tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8217818718936898268..comments2024-03-27T23:49:45.668-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Capital punishment at Catholic World ReportEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger115125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61557213231682790032018-10-23T08:21:15.180-07:002018-10-23T08:21:15.180-07:00ahhhh, one never tires of the usual splenetic mang...ahhhh, one never tires of the usual splenetic mangina response no doubt from an Irish man. As a fellow Irish man I can attest that my once proud nation is now a flood with soy boys and simpletons like Gerry above. Apparently his feminism is an attempt to curry favour with the girls he cant hope to date. Nice one Gerry, take off the vag ina hat and you might have more luck that way. Comedy gold Gerry, comedy GoldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47523626044243826532016-09-14T14:25:53.423-07:002016-09-14T14:25:53.423-07:00But I also think liberals tend to oppose the death...<i>But I also think liberals tend to oppose the death penalty out of determinism (no one is really, truly, guilty, and retributive punishment is evil) . . . .</i><br /><br />What's this "evil" stuff they're talking about? Don't they understand that people who legislate and carry out the death penalty can't help doing so, because their actions are determined by forces outside their control, and that it therefore makes no sense to describe those actions as either blameworthy or meritorious, good or evil?Seamushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065227784774273923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14163557924973272292016-08-17T14:48:51.887-07:002016-08-17T14:48:51.887-07:00Thank you JonathanThank you JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23073111946676238472016-08-08T09:56:18.035-07:002016-08-08T09:56:18.035-07:00@Anonymous:
From Summa Theolgiae, II.II.10.11:
I ...@Anonymous:<br />From <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm#article11" rel="nofollow">Summa Theolgiae, II.II.10.11</a>:<br /><br /><i>I answer that, Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. <b>Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred</b>: thus Augustine says (De Ordine ii, 4): "If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust."</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17099464187076622585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71433451291476588412016-08-06T13:50:28.256-07:002016-08-06T13:50:28.256-07:00@Jonathan Watson
I would be very interested to kno...@Jonathan Watson<br />I would be very interested to know where Saint Thomas says that.<br /><br />@Everyone<br />Does Thomas ever say we should limit a sentence where something lesser can be offered?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17916155016642365412016-08-03T16:30:12.307-07:002016-08-03T16:30:12.307-07:00It got me thinking about corporal punishment in sc...<i>It got me thinking about corporal punishment in schools ... Just goes to show the importance of the ethos with which one is familiar.</i><br /><br />Exactly. Hence the US Constitution's prohibition of cruel or <i>unusual</i> punishment. I, too, experienced corporal chastisement in (private) school in the 80s, and it was much less traumatic for me than it would be for my students today for whom it would represent a radical departure from everything they have hitherto experienced. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17099464187076622585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16772486603842719452016-08-03T16:12:30.969-07:002016-08-03T16:12:30.969-07:00There's nothing in Natural Law that says you h...There's nothing in Natural Law that says you have to punish all crimes to the fullest extent of justice. St Thomas, in fact, argues that there are cases where it makes sense for the state to look the other way if the effort to stamp out the offending evil would cause even more evil as a result.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17099464187076622585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3704691526473238232016-07-28T17:25:58.277-07:002016-07-28T17:25:58.277-07:00LOL...leaving post as is.LOL...leaving post as is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342621611914276946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91944207564706010542016-07-28T17:25:15.814-07:002016-07-28T17:25:15.814-07:00"To be consistent Dr. Feser we would have to ..."To be consistent Dr. Feser we would have to offer the death penalty to abortionists too and the women who knowingly procured their services also."<br /><br />Very disturbing thought. I would like to hear dr. Federal thoughts on this.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06342621611914276946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32468530143822909982016-07-28T12:38:58.663-07:002016-07-28T12:38:58.663-07:00...regarding the death penalty. I also probably wo......regarding the death penalty. I also probably would argue practical implementation of policy surrounding most of these issues would be rife with compromise. Leave that for another time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57541639433901324722016-07-28T12:29:20.347-07:002016-07-28T12:29:20.347-07:00I too have seen the "generous " nods of ...I too have seen the "generous " nods of condescending tolerance from liberal colleagues when upon finding I am against the death penalty they seem to allow I am not without hope. But apart from consistency in anti-death I am tempted to point out all these issues are frustrations of Gods will. They would be so embarrassed they wouldn't know where to look, or hey would explode in arguement. It got me thinking about corporal punishment in schools which I had the opportunity to enjoy...twice. It was simply something you put up with. I am against it but it occurs to me that students today would be traumatized. Just goes to show the importance of the ethos with which one is familiar. And I still disagree with Geg et al.