An Open Letter to Political Pundits: Convicts != Fetuses != Animals

[rowyn]

What is with this whole soundbite rhetorical argument that, somehow, one's position on the death penalty needs to be aligned with one's position on abortion and/or hunting? Is it so hard to imagine that one could believe that convicted criminals, fetuses, and wild animals are not, in fact, identical creatures and should not, therefore, be treated as though they were? I am so sick of hearing "how can she be pro-life and yet favor the death penalty?" or "how can he allow the murder of unborn children and yet oppose the execution of hardened killers?" Neither one of these positions is ethically inconsistent. They just require a marginally nuanced version of the world that does not do things like, oh, group frogs and plants in the same family because they're both green. No one over the age of ten is going to change their position on any of these things based on this line of argument. Please, stop. Thank you.

Comments

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Yes, thank you! Just so. :)

You hear a lot in the other direction, as well. "How can you be against the death penalty for grandpa rapers, but okay with killing unborn babies, you monster?" etc etc.

[rowyn]

Oh yes. That's why I cited versions of both positions. It's equally annoying from either side. O_o

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

This is merely supplementary information, clearly not a direct rebuttal nor is it intended to be... but it's just interesting:

Dr. Temple Grandin (made famous for being interviewed about her autism by Dr. Oliver Sacks) did some research that indicated the treatment of animals, the treatment of convicts, and the treatment of the disabled are actually highly statistically correlated. (By U.S. state, I believe it was.) I can dig: I believe the study was mentioned in Dr. Sacks' An Anthropologist on Mars.

Of course, take it with a grain of salt -- and note that Dr. Sacks also used to design "humane" abattoirs for a living. ^_^

[level-head.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Does the research address the policy positions held by the subjects, or their actual treatment in personal contact? (For example, by prison guards.)

It occurs to me that a voting or "official" position may well be substantially out of phase with real behavior -- but I am not familiar with Dr. Grandin's work.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

A study on the correlation between actual behavior vs philosophy vs political beliefs would be interesting, too. Differences between practice and politics aren't necessarily indicative of hypocrisy, either: one can easily believe something is good without believing it should also be enforced by law.

[level-head.livejournal.com]

"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice..."

And the distinction between good and mandated is certainly a valid one. I don't think that very many people now believe that smoking is "good for you" -- but the people that agree it's bad aren't necessarily in favor of outlawing smoking in your own home. Their polls answers would vary wildly based upon the wording of the question.

There's a hierarchy of good -- and personal liberty trumps "we're going to legislate you for your own good" in most instances, it seems to me.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

That is interesting! I couldn't find reference to the study through casual Googling -- do you recall anything else about it that might make it findable?

[detroitfather.livejournal.com]

Well said!

Too bad this post won't fit on a bumper sticker.

[rowyn]

Hee, thanks! I'm tempted to do a "Arguments I've Already Heard Enough Times" post, but I think I'm over my quota on snarky already. >:)

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

While I agree with this when positions on hunting and abortion/death penalty are conflated (animals are, after all, not human beings), the abortion and death penalty comparison is, I believe, quite appropriate.

A pro-life, pro-death-penalty philosophy is ultimately ethically compromised, because in both cases it is an external, intellectual determination of whether or not a human being deserves the gift of life, and this is not a decision that can ever be ethically made. Attempts to do so always strike me as overly-sophisticated rationalizations that rely on obfuscation of this underlying theme to provide an appearance of consistency.

The death penalty, abortion, and even defensive warfare indicate flaws in the operation of our world and society, and as such should always be minimized to every degree possible. While we may call some things "necessary" at times, they can never be accepted as moral.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has to be pro-life AND anti-death-penalty AND a total pacifist in order to be ethical. Your argument doesn't actually indicate a conflict between pro-life and pro-death-penalty stances, