Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



10/27/2015 2:55 pm  #1


Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Though I don't much comment on such issues (politics is too often a favoured method blinding the eye of the soul) I found this article linked to on the Reasonable Faith site interesting.
 
Thank God: Evangelicals Shrink Back From Support of Death Penalty

I make no judgement as to matters of exegetical correctness but the point about the popular perception of Christ’s own view on the subject hits a sore spot: on the face of it the ethics of the founder of Christianity appear closer to those of Tolstoy* than they do Aristotle.
 
*Of course this is an amusing anachronism: Tolstoy, needless to say, derived the foundations of his ethical theory from the Gospels and belived it to be a direct formulation of the views put forward in said books
 

 

10/27/2015 10:40 pm  #2


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

I have a less settled position than I used to on the death penalty. I don't see how it can be ruled out in principle. The new natural lawyers argue that all intentional destruction of human life is impermissible, but I don't think that argument can be sustained when it comes to just war, and I doubt pacifism is true.

But I also am no longer convinced by David Oderberg's argument for the death penalty. He argues that punishment must be proportionate to the crime, and there are crimes worse in kind than crimes that deserve a life sentence, so there must be a punishment worse in kind than a life sentence; that is, the death penalty. But while a five-year sentence, a ten-year sentence, and a life-sentence are all obviously comparable, the death penalty is clearly a "new" sort of thing. It will also have to be the worst punishment; we won't allow torture followed by death or rape followed by death. But what rules those out? Since torture and rape are "unlike" sentences of progressively increasing length and are excluded because (to use the constitution's language) "cruel and unusual," why can't the death penalty also be so excluded?

I don't think Oderberg responds to this in Applied Ethics. Feser responds to this sort of objection in his back and forth with Christopher Tollefsen over the death penalty; his response is to deny that what's wrong with punishing by rape is that it is "cruel and unusual" (or something similar). The problem is the damage it does to the person institution the punishment; in principle the guilty party might deserve the punishment, but there is just no one who could administer it. But why is it not the same with the death penalty? I think this line of response has some promise but also wants a lot of explanation.

On the other hand, if you don't think all intentional killing is wrong (i.e. self-defense, just war), then it's hard to see why it is immediately ruled out. The salient feature in those cases, guilt, is present in the capital punishment case too.

 

10/27/2015 11:04 pm  #3


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Isn't a lot of contemporary opposition to the death penalty based upon an obviously irreligious outlook though? In the past there was a general belief in life after death and the idea that the death penalty, in a sense, just moved the issue to a higher court. Peter Hitchens, a supporter of the death penalty, has written on this, and I think he is correct. In that sense, I don't think a Christian can be especially pleased with the relative lack of support for it today (although it still often scores highly on opinion polls, even in Britain - it has always been the political class and sections of the media, more than the people at large, who have kept it prohibited). 

 

10/27/2015 11:54 pm  #4


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Most popular rejection of the death penalty is indeed, not from any sort of recognizably theist background. Though modern Catholic social teaching does have something to say about it. The usual arguments advanced  are generally what I'll call epistemological ("It's too hard to be *sure* about guilt."), anti-state ("It's wrong that the *state* have the power to kill its subjects."), progressive ("The death penalty is a barbaric hold over practice that we are best rid of."), and broadly humanitarian ("It is exceptionally cruel to execute people."). You could probably hold these in a way *compatible* with a religious outlook, but they are not obviously grounded in it.

I am inclined to say that they are also generally Leftist, but I've been doing a lot of navel gazing about my own Leftism since my engagement with Feser and traditional religious thinking, and I've begun to think that there is not necessity for the leftist to deny the death penalty. Even from fundamentally egalitarian principles, it is possible to construe that there is such a thing as crime and that execution might be an appropriate means of dealing with that crime. Mainly my hesitation lies in the systematic employment of it by *this* political system and it's primary use as a tool for controlling mainly impoverished criminals. Would I say that, in a more egalitarian political system it would be wrong to execute a murderer? Possibly not, and there are cases where I have little doubt at all- mutiny and rebellion, where the threat of execution is absolutely warranted.

Last edited by iwpoe (10/27/2015 11:55 pm)


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

10/28/2015 5:04 am  #5


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Sorry all. It would have made more sense if I'd posted my planned response to Alexander last night.