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13771598961461870392016-07-28T10:40:18.045-07:002016-07-28T10:40:18.045-07:00I do not see the issue of the death penalty as a p...I do not see the issue of the death penalty as a pragmatic matter of common ground with liberals, not even subconsciously. That a state, in an appropriate situation, can take a life or that a person can use reasonable force to take a life, as a matter of defense, are not an issue for me. What is problematic is that it shouldn't be seen as a 'good'. Where applicable it should simply not be part of the possible punishments applied by a normal civilian court. <br /><br />Of course miscarriages of justice can happen even without the death penalty. That only goes to strengthen the argument I am making i.e. that the death penalty, in most places in the world today, is theoretically permissible but ethically detestable since it goes well beyond the limit of what a punishment should reflect in a Christian context when, in truth, it is unnecessary and can undermine many of the goods to which the Christian and Christ's Church have been directed. Remember the woman caught in adultery? Jesus <i>could</i> have chosen to let her be stoned according to the law of Moses. He did not.<br /><br />The death penalty is in theory directed towards the unjust. Abortion and Euthanasia are directed towards the innocent (in the context of punishment for particular crimes etc.). I see the issues as separate. Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24633732343010462652016-07-28T08:14:52.554-07:002016-07-28T08:14:52.554-07:00" ... I also think liberals tend to oppose th...<i>" ... I also think liberals tend to oppose the death penalty out of determinism (no one is really, truly, guilty, and retributive punishment is evil) and sentimentality (what matters is conscious life and what is bad is pain and the frustration of desire, etc.). So I think the common ground is superficial."</i><br /><br />That is a good observation, and leads us on to naturally ask the following question: once moral agency is abolished in the name of secular humanism; what is the residuum of the object to which secular humanism attends so solicitously?<br /><br />And of course, once you abolish teleology and try to anchor your major premise in the free floating construct of a pointless locus of appetite, what deductions, or even persuasive inferences are you capable of drawing from such an "anthropology"?<br /><br />As you know, the answer is "none".DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35344028725591569532016-07-28T08:08:18.533-07:002016-07-28T08:08:18.533-07:00"Anon2 said...
I do not understand why...<br /><br /><i>"Anon2 said...<br /><br /><br /><br /> I do not understand why people are simply avoiding what I am actually saying. If you kill someone then they are dead. If you lock someone up for life and some time later it is discovered they are not guilty etc. then the person can be released."</i><br /><br />Ok then: can you conceive of any possible scenario in which you would think that there could be no mistake regarding guilt?<br /><br />You don't even have to take that in a judicial context. Make it a personal scenario if you like. Suppose a man broke into your house and was beating your wife to death. He stops when you enter the room and stands up to face you. Could you be sure, by your own standards of evaluation, that that man was the man who had just committed the act? I won't ask you if you feel justified in killing him.<br /><br />The man who killed Robert Kennedy: do you take it as certain beyond all reasonable - or rational for that matter - doubt that the killer was Sirhan Sirhan?<br /><br />How about Jack Ruby's killing of Lee Harvey Oswald: do you consider that a moral certainty?<br /><br />What would it take to establish that there was no possibility of error?DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52547027096486928802016-07-27T19:05:05.390-07:002016-07-27T19:05:05.390-07:00And finally, I'll admit, I am American, but no...And finally, I'll admit, I am American, but not hugely traditionalist, although I think that the arguments of recent popes against the death penalty have been less than decisive.<br /><br />It is also easy to speculate about the psychologies of those who oppose the death penalty. On the one hand, it springs from a false (in my view) understanding of the seamless garment / consistent ethic of life. But unless you think the death penalty is immoral <i>in principle</i>, that is a non-starter, for what makes the death penalty wrong would not be the same thing that makes abortion or euthanasia wrong.<br /><br />Similarly, I think it is sometimes treated as a way to find common ground with liberals, so that it can be used as leverage in arguments against abortion and euthanasia. That is misconceived on, I think, two counts. First, if I'm right about the consistent ethic of life, then the similarities between abortion/euthanasia and the death penalty are material (concerning life and death) and not formal (with respect to what makes the action wrong); thus it is hard to leverage common ground on the latter issue to argue against abortion and euthanasia. But I also think liberals tend to oppose the death penalty out of determinism (no one is really, truly, guilty, and retributive punishment is evil) and sentimentality (what matters is conscious life and what is bad is pain and the frustration of desire, etc.). So I think the common ground is superficial.<br /><br />Ultimately, what makes the death penalty seem so bad is the thought that this life is all we've got. Hence it seems intolerable to secularists. But I think that attitude is also prevalent in the Church, at least in the form of doubt or the sense that the traditional understanding of the last things should be kept out of secular politics. Punishing someone who turns out not to be guilty seems quite intolerable if there is no cosmic justice. I think when one works out the logic of that objection, though, it is not very decisive--but that the feeling is there, is not surprising.