.

SHUT UP!
You are fired!
I am shocked, truly.
Few, but a very vocal minority, in America wish to have marriage laws regarding homosexuals changed, however courts are changing them. Such do not express the mores and culture of this nation.

I was peripherally involved in a minor class action court case with the judge appointing me as an "expert" for the issue, then appointed a Special Master to arbitrate between the two parties outside the court. During one meet the Special Master declared that the specific amounts of monies for each item were ARBITRARY, but had to be set and determined via historical processes and rational. We did and all went was miserably worked out and fixed.
If that is what you mean, forgive me and I will hire you back. However I am shocked.....and you wish to enter law?

Recently there was a report in the news that a bunch of tourists got into trouble because they walked around naked on a mountain considered holy by a tribe of savages in Malaysia, and thus, according to the tribesmen, caused an earthquake by angering the ancestral spirits. It wasn't any less of law because it is irrational. I believe they were indicted on several accounts. Laws are generally products of certain cultures and religions, not of abstract reasoning. This is true of most of our own laws as well, but we're less able to see it.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 02:53:03 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline LenInSebastopol

  • Dimly Illumined
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,595
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2015, 06:39:25 PM »
Law is not necessarily   (and I would say it is not primarily) a rational  construct.

Laws are more of an expression of the mores and culture of a people.
Laws don't need to be at all rational.

SHUT UP!
You are fired!
I am shocked, truly.
Few, but a very vocal minority, in America wish to have marriage laws regarding homosexuals changed, however courts are changing them. Such do not express the mores and culture of this nation.

I was peripherally involved in a minor class action court case with the judge appointing me as an "expert" for the issue, then appointed a Special Master to arbitrate between the two parties outside the court. During one meet the Special Master declared that the specific amounts of monies for each item were ARBITRARY, but had to be set and determined via historical processes and rational. We did and all went was miserably worked out and fixed.
If that is what you mean, forgive me and I will hire you back. However I am shocked.....and you wish to enter law?

Recently there was a report in the news that a bunch of tourists got into trouble because they walked around naked on a mountain considered holy by a tribe of savages in Malaysia, and thus, according to the tribesmen, caused an earthquake by angering the ancestral spirits. It wasn't any less of law because it is irrational. I believe they were indicted on several accounts. Laws are generally products of certain cultures and religions, not of abstract reasoning. This is true of most of our own laws as well, but we're less able to see it.

As in both cases, Orthodoxy and those tribe's peoples rely on Tradition, if not written code, which is grounded in a reality whether some realize it or not. Those that do not realize it may need education or insight into the foundations of law, no matter what the culture.
As many are judging that tribe for cause & effect (tick off the gods and rumble city village) and we can only give them statistics on such....and that is not considered "proof" in either culture!  ;D
God is The Creator of All Free Beings

Offline Sinful Hypocrite

  • Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,292
  • The Lord helps those who help others
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Should innocent persons be forced to sacrifice their lives?
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2015, 09:33:50 PM »
Most people I know who have a problem believing in God will use the argument of , "Why does God let bad things happen to innocent people".

I heard someone ask our Greek orthodox priest that once, and he was at a loss to answer it, I think that only God knows the answer to it, and any arguments about it are flawed by the sins of the flesh.

This is an important issue for Orthodox Christians though,because it goes to the core of judging others sins,which IMHO is only possible by God.
The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“