For the record I wouldn’t go so far as to claim that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral (though I incline that way*) or incompatible with Christian accounts of morality. A lot of the reasons its proponents give in support of it one the other hand ‘appear’ imminently both – for instance the oft heard plea that it provides closure or satisfaction for families of victims. An appeal to bloodlust is at the very least awkwardly seated with Christianity, and, I would argue positively immoral.  

Re Tollefsen, I don't think he makes a knock-out cse against capital punishement in those xchanges. One good point he makes is the criticism of the Thomist idea of Man-State relation though.

*For various other reasons I'd probably be willing to bite the bullet Feser, Oderberg and Vallicella threaten and just reject retributive accounts of justice. Of course if one accepts retributive accounts and denies any State monopoly on force then certain Raskolnikov-like conclusions follow.

Alexander wrote:

As for differences between Jesus of Nazareth and Aristotle - I think G K Chesterton sums it up quite nicely in one of his books (either Heretics or Orthodoxy - I think the latter, but I'm not sure) when talking about the differences between the theological and cardinal virtues. The latter are perfectly rational, while the former go beyond what reason can discover. But, like all truths of faith and reason, there isn't a contradiction, just a supplementation. Grace builds on nature, etc.

I'm not sure that works if the two contradict each other though, as opposed to the latter just making a knoweldge claim we could not arrive at one the basis of them e.g. the Trinity. =17pxI was thinking of some aspects of the Aristotelian Magnanimous Man (master-slave morality, generosity as a way of showing superiority over another; in short all the bits Nietzsche enjoyed pulling out of context ). The other difference is Jesus' ethical imperatives are apolitical in as much as they describe how a man ought toconduct himself to others regardless of position or affairs of temporal power, whilst Aristotle's (and Plato's) are inherently directed toward polis-making.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Isn't a lot of contemporary opposition to the death penalty based upon an obviously irreligious outlook though? In the past there was a general belief in life after death and the idea that the death penalty, in a sense, just moved the issue to a higher court. Peter Hitchens, a supporter of the death penalty, has written on this, and I think he is correct. In that sense, I don't think a Christian can be especially pleased with the relative lack of support for it today (although it still often scores highly on opinion polls, even in Britain - it has always been the political class and sections of the media, more than the people at large, who have kept it prohibited). 

It’s at least being historically associated with Liberal positions is certainly true*. That shouldn't prejudice people as to its right or wrongness though - large portions of the Left are after all famously keen on claiming certain virtues e.g. justice, critique of inappropriate use of wealth as their own.
 
Depending on one's eschatology one could argue the death penalty is more or less impermissible. If one believes in eternal damnation then I don't see how that justification comes in. Admittedly as a Universalist I don't have that defence but even so it seems tantamount to dumping our problems in the next world.

Greg wrote:

I don't think Oderberg responds to this in Applied Ethics. Feser responds to this sort of objection in his back and forth with Christopher Tollefsen over the death penalty; his response is to deny that what's wrong with punishing by rape is that it is "cruel and unusual" (or something similar). The problem is the damage it does to the person institution the punishment; in principle the guilty party might deserve the punishment, but there is just no one who could administer it. But why is it not the same with the death penalty? I think this line of response has some promise but also wants a lot of explanation.

There was a similar exchange between Feser and Torley on this subject at one point in a combox discussion about the possibility of a 'Rape Machine' (needless to say both disagreed with the idea  - it was just a case of formulating different reasons why which fitted with their overall positions)

Ed does better than Vallicella in trying to explain what 'cruel and unusual' really means and why it's impermissible though; the latter, at least in one blog entry where it comes up, is content to hand-wave to the holy authority of the US Constitution.

Greg wrote:

On the other hand, if you don't think all intentional killing is wrong (i.e. self-defense, just war), then it's hard to see why it is immediately ruled out. The salient feature in those cases, guilt, is present in the capital punishment case too.

Of course the ‘Tolstoyian’ alternative I mentioned does lead to that conclusion. In the case of Just War I’m not so sure but regarding self-defence might not one appeal to something like the Principle of Double Effect and claim what is intended is not the killing of the offensive party but their incapacitation?

iwpoe wrote:

I am inclined to say that they are also generally Leftist, but I've been doing a lot of navel gazing about my own Leftism since my engagement with Feser and traditional religious thinking, and I've begun to think that there is not necessity for the leftist to deny the death penalty.

