So basically you're making exceptions to the word of god. As you can tell from the writing of the Hebrew Bible, god didn't make any exceptions. He didn't say "Thou shalt not steal - but it's OK if a b or c". You didn't steal - for any reason - period. ...
I'm not clear on what you're arguing in this entire post. Of course I'm making exceptions to "the word of God." I'm not religious in that way. Admittedly, my listing of the 10 commandments was a bit OT, so maybe that was confusing.
But as I thought I'd made clear, I don't believe the 10 commandments are "the word of God," I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, I don't necessarily believe in God and I don't agree that all of the 10 commandments are valid rules. So yes, I certainly do make exceptions to what, IMO, are the words of fallible human beings.
You can't imagine allowing a child to starve, but you need to read the Hebrew Bible a bit more. He not only allows it, he even condones and orders the murder of children.
Of course. See above. "God" and I don't agree about this.
So in that case, if you make exceptions, then it's perfectly justifiable if someone else does as well, "Thou shalt not murder - but it's OK if a b or c."
No, that would not be "perfectly justifiable" in my view. I'm talking about what are, IMO, moral absolutes. I'm not saying everybody can pick and choose which moral rules are right for them.
Obviously different people have different views on what those moral rules are. We talked earlier about people who think homosexuality is wrong, even deserving of death. That, to them, is a moral absolute. However, that doesn't mean they are right. Am I making myself clear? Do you see the distinction?
Let's see if I can phrase it differently. I believe there are moral absolutes. I believe different people have different ideas of what those moral absolutes are. That does not, however change the moral absolutes -- it just means some people are wrong.
In MY opinion, "murder is a no-no" is a moral absolute. You disagree, when it comes to capital punishment. Therefore, if there are moral absolutes and one of them concerns murder in the case of capital punishment, then one of us is wrong. I happen to think I'm right. Why wouldn't I?
OK, but I don't think the family of their victims would agree.
Well, let them come onto this message board and argue their case, then. I'm telling you what I think.
But you make exceptions - so it's really not absolute, not even in your eyes - see your below comment:
Yes, it still is an absolute. The absolute moral rule, IMO, is: Killing is wrong, except for self-defense or to save other innocent people, as in WWII or to stop a genocide. There's no reason a moral absolute can't have exceptions. But those are exceptions for particular kinds of killing, not exceptions for particular instances. In other words, to say "Killing is wrong except in self-defense" is a moral absolute. To say "Killing is wrong unless you happen to think the person is really really bad" or "Killing is wrong unless the victim is black" or "Killing is wrong unless the defendant can't get a good attorney" or "Killing is wrong unless the victim's family is really in favor of it" -- those are examples of either moral relativism or mistaken moral absolutes. Do you see the difference?
True, but then there are people who believe the rule is absolute - see the Amish in the recent horrendous murder of school girls - or the Quakers in any war. They don't believe in killing - for any reason - because they believe their commandment is an absolute.
Yup. As I said, different people hold different opinions about what the moral absolutes are. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong -- I don't know. All I can go by is what I believe.
Which is why I support long appeals process. Give technology plenty of time and their defense as many opportunities as possible to bring in new evidence, ask for new trials, ask for clemency etc. I certainly don't approve of convicting them in the morning and executing them in the afternoon.
This reminds me of another practical argument your friend could have used in her debate: Executions cost the state much more than life imprisonment does.
I still don't see the issue. The white person is unlikely to get off with a light sentence for the same crime - he just didn't get executed. That doesn't mean he didn't deserve the punishment or that the black person did not. One just got it and the other didn't.
The issue is that it reveals the fallibility of death-penalty sentencing. You may think they both deserved to get a death sentence. But they didn't. If the system is that capricious, it is unconstitutional and morally intolerable.
Everyone should strive toward the same - but seeing as not everyone has the same talents not everyone is going to make it and those that do make it, it isn't fair that they should have to have their rewards reduced for those who don't.
Inequality is part of life. But it should not be part of the judicial system and government policy.
True, but they're not on death row. We're talking heinous crimes.
In this case, we were talking about why the U.S. has more imprisoned felons than other Western industrialized countries yet has a higher murder rate. Part of the answer is that not all of those imprisoned felons are murderers. The U.S. has more people on death row because the U.S. is the only one of those countries with the death penalty. By definition, they have NO people on death row.
Well we do, don't we? People who write hot checks don't get the same punishment as those who rape children and dismember them.
So you do agree that we should find different punishments for every category of crime.
Of course, if you're talking length rather than kind. Del, do you remember what you said that I was responding to? You said we should have the death penalty so that a murder doesn't get the same punishment as a car thief. I said they shouldn't get the same punishment -- they should get different lengths of sentences. But they don't need whole different
kinds of punishments, as you contended.
I think it's a Christian morality thing personally. The same reason they don't sell alcohol down in my part of the country or stores are closed on Sunday. Not really sure.
At this point, it has a lot to do with business lobbying. But yes, it is at least grounded in Christian morality. Do you remember what you said here that I was responding to? You said in this country we don't judge people based on morality. But we do.