tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6256838373981111033..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Augustine on capital punishmentEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27107946843169413052019-07-01T15:00:22.858-07:002019-07-01T15:00:22.858-07:00David:
By saying that I was unsure of part of you...David:<br /><br />By saying that I was unsure of part of your comment, I was avoiding criticizing it until I understood you better, and was implicitly inviting you to expand on it.<br /><br />That sort of courtesy should be common in a discussion like this, and is far preferable to sarcastically prefacing insults with the phrase "with all due respect".<br /><br />I'm recommending that courtesy not because it makes everyone feel good, but because it helps one not look foolish by criticizing an argument that wasn't made. For example, it was clear that I would affirm Zizek's narrow point. A belief in God can cause people to justify moral abominations (e.g., killing practicing homosexuals, Protestants, rape conducted during cherem etc.) That could have caused to ask what the larger point is. <br /><br />And from my original statement of Zizek's position, it would be clear:<br /><br />> Zizek has an interesting rejoinder to Dostoevsky's claim that without God, anything is permissible. He points out that one might as well say, *with God*, anything may be permitted. <br /><br />So, had you put any effort into reading what I said, it would be clear to you that I agree with Zizek that religion can cause people like Didymus to justify moral atrocities (and even fantasize about them in public). But I disagree with Zizek that the existence of God would render moral abominations permissible. As I've been asserting this whole time.<br /><br />Given that you had trouble following these threads, I would not have minded spelling it out for you.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12567939676785826032019-06-17T02:27:09.828-07:002019-06-17T02:27:09.828-07:00David McPike: "And the maiming is a penalty f...David McPike: <i>"And the maiming is a penalty for what he did"</i><br /><br />If maiming is a penalty that (somehow) seeks to prevent him murdering again if he should escape, it is still a punishment for what he has not done, and unjust on that account. The fact that it is imposed by a court does not make it permissible, nor does the fact that he is very dangerous. And in any case, our hands are our own property, and neither part of the common destination of goods, nor some kind of shared social currency. So it would be a theft to take them away.<br /><br />David McPike: <i>"DP necessarily involves intention to kill"</i><br /><br />I don't agree. All three ways in which our actions may knowingly lead to someone's death (self-defense, just war, capital punishment) are double-effect.<br /><i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-10277511462596186722019-06-16T05:44:36.343-07:002019-06-16T05:44:36.343-07:00Here's the idea with 'thinking,' Paul....Here's the idea with 'thinking,' Paul. You're supposed to be thinking about what might be wrong with your own ideas. I've given multiple illustrations of what's wrong with your ideas. You're supposed to be thinking about that so that you can see the truth (which contradicts your position). You can refuse to do that all day long, but that just demonstrates your antipathy to the truth, which only you can overcome (psychism is not at all relevant).<br /><br />So when I "switched the subject" to maiming (think!) that illustrates another alternative to the DP (or even your faux conditional-DP-if-escaping), which is exactly the subject we were discussing. And the maiming is a penalty for what he did - remember, it's a judicial sentence executed on a certifiable <b>very dangerous repeat murderer</b>. <br /><br />And again, use of deadly force is not equivalent to DP and there is no scenario where the intention to stop a prisoner from escaping must be accompanied by the <i>intention</i> to kill him, even if one might <i>foresee</i> that the actions required will kill him (double effect, remember?). And DP necessarily involves intention to kill. Therefore, etc.<br /><br />So you're still obviously wrong, but if you don't want to see it... well, carry on!David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-157210534211012152019-06-15T13:45:13.916-07:002019-06-15T13:45:13.916-07:00David McPike: "The shooting to incapacitate a...David McPike: <i>"The shooting to incapacitate an escapee is a completely separate thing from the alternative judicial sentence of maiming to incapacitate from further murderous activity."</i><br /><br />I understand. Unfortunately your comment (<i>"Shoot with intention to incapacitate, not kill. And go ahead and maim the guy, put his eyes out, for example, and cut his hands off"</i>) addressed those two things in successive sentences (with a conjunctive 'and'), without any clue that they were suggesting actions to be taken on very different occasions. (I do think, but I am not psychic.)<br /><br />I have claimed that if a prisoner is on the point of escaping, it would be a legitimate sentence to allow him to be acted on with deadly force. You've suggested shooting to incapacitate would be possible, as it would indeed, <b>sometimes</b>. But you've given no reason to suppose it would <b>always</b> be possible. It would not be always possible to avoid the use of deadly force.<br /><br />And you completely switched the subject away from what to do when a prisoner is about to escape, to the subject of what penalty might be appropriate to prevent the prisoner from escaping. Maiming the prisoner is an obviously unjust action, because it penalizes them for something they <b>might</b> do, rather than something they have actually done. So I can't agree with that.<br /><i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26433254571811936312019-06-15T13:10:17.738-07:002019-06-15T13:10:17.738-07:00"Now I disagree with Zizek... Zizek's nar..."Now I disagree with Zizek... Zizek's narrow point is one that is empirically verified."<br /><br />So, you disagree with empirical evidence.Didymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36648759508179136962019-06-15T12:51:09.618-07:002019-06-15T12:51:09.618-07:00Thomas:
"I'm not sure I parse the latter ...Thomas:<br />"I'm not sure I parse the latter part of your comment."<br /><br />Maybe try harder? You disagree with Zizek, yet you find his view is proven correct by this discussion and empirically. Trying to have it both ways? That's annoying. His view is stupid and your claim about empirical verification is stupid. But since you <i>actually</i> disagree with him, I'll assume you realize that, and are just floating lazy insincere rhetoric because that's a thing you like to do... (Also, with due respect, your 'reasonable certainty' about this that and the other is really of no interest to me. If you would attempt to provide a reasonable argument, that would be much more compelling.)David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33978926494786163442019-06-15T12:37:45.192-07:002019-06-15T12:37:45.192-07:00Paul, dude. The shooting to incapacitate an escape...Paul, dude. The shooting to incapacitate an escapee is a completely separate thing from the alternative judicial sentence of maiming to incapacitate from further murderous activity. You've got to think, man. As for "never, ever ... reasons for killing an escaping convict": I never, ever said that (and please read up on double effect if you need to to properly understand the moral principles that contextualize what I did say) and in any case that has nothing to do with what I did say: There are <i>always</i> possible alternative measures besides the DP. Therefore, etc.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21985257123046440742019-06-15T11:28:07.956-07:002019-06-15T11:28:07.956-07:00"In accordance with Holy Scripture and the co..."In accordance with Holy Scripture and the constant tradition of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, the Church did not err in teaching that the civil power may lawfully exercise capital punishment on malefactors where this is truly necessary to preserve the existence or just order of societies (see Gen 9:6; John 19:11; Rom 13:1-7; Innocent III, Professio fidei Waldensibus praescripta; Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. III, 5, n. 4; Pius XII, Address to Catholic jurists on December 5, 1954)"<br /><br />Wait, Genesis? An Evangelist? An Apostle? A medieval Pope? A medieval Council? Why aren't they considering the historical situatedness!?!?!?Didymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68787689737692212642019-06-15T11:24:12.882-07:002019-06-15T11:24:12.882-07:00Thomas,
I imagine soon enough you'll be makin...Thomas,<br /><br />I imagine soon enough you'll be making allowances for the 'historical situatedness' of the Evangelists. We know from popular opinion and sexy modern thinkers that the Gospels are mythology.<br /><br />They call it a slippery slope, but you're already at the bottom drowning. I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74840609511861971122019-06-15T11:19:39.814-07:002019-06-15T11:19:39.814-07:00Thomas,
Well, argument, discussion, whatever you&...Thomas,<br /><br />Well, argument, discussion, whatever you'd like to call it, is usually the point of these things. If you're not interested in that, what's the point of writing anything at all? Just trolling? Like to read yourself type?<br /><br />Anyways, if the traditional Christian position is as wrong as the idea of a flat Earth - and that idea can be proven wrong, not just dismissed as unsexy - you should be able to refute it easily. I mean, you haven't even put up the equivalent of a picture of a globular Earth from space.<br /><br />Now, as your for psycho analyzing: am I really more interesting than you? Here we have a so called believer dismissing the ideas of a majority of Christians and Christian thinkers throughout time and space because they're not worthy of his serious consideration, because they're disreputable, because comic books, because Ed Feser once said something to him, because other name-dropping, because flat Earth, because ISIS, ultimately because they're just not sexy. Your modernist, fascist thinking is the ultimate form of "I'm not crazy, everybody else is!" I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19362351065578484732019-06-15T09:55:12.243-07:002019-06-15T09:55:12.243-07:00George LeSauvage: "In any prison escape, the ...George LeSauvage: <i>"In any prison escape, the guards are going to try to prevent it by force, up to and including shooting the escaping cons."</i><br /><br />In some parts of the world, including some parts of the USA, the guards would then be charged with murder. That is reality. (So, not <i>any</i> prison escape.)<br /><i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16946301212495270842019-06-15T09:54:46.176-07:002019-06-15T09:54:46.176-07:00David McPike: "And go ahead and maim the guy,...David McPike: <i>"And go ahead and maim the guy, put his eyes out, for example, and cut his hands off... You clearly have alternatives to killing him! "</i><br /><br />Can I point out that, in the context of prior arguments, you are defending the belief that there <b><i>are never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever</i></b> reasons for killing an escaping convicted murderer.<br />Do you in fact believe that? (For example, if the escaping murderer is 100 yards from the prison, and about to escape into a concealing forest, your suggestions of putting his eyes out and cutting his hands off are not practical.)<i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32361545649788791782019-06-15T08:43:32.266-07:002019-06-15T08:43:32.266-07:00David:
I'm not sure I parse the latter part o...David:<br /><br />I'm not sure I parse the latter part of your comment. I'm reasonably certain, however, that when we are told that with God all things are possible, it's not in reference to intrinsic moral evils such as genocide or child sacrifice.<br /><br />Anyway, Zizek's narrow point is one that is empirically verified. It's quite frequently the case that people in secularized countries move from a system of norms that would not tolerate, for instance, killing one for their religious beliefs, to one that embraces such moral atrocities. Radicalized Islam is the common example, but as this discussion shows, certain forms of Christian religious beliefs can also induce people to accept that sort of thing (or at least to publicly fantasize about it).Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28962147189658515342019-06-15T08:34:02.868-07:002019-06-15T08:34:02.868-07:00Didymus:
You seem to think I'm interested in ...Didymus:<br /><br />You seem to think I'm interested in providing an argument that the death penalty should not be applied to heretics. I'm not. I agree wholeheartedly with Edward Feser when he responded to a similar objection that I had raised that applying the death penalty to heretics is unworthy of serious consideration. As I recall, he stated it shouldn't be taken any more seriously than the proposal that capital punishment be carried out by Marvel characters.<br /><br />I don't think Dr. Feser's response exactly answered my objection at the time, but it embodied a reflexive moral sanity and entrenched good judgment. As far as I know, there are no reputable contemporary defenders of the death penalty in Catholic circles who defend the view that the death penalty should be applied heretics, practicing homosexuals, theives, drunken disorderly children, or adulterers. Just as we discard the author of Genesis' view of a flat earth topped by a solid dome, so we are willing to make allowances for the historical situatedness of Augustine or Aquinas.<br /><br />So I have no more intent to take seriously your arguments, any more than I would for a flat earther. Which is not the same thing as saying there is no argument that could be made. Rather, I think it is interesting as a sociological fact that certain forms of Christian belief can cause one to fantasize on the internet about the variety of people they think worthy of death. Whether this could manifest itself in the real world, as certain forms of radicalized Islam manifested in ISIS, is a matter for our national security and law enforcement agencies, not philosophical debate.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5536525408691570832019-06-15T08:22:55.388-07:002019-06-15T08:22:55.388-07:00Tony,
Thank you for your reply. I had not consid...Tony,<br /><br />Thank you for your reply. I had not considered all that in that way. I am,<br /><br />DidymusDidymushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02339106708590191194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50377893925360565992019-06-15T07:36:08.899-07:002019-06-15T07:36:08.899-07:00In the example I gave, there was a sentence of a c...<i> In the example I gave, there was a sentence of a court, with the penalty being life in prison (in order to protect society) combined with court permission to execute the offender if necessary (if there was no other means to protect society). It's a legitimate (if conditional) application of the death penalty. If the escaping prisoner was not a danger to society, then killing them would be murder.</i><br /><br />That sounds bizarre. In any prison escape, the guards are going to try to prevent it by force, up to and including shooting the escaping cons. They will not sit down and look up which ones have that special proviso on their sentences. <br /><br />Your argument here seems wholly detached from reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40044114358405328772019-06-15T07:30:42.159-07:002019-06-15T07:30:42.159-07:00When I say "obviously," that's becau...When I say "obviously," that's because it's obvious. Think man! An obvious alternative is to not kill the guy! Shoot with intention to incapacitate, not kill. And go ahead and maim the guy, put his eyes out, for example, and cut his hands off... You clearly have alternatives to killing him! Again, your conditional sentence, "if there is no other means to protect society," is one which is strictly speaking <i>never</i> fulfilled. Please don't adduce any more ridiculously ineffective counter-examples.David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9082873792710464902019-06-15T06:45:10.764-07:002019-06-15T06:45:10.764-07:00If we allow the death penalty for theft, will we a...<i>If we allow the death penalty for theft, will we admit that human life is a fair trade for an inanimate object?</i><br /><br />The punishment does not regard merely the object stolen: the proportion is properly determined by reference to the malice of the act of violating the law, and the degree to which the offender's will is turned away from the common good. Thus a first-time offender's will may be presumed (absent additional information) to be less SET upon evil than the repeat offender. And (in the conditions of the example above) the theft of a horse when horses are critical to survival implies the malice of disregarding life itself. <br /><br />Similarly, in some situations, the malice involved in adultery (especially the sort that involves pre-meditated seducing of a person who was - otherwise - a faithful spouse) is grave, potentially even to the extent of life itself, for adultery destroys the family and the lives of the children, including the children who now never will come to exist because of the separation of the spouses. The mental and emotional disorder caused to the children (and, cascades down to the lives of THEIR children) is grave indeed, something our culture makes far too light of. <br /><br />I am not the "Tony Stark" jerk below. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55601097124253603612019-06-14T21:02:00.972-07:002019-06-14T21:02:00.972-07:00David McPike: "It would be use of extreme for...David McPike: <i>"It would be use of extreme force to enforce compliance with police officials"</i><br /><br />We disagree. In the example I gave, there was a sentence of a court, with the penalty being life in prison (in order to protect society) combined with court permission to execute the offender if necessary (if there was no other means to protect society). It's a legitimate (if conditional) application of the death penalty. If the escaping prisoner was not a danger to society, then killing them would be murder.<br /><br />David McPike: <i>"there would obviously(!) still be alternative measures possible"</i><br /><br />I am not sure what you mean here. In the case I gave, a very dangerous repeat murderer is about to escape unhindered into society at large and (perhaps I should have stated this explicitly) will surely kill repeatedly again. What alternative measures are you are asserting "obviously" exist that <b>will definitely</b> protect society at least as well as shooting him?<i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20640319358597030362019-06-14T21:01:17.728-07:002019-06-14T21:01:17.728-07:00TN: "the judgement call on what constitutes t...TN: <i>"the judgement call on what constitutes the alternative means and where those means exist, is, again, a judgement call. Surely you must see this. "</i><br /><br />As far as that goes, I have never thought otherwise, and we are in agreement. But, as I have been pointing out, what JPII has said is both a prudential judgment, <b>and</b> a statement of what principle must guide any prudence (i.e. the principle that lesser means than the death penalty must not be available). They are separate things. Different parties might come up with differing prudential judgments, <i><b>but</b></i> the prudential judgments must be derived from the same principle.<i>Paul Connors</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/07680921344657507646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56518322470247897672019-06-14T18:25:34.248-07:002019-06-14T18:25:34.248-07:00Any "goodness" done by an atheist must b...Any "goodness" done by an atheist must be based on altruism... which is just turning tricks for friends without regard for consequences.ErotemeObelusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6334742949786074422019-06-14T16:32:43.440-07:002019-06-14T16:32:43.440-07:00With God all things are possible (Mt 19:26). Zizek...With God all things are possible (Mt 19:26). Zizek's point, however, seems a stupid one. And since Thomas disagrees with it (good thing), it seems odd to cite it here (clearly the discussion here does not prove Zizek right, as Thomas claims, while contradicting himself -- it's a bit annoying, that kind of rhetoric).David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32248349548423199392019-06-14T16:18:36.853-07:002019-06-14T16:18:36.853-07:00Paul, your attempt to provide a counter-example ob...Paul, your attempt to provide a counter-example obviously fails. The scenario you provide doesn't even constitute a genuine case of execution of the death penalty. It would be use of extreme force to enforce compliance with police officials. That's simply not even a case of DP. And even if it were, it wouldn't be a counter-example to (2), since there would obviously(!) still be alternative measures possible. (Moving goal posts isn't part of an intelligent, constructive discussion -- please try to avoid that.)David McPikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04997702078077124822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75632461712815971802019-06-14T16:03:22.285-07:002019-06-14T16:03:22.285-07:00The Law of Symmetry, which is a law of nature, or ...The Law of Symmetry, which is a law of nature, or Natural Law if you like, (both phrases mean the same thing) is a Law of Beauty. <br /><br />It is expressed in the Natural Moral Law as <br /><br />"Eye for an eye,<br />Tooth for tooth,<br />Life for life". <br /><br />The penalty of theft is time in jail--not the death penalty. <br /><br />As Didymus points out, horse stealing was not just simple theft---for endangering the life of the owner and his family. Out on the range, out in Timbuktu, out in the Badlands, horses spelt life or death, the procurement of vittles and such. In the case 175 years ago, it was necessary to put the death penalty on horse-stealing. Didymus is correct in his analysis above. W.LindsayWheelerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06236577164127792348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85693190493377669252019-06-14T14:56:48.543-07:002019-06-14T14:56:48.543-07:00Paul Connors,
"when there are alternative m...Paul Connors, <br /><br />"when there are alternative measures to protect society" is a prudential judgement. It's fine to say it is a moral absolute that one should consider alternative means; that's fine. But the judgement call on what constitutes the alternative means and where those means exist, is, again, a judgement call. Surely you must see this. <br /><br />The pope can't infallibly judge that all prisons in all locations meet the criteria to make the death penalty inadmissible. Neither can he judge that the prison system in general meets the criteria. The prison system didn't protect society from Ted Bundy after he escaped twice. So does the prison system meet the criteria of protecting society sufficiently to invalidate the death penalty? <br /><br />It's just plain as day: deciding what means is sufficient to protect society is a prudential judgement. I can't keep saying just so you can keep avoiding it. Thanks for the discussion.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.com