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81945553722142178242016-07-27T18:41:42.088-07:002016-07-27T18:41:42.088-07:00My hunch, though, is that the death penalty is in ...My hunch, though, is that the death penalty is in principle permissible. On the one hand, I think just wars and self-defense can involve intentional killing, so I am inclined to think that the death penalty could too; the new natural lawyers, who think the death penalty is impermissible always, think that you can engage in just wars and legitimate, lethal self-defense without intending to kill, and I have my doubts about that. On the other hand, the evidence from scripture and tradition in favor of the in-principle permissibility of the death penalty is just overwhelming. The new natural lawyers can try to hold that their position is acceptable from the standpoint of tradition, by pointing out that it has never been <i>infallibly declared</i> that the death penalty is sometimes permissible, though there are a lot of things that strongly suggest it is that are less than infallible. That's fine for the sake of consistency, but it's a torturous way to think of the Church's tradition, and should be avoided if possible. So until I'm convinced that the <i>malum in se</i> argument against the death penalty is unimpeachable, I will lean towards thinking it is sometimes all right.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46269923351179661242016-07-27T18:23:28.935-07:002016-07-27T18:23:28.935-07:00@ Anon2
I do not understand why people are simply...@ Anon2<br /><br /><i>I do not understand why people are simply avoiding what I am actually saying. If you kill someone then they are dead. If you lock someone up for life and some time later it is discovered they are not guilty etc. then the person can be released. Sure they don't get the time back but at least they were alive.</i><br /><br />How am I avoiding it? I am responding to it directly. When you wrongly punish someone, you cannot undo it. That isn't something special about the death penalty. The punishment in the death penalty case is permanent, yes, but so is a life-time sentence permanent if you die before the exonerating evidence is found. And since people sit on death row for some time, there is even a chance that you will be exonerated if you are given the death penalty; the difference with respect to being able to stop a false punishment before it is complete is a matter of degree, here.<br /><br />It's not that you aren't insisting on a distinction, or that Brandon and I are not recognizing that you are doing so. It is that you are insisting at a distinction which you have failed to show is the morally relevant one.<br /><br />And yes, it has to do with real people. That is why it matters that, even in the case of sending someone to prison by accident for a few years, you are depriving them of <i>great</i> goods that you can never replace. In penal justice, though, it is appropriate, and indeed necessary, to risk depriving people of great goods that you can never replace. That's just what punishment is like where we are not all-knowing.<br /><br /><i>I find people arguing that the Church teaches we must have the death penalty as absurd and just as misinformed as...</i><br /><br />First of all, I am not arguing that the Church teaches we <i>must</i> have the death penalty, and neither (I think) are Feser and Brandon. Feser and Bessette are arguing that the death penalty is permissible in principle and (further, based on empirical evidence) in some actual cases in the United States.<br /><br />I have been arguing that certain arguments against the death penalty are not good arguments, until they are supplemented with empirical data.<br /><br />But in none of these cases is anyone arguing that we <i>must</i> have the death penalty. It is consistent with Feser and Bessette's position that in some society, the prudential considerations rule out applying the death penalty. It is possible that that is our society. But you'd have to amass empirical evidence to argue that.<br /><br />I am, in fact, not even arguing for the death penalty. On July 24, 2016 at 9:12 AM, I raised a couple concerns with what I understand Feser's argument to be (from what I have read elsewhere), and no one has attempted to answer them. Some of my concerns are about the scope of the argument; one of the concerns, though, is an objection to the death penalty in principle, based on the difficulty of arguing that the death penalty is not <i>malum in se</i> in the way that punishment by rape (say) would be.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41494329297562545112016-07-27T16:10:33.611-07:002016-07-27T16:10:33.611-07:00I do not understand why people are simply avoiding...<br /><br />I do not understand why people are simply avoiding what I am actually saying. If you kill someone then they are dead. If you lock someone up for life and some time later it is discovered they are not guilty etc. then the person can be released. Sure they don't get the time back but at least they were alive. Both these things happen in real life. Beyond arguing on the internet or in a book this issue has consequences for real people (not that you don't know that, but it is easy to drift off into abstraction and forget that). I also think that the death penalty is too harsh to be included as an ordinary option in the criminal courts in countries with a sufficient prison system and wealth. There are certainly situations in which a state may be permitted to kill (think Osama Bin Laden) but I do not think the death penalty sufficiently represents the demands of mercy or even justice when there are other options such as imprisonment (and possible reform and restitution).<br /><br />I find people arguing that the Church teaches we must have the death penalty as absurd and just as misinformed as those who quote early statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, under the false premise that they are infallible declarations propping up Creationist claims. Not the purpose, nor how it works.<br /><br />Also lets play a fun game. Consider the following assertion "Slavery should be legal based on exactly the same arguments and misunderstandings (of at times quite learned people)."<br /><br />I will say it again... this is an American and traditionalist thing. People are defensive because of the "culture war" in the West, but Orthodoxy isn't a retreat into some perceived historical era where we all (supposedly) marched to a legalistic drum. That isn't how the unfolding of revelation or the illumination of reason has worked in our walk with Christ. <br />Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18868447534694987582016-07-27T12:01:18.160-07:002016-07-27T12:01:18.160-07:00The death penalty is unique in its finality. There...<i>The death penalty is unique in its finality. There is no chance of reform or correction of any legal injustice.</i><br /><br />As already previously noted, this is absolutely not true; all severe punishments have a finality, because they are cases in which what is done cannot be undone. Nor can one "reform or correct" an unjust punishment; all one can do is repent of it and express one's repentance. The notion that death is somehow a uniquely final punishment (1) fails to do justice to the actual severity of lesser punishments and (2) is linked with the ridiculous and nonsensical notion that you can somehow 'make up' for wrongly imprisoning someone for years.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3500918242476498172016-07-27T11:57:25.571-07:002016-07-27T11:57:25.571-07:00Now Brandon seems to be saying that once we establ...<i>Now Brandon seems to be saying that once we establish desert any problem of legitimacy is solved.</i><br /><br />I have not said anything about legitimacy in general. But it is contradictory to go around claiming that desert of a particular punishment can be determined independently of the actual authority and power to punish in that particular way. The two are not detachable. If we do not have the authority to punish with death, at least in principle, we do not have the authority to judge someone deserving of it in the first place.Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26342800281186525252016-07-27T11:37:22.655-07:002016-07-27T11:37:22.655-07:00The death penalty is unique in its finality. Ther...The death penalty is unique in its finality. There is no chance of reform or correction of any legal injustice.<br /><br />@Anonymous<br />Yes it is shocking. Although I get the wider arguments and history involved in the gun laws in America. There is a fear that the Left just want to erode freedoms, rights etc. Although an appropriate increase in regulation seems like a good idea (depending on the who and the why). Removing guns from everyday lay abiding Americas could actually make the problems worse. Criminals won't just go with tighter restrictions or amnesties or whatever. Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47767632487166473872016-07-27T11:10:05.896-07:002016-07-27T11:10:05.896-07:00@ Anon
But if we are not the ultimate authority w...@ Anon<br /><br /><i>But if we are not the ultimate authority we should stick to punishment that can be amended.</i><br /><br />But most punishments cannot be amended. Suppose that a man seems to have murdered someone. We give him a sentence of 25 years in prison. After 3 years, new evidence surfaces, and he is shown to have been innocent. He has lost 3 years of his life, and the state can do nothing to give that back. It could attempt to compensate him in various ways, but even that is not amendment; suppose that the man recently became a father, and has now missed out on some of his child's childhood.<br /><br />Of course, there is no guarantee that new evidence surfaces anyway.<br /><br />So if the state's non-ultimate authority is reason for withholding the death penalty, it is also a reason for withholding sentences of any duration, which is absurd.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is just that, in this vale of tears, some people will be punished incorrectly. The frequency of that occurrence, and the magnitudes of the punishments, are certainly relevant political considerations when we are crafting penal policy. But that applies to all punishments and not just the death penalty.Gregnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37925681982071902872016-07-27T08:28:11.163-07:002016-07-27T08:28:11.163-07:00@Greg(and Brandon)
I can't say I agree with yo...@Greg(and Brandon)<br />I can't say I agree with you on the notion that finality does not constitute a principled objection and must always be aided by empirical data. I said we have not the capacity judge on the taking of a life in any case. The finality of death is merely one facet of that along with the power of the state, the viability of options etc...Now Brandon seems to be saying that once we establish desert any problem of legitimacy is solved. Ergo you deserve it so we can do it. We may choose not to for any number of reasons, but our legitimate (right?) is clear. But if we are not the ultimate authority we should stick to punishment that can be amended. If we are the ultimate authority then debating Catholic doctrine is pointless. DNW has proposed a perfectly valid albeit logistically troublesome model above. I can get on board with that. I choose the word amended advisedly.<br /><br />@Anon2<br />I too am from a different jurisdiction dividing my time between Canada and Europe. While on many, even most of the issues raised here I am in some agreement, on a few like the death penalty and especially guns I stand amazed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18531650723210203202016-07-27T08:12:16.868-07:002016-07-27T08:12:16.868-07:00@Greg
"Insisting that your position is more ...@Greg<br /><br />"Insisting that your position is more nuanced isn't an argument"<br /><br />Indeed. I considered it a statement. <br />I was thinking of just war theory.Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71300749216489970802016-07-27T05:55:17.256-07:002016-07-27T05:55:17.256-07:00in theory of practice
Correction: in theory or in...<i>in theory of practice</i><br /><br />Correction: in theory or in practiceGregnoreply@blogger.com