Last week I had one of my classes break into groups and create a survey based on certain subjects (i.e. religion, politics, entertainment, etc…) The point was to get some statistics on the class and what things people had in common, what survey questions themselves were bad or biased, and to show what kinds of things a researcher needs to bear in mind when conducting research. During this activity the politics survey gave rise to an interesting statement about abortion…interesting because, on the surface, what was said seems to be a sound argument, but unfortunately fails to take into account an important underlying issue.
The suvey showed that most people in the class were for the death penalty, but against abortion. The person reporting this to the class made the statement, “This is kind of hypocritical. You want to kill those people but you don’t want anyone to have an abortion.”
Essentially her reasoning was:
These people are against abortion because it takes a life.
These same people for the death penalty.
The death penalty takes a life.
Therefore these people are a hypocrites.
The problem with this is that the issue isn’t simply the taking of life, but the unjustified taking of an innocent life versus the justified taking of a guilty life. I’m not sure what position the student making the accusation of hypocrisy stands on, but I think there are two prevailing positions. One position being that the lives of both the unborn and the death row inmate are just that, lives, and the other position being that the unborn is not a life and the inmate is one. It’s possible to hold the positions that the unborn is a life and the inmate isn’t, or that neither are lives, but I’ve never heard anyone making those claims.
Now, at this point the question becomes “Is it ever justified to take a life?” Of course, this entire discussion will eventually boil down to our assumptions about both lives (that of the unborn child and the death row inmate) and whether they are, in fact, lives. This is another issue for another post, and not the issue I’m trying to address now.
The only point I’m making is that it’s very easy to make a fine-sounding argument that can steer you in the wrong direction if you’re not thinking things through. In this case, it resulted in an accusation of hypocrisy against those who believe it’s okay to take the life of the guilty, but not the innocent, by failing to realize that the issue isn’t the taking of lives, but justice.
The DP, then, is retributive in your view, perhaps even to the measure of lex talionis, yes?
_steve
February 6th, 2006
Oh, now you’ve done it, Brian.
I’m against both largely because I feel that it’s none of us have the right to deprive others of life. Your student’s response is easily parried as you’ve done, but I think the greater argument has merit [if the individual basis and justification is weak].
Geof F. Morris
February 6th, 2006
brian’s going AYOR! :runamok:
but seriously, i’m not sure about the greater argument either. human life only has the value we give to it unless scripture is true that God made us in His image. since scripture is also pretty clear that God endorses the DP as appropriate punishment (for murder at least), then we do have the right and responsibility as a society to advocate for justice (on God’s terms rather than our own imagined sense of “justice.”) gen 9:6 points out that the DP is completely consistent with man’s value as an image-bearer…as opposed to well-intentioned human arguments…which are appropriate enough for the individual but make for unjust government.
which is a long way of saying: if God gives you the right to execute a murderer (and even commands it), then refusing is just a nice-sounding means of disobedience. if God is the true standard of righteousness, then we have to follow His lead. abraham refusing to offer isaac would have greatly pleased both humanists and devils, but abraham correctly understood that isaac’s life was at all times in God’s hands and rightly obeyed.
obviously, great care needs to be taken in executing an irrevocable punishment. but for the core argument at hand, you’d need a form of new age belief: that human life has some vague, unidentifiable form of spiritual value…but we accept no real standards of right and wrong other than “death is to be avoided at all costs.” and liberal christianity – in throwing out most of scripture besides 10 or 15 of Jesus’ cooler sayings…which for some arbitrary reason [i]must[/i] be “true” – comes to basically the same conclusion.
chalee
February 6th, 2006
Your caricature of liberal Christianity is as stupid as it is insulting.
_steve
February 6th, 2006
i should add that i didn’t mean to lump geof in with the libs.
but to the extent that liberal christians routinely pit Jesus’ words against the God of the OT, the apostle paul and even some of Jesus’ other words and actions (which are judged by them to be “inauthentic”) – i would make no apologies for my simplification of their position.
chalee
February 6th, 2006
Heh. There’s also the above assumption that an unborn child is innocent. That’s debatable.
Satchel
February 6th, 2006
It’s okay. It’s not necessarily untrue.
Geof F. Morris
February 7th, 2006
Steve: In my view at present I would say to a large extent, yes. But also deterrant. Though, I think in our country it’s pretty ineffective as such due to the amount of time between conviction and execution.
Geof: Now that I think about it, the next logical question wouldn’t be “is abortion justified.” But rather, “is the taking of life ever justified.” So I’d have to amend the statement in my original post.
Charles: So are you saying that I secretly miss AYOR?
Roger: Well, I honestly have not given the issue you raised thorough thought, but it seems that it hinges on what your operational definition of “innocent” is. It seems there are different types of innocence and guilt. We are guilty before God, and deserve eternal separation, but have not all committed crimes that demand physical death at the hands of other people (as dictated by both civil law as well as God’s)
I’ll have to think that one out a little more.
Brian
February 7th, 2006
Right. While I buy that it was appropriate in Biblical situations, I’m not wholly sure that it’s applicable to our fundamentally secular nation-state.
That said, I’m willing to abide by the wishes of the majority. That states routinely go in and out of the ranks of those allowing capital punishment shows that Americans are willing to change their minds about this…
Geof F. Morris
February 7th, 2006
But was it appropriate in biblical situations because it’s something that is fundamentally essential for a society where crimes such as murder are frequent?
Brian
February 7th, 2006
I think it’s appropriate in theocratic, homogeneous societies.
Geof F. Morris
February 8th, 2006
What makes it inappropriate in others?
Brian
February 8th, 2006
I think it’s the lack of shared values, really. See, if America were a Christian theocracy that had a strong agreement that all the OT exhortations towards the death penalty being advised by God as a way to deal with the worst offenders in our society, then yeah … I’m with that.
Of course, I’m very Lockean in my political philosophy. [At which point Steve may burn me down.
]
For a secular nation like the USA, I figure we go with the expressed will of the majority, like we do with most everything else, with necessary limitations on that power [and there are expressed limits on who can be executed for capital crimes].
I’ll admit that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this: my friend’s father was executed a couple years ago [he did commit the crime, but he really wasn't the ringleader; I'm okay with Mr. Brown having a life sentence, but not the DP], and I also had a cousin who was accused of capital murder [and later acquitted].
Geof F. Morris
February 9th, 2006