After a discussion in class about death penalty I pose how much the society take part in our conscience.
Every day you can watch on the news people who sacrifice themselves with two objectives: first of all to kill infidel and secondly to save their own souls. To our conscience that’s a terrible thing, however, for them it’s the best way to die because they are giving their lives to their god. Another example are Eskimo or Arab people who understand polygamy as part of their lives while in Europe or America it is immoral and sinful (I’m not sure we would dispose to share our loved person with other people). TWith these two examples I ask myself: if an action is considered correct in some places and incorrect in others, how can we evaluate an action in moral sense?
Authors as Nietzsche or Marx said true and false don’t really exist and are determined by the organizations which lead the society (normally, politic and religious organizations) to manipulate people. I agree with this idea and, actually, it is the only way to understand how people can do some things. An example is the oriental terrorism. From their point of view they are dying in the name of god and every death is another step to the final holy war victory while we defined them as fundamentalist and don’t go deep into the problem. If someone can’t cover the basic necessities to live with dignity, he will be easily convinced to sacrifice himself and send his own soul to paradise because he can’t see a better choice. And, if the manipulation starts from their birth, these people are not capable to decide by themselves if they are acting correctly or not.
As well as the commented ‘predefined’ moral, there are other several factors which must be taken into account before saying if anybody is acting correctly or not. For example, stealing isn’t a moral act; however, if the thief has been done it because he needs to eat, this action shouldn't be considered amoral because the first human principle (as well as any other specie) is survival. With murdering happens something similar, a woman who is threatened and/or damaged by her partner must be considered as guilty because she reacted against him and she killed him? Personally, I don’t think so and the reason is the same than before, survival.
One of the most moral subjects is death penalty. From my point of view, it shouldn’t exist but I also think there are some points that support it. If a person kills another person with premeditation and without any vital reason, why can’t he to be condemned to death? Somebody could say that, killing him, you are at the same level than him but... that’s completely true? It’s the same to kill an innocent person rather than a killer? I’m not very sure in certain cases but there are other ones than I have no doubt about the killer should be considered rather than an innocent person. For example, I have to worry by a terrorist in hunger strike? If he continues with that, he will die and, frankly, the only problem that I see is some people considered him like a hero because, from my point of view, the life of a person capable to put on 25 bombs with their corresponding deaths doesn’t value anything. The usual arguments that I listen against it can be treated in three different groups: Religion, Anthropology and “no reason”.
The arguments provided by god believer people are difficult to contradict because, personally, part of their moral has been defined by religion organizations (as I’ve commented on the second paragraph) which play with the fears and beliefs of people to dictaminate to them the rules they must obey to get the paradise and thus they can manage the people as they want. It is paradoxical because they are defining some moral rules by means of the coercing of people thoughts.
As anthropology reasons I mean sentences as “all are all equal” and/or “you can’t decide if one person deserve to be alive or not”. Both sentences should be clarified. I would change the first one by this: “all should born with the same rights”; however, after the birth, everyone creates his own way by means of his acts and this fact is the reason why I don’t think all are all equal. The second sentence is very difficult to contradict because it’s true anybody shouldn’t modify other people lives but, on the other hand, if there is a person who destroys many people lives, why can’t we break his own way? Some people can think it’s a vengeful idea but I believe it is not a revenge question but a fair one. I think a revenge would be kill all his family (who are innocent people) and let him alive to know what feel the families of his victims.
The last group, people who are not capable to reason their observations, I’m not into consideration because they are a clear example of “predefined” moral and for them something is wrong or correct depending on the point of view of society.
Although I’ve been writing down some reasons which defend death penalty, I’m against it because, by means of it, many innocent people die by judgements mistakes, bad lawyers or political interests. However, the reason by which I’ve been giving other points of view is, as I said in third paragraph, all acts can have a lot of factors which can determine if a person is acting wrongly or not and people usually judge without thinking the reasons which cause a certain act or what would they think if the same act had repercussions in their own lives.
References:
http://users.compaqnet.be/cn127103/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm
posted by Xanadu at 4:36 PM
7 comments
