Juice, isn't there an obvious difference between self-defence and revenge? Once you die, there is no self-defence; there is no longer any self to defend. To have someone killed on your behalf after you die would obviously be revenge, not self-defence. Your right to self-defence is, in a sense, dependent on your being alive, by sheer definition. Have I misunderstood you?

Juice wrote:Right off the bat Scott I have to submit and insist that any person who describes himself as an amoralist or who is amoral cannot make or apply any moral standard to any level or degree to any action. Being that you use the term "Disgust" . (Similarly, I can amorally say that all murder disgusts me,...) is a subjective value with moral implications.

Correction: disgust is sometimes a term with moral implications. But not always. For example, some people are disgusted by the thought of homosexual sex but have no moral objection to it. In other words, their moral position is not influenced by their disgust. Another example: I recall in another thread you brought up the subject of incest and I responded that although I am personally disgusted by incest, that disgust is entirely seperate from my rational objections to it (the risk of birth defects, stigma, etc.) -- the important thing to note is that those rational arguments against incest are not going to go away if I suddenly stop finding incest disgusting. Ergo, the feeling of disgust can exist independent of any moral position.

An amoralist does not believe there are moral facts and avoids framing a discussion in moral terms. But it is possible to frame a discussion in purely factual, amoral terms, and disgust can play a role in influencing behaviour regardless of moral position. So it is not inconsistent for an amoralist to state that they would not condone something out of disgust, since disgust does not necessarily have any moral implication (though I agree that in many cases it can and does).

Juice wrote:The object of capital punishment is to punish.

Obviously. But what is the object of punishment according to you, Juice?

Juice wrote:In context of the nature of this discussion "punishment" is "retribution". LEX TALENS

I asked you what the objective of capital punishment ought to be. You say retribution. That answer still leaves further questions. What is the objective of retribution? What I am wanting to know here is why the end result is desirable, according to you.

War isn't always fought in defence of your own family or even your own country. Sometimes it is fought in solidarity with those who have been subjected to tyranny, for example, the Allied liberation of Europe from Nazi Germany.

Juice, the goal of the law is not or does not always have to be retribution. There are, for a start, many different legal systems around the world, and to say that justice is always applied with the same principles in mind is incorrect. Some jurisdictions emphasise rehabilitation and methods for the prevention of crime rather than whatever would satisfy the victim's family. I think this is sensible. Why should satisfying the victim's family be more important than creating a society with less crime? Whatever works to reduce crime (and the death penalty has been shown not to do this) is of the utmost importance, regardless of whether the victim's families agree with it or not.

Second, in most legal systems including the US, UK and Commonwealth countries, the legislature is considered supreme. This means that although the courts have the final say in determining consitutional matters, sentencing can be determined by the legislature and the courts are bound in criminal cases by whatever principles our elected representatives have written into statute. Just because the law at present might emphasise retribution doesn't mean it has to stay that way. We have a say. We can change it for the better.

Finally, although you may be right that the New Testament does not expressly prohibit 'an eye for an eye', it certainly goes against everything that Jesus teaches in that book, whether it be forgiveness and loving our enemies, or as Scott pointed out, turning the other cheek.

I am dismayed, Juice, that you responded only to the part of my post that I consider the least important. I am not particularly interested in the theology behind the death penalty and I only brought it up because I find it curiously contradictory. But if you say it isn't, I am willing to concede that point. Please respond to my others.

I still don't see how killing a killer benefits the family of the victims (or anyone).

Itmattersnot wrote:That's where the human equation comes in, some families are unable to revert back to normal life without some sort of closure.

Maybe so, but it seems unreasonable. What if the family of a murder victim said they needed a palace made of solid gold in order to feel emotionally capable of returning to normal life? Would we be obliged to fulfil their insane request? It would be offensive to a reasonable person to do so. Similarly, having someone killed for their emotional wellbeing seems insane to me. If they can't return to normal life without having someone killed, what kind of people are they?

Juice wrote:I don't know if you guys simply don't have a sense of fairplay or the concept of morality has deteriorated to the point of pure impracticality.

Fairplay? This isn't playground politics. This is an adult discussion about how the adult world should function. We are talking about whether a person should be executed for a crime. That means another killing on top of whatever crime has already taken place. If the only reason this killing is supposedly justified is because it appeals to your sense of fairness, then I ask you to consider the fact that more killing doesn't really make anything more fair. It doesn't take the crime away. It just means more death.