No sarcasm intended but when you speak of Leftism you presumably mean that as shorthand for 'New Leftism'? The Old Left, from Diderot to Mao, were positively trigger-happy in their proposed ‘liquidations’.

Last edited by DanielCC (10/28/2015 5:56 am)

     Thread Starter
 

10/28/2015 6:39 am  #6


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

My sympathies are with the old left and not the new- though my views are unusual here since I'm going to end up siding with a moral realism of some kind. I've no sympathy for the *merely* "cultural" issues of the new left. But "liquidations" such as they were can be disclaimed as merely revolutionary, and I've wanted to consider wherever they are in principle a political difficulty or not. I don't think they are.


Fighting to the death "the noonday demon" of Acedia.
My Books
It is precisely “values” that are the powerless and threadbare mask of the objectification of beings, an objectification that has become flat and devoid of background. No one dies for mere values.
~Martin Heidegger
 

10/28/2015 9:20 am  #7


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

Isn't a lot of contemporary opposition to the death penalty based upon an obviously irreligious outlook though? In the past there was a general belief in life after death and the idea that the death penalty, in a sense, just moved the issue to a higher court. Peter Hitchens, a supporter of the death penalty, has written on this, and I think he is correct. In that sense, I don't think a Christian can be especially pleased with the relative lack of support for it today (although it still often scores highly on opinion polls, even in Britain - it has always been the political class and sections of the media, more than the people at large, who have kept it prohibited). 

Some of it.

I also think that this is reason for Christians to be skeptical of opposition to the death penalty. I think a lot of Catholics, for instance, argue that it's a pro-life commitment in order to try to find common ground with secularists. You can find Catholics who try to use their opposition to the death penalty to persuade people to join them in opposing abortion, and other Catholics of a slightly more liberal (but still anti-abortion) flavor who argue the other direction.

I think it's deceptive though. Secularists tend to object to the death penalty on sentimentalist or utilitarian grounds. And if a Christian ought to oppose the death penalty, I am not sure he ought to oppose it in principle, whereas he ought to oppose abortion in principle. The arguments against the death penalty would simply be different in kind than those against abortion.

 

10/28/2015 9:37 am  #8


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

DanielCC wrote:

Re Tollefsen, I don't think he makes a knock-out cse against capital punishement in those xchanges. One good point he makes is the criticism of the Thomist idea of Man-State relation though.

Well, his argument for this sort of thing contains lots of new natural law locutions that don't make sense to someone who doesn't understand new natural law (like Feser). But my fundamental problem with it is its reliance on an absolute prohibition against intentional killing (not just intentional killing of the innocent). So it has to be the case that in self-defense and just war, killing is not intended (or, rather, in principle one can defend oneself without intending to kill). So Tollefsen thinks that, in just war, you can drop a bomb on enemy combatants, intending to "incapacitate" but not to kill. I think that is wrong, and the new natural lawyers only accept it because it's a bullet they have to bite.

But if you want enemy combatants incapacitated for an indeterminate length of time (which you must), then you will (in general) have to intend to kill them when you drop a bomb on them. Otherwise it's not clear by what means you think dropping the bomb will help you win the war.

DanielCC wrote:

*For various other reasons I'd probably be willing to bite the bullet Feser, Oderberg and Vallicella threaten and just reject retributive accounts of justice.

Well, there's a simple enough argument for it: It is not permissible to punish anyone for non-retributive purposes unless the punishment is truly proportionate to the crime. The state can't execute an innocent man even if it will quiet the mob. The state can't confiscate all of a person's property for jaywalking. To drop retribution as an acceptable end of punishment is to make it unclear why punishment is acceptable at all; I can only try to deter and reform by punishing a guilty part in a way proportionate to guilt.

There is space, I suppose, to claim that, for all punishment, it is necessary that the punishment be proportionate to guilt, but when the ends other than retribution will not obtain, punishment is not permitted. That seems like an odd position to me.

DanielCC wrote:

Greg wrote:

On the other hand, if you don't think all intentional killing is wrong (i.e. self-defense, just war), then it's hard to see why it is immediately ruled out. The salient feature in those cases, guilt, is present in the capital punishment case too.

Of course the ‘Tolstoyian’ alternative I mentioned does lead to that conclusion. In the case of Just War I’m not so sure but regarding self-defence might not one appeal to something like the Principle of Double Effect and claim what is intended is not the killing of the offensive party but their incapacitation?

Yes, one can argue that. As I argued above, I think the argument is very far-fetched in the case of just war. I am also skeptical of it in the case of self-defense. Empirically it seems like most people engaged in lethal self-defense to intend to kill. They might all be acting (objectively) wrongly. There is a debate as to whether you can shoot someone in the head and merely intend to incapacitate; I find the arguments hard to accept.

Last edited by Greg (10/28/2015 9:40 am)

 

10/29/2015 5:03 pm  #9


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

Speaking as a Catholic who was at one point in life adamantly in favor of the death penalty but now sits undecided on the issue, I think there are only two points to consider.

1. What is to be gained by putting any given criminal to death?
2. What does Jesus say on the matter? (And since he is silent, we have to play the guessing game)

To answer 1, I formerly supported the death penalty as a deterrent and for its utility: better to put a dangerous, violent offender down permanently than risk him escaping and committing more violence.

Unfortunately, given the state of the American justice system, I don't see deterrence as a legitimate factor anymore. It takes years, sometimes decades, for offenders sentenced to death to actually be killed. Really, all having a death penalty tells people contemplating murder is that once caught and convicted, they will serve what is in reality a life sentence that might be abbreviated by lethal injection a long time down the road, and after ten+ years in prison such a consequence may even be welcome. Not only that, but it's difficult for me to sit here at my desk and even contemplate the gravity of a consequence that may affect me 20 years from now, even if it is death. If we want deterrence out of the death penalty, then we need swift execution of sentence, not this long bogus process of drawn-out appeals and whatnot. Obviously, that opens a whole different can of worms, including the common objection to the death penalty that we risk putting innocents to death. So I no longer see the value in the death penalty as a stronger deterrent than life sentences.

Regarding the death penalty's utility, I think that at least 20-30 years ago, there was a legitimate risk, however statistically unlikely, that some violent criminals might escape prison and rape, maim, and kill again. A quick Google search will actually yield more instances of this than one might think. I don't know off the top of my head how unlikely escape might be for a criminal in prison for life in the year 2015, but I have to imagine it's almost nil. So in this case, we're only talking about very rare usage of the death penalty, likely for crimes of terrorism, treason, and mass murder.

As far as Jesus is concerned, I have to imagine he would oppose it based on his propensity for love and forgiveness. If I'm remembering my Catholic teaching correctly, exceptions could be made in extreme circumstances (ex: 10 people are stranded on an island, one goes loony and starts killing and eating the others- even God may find it acceptable to put such a human to death because of the enormous threat he poses to the safety of everyone else), but any exception is likely to be situational and a different moral discussion altogether than the state-sanctioned capital punishment currently in place in America.


"Rule 110: Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience."
--from Master George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation
 

10/29/2015 5:30 pm  #10


Re: Decrease in Protestant Support for the Death Penalty

I was thinking about the Deterrence argument often brought up earlier. I'm not sure if it doesn't just beg the question. Is it right to judgement an act's morality based on its utility value? It sounds rather, well, Utilitarian. Of course we may chose between two morally licit ways of action based on their utility but that is after the moral fact has been decided so to speak.

Last Rites wrote:

As far as Jesus is concerned, I have to imagine he would oppose it based on his propensity for love and forgiveness. If I'm remembering my Catholic teaching correctly, exceptions could be made in extreme circumstances (ex: 10 people are stranded on an island, one goes loony and starts killing and eating the others- even God may find it acceptable to put such a human to death because of the enormous threat he poses to the safety of everyone else), but any exception is likely to be situational and a different moral discussion altogether than the state-sanctioned capital punishment currently in place in America.

I wouldn't go as far as claiming killing as a matter of self-defends, but with that example one might claim that if if the maniac died per accidens as a consequence of the others attempts to subdue him - let's say they club him on the head and end up smashing his skull - they would not be held accountable whereas if they had him subdued e.g. gagged and bound and then decided to kill him it would be immoral.

Last edited by DanielCC (10/29/2015 5:37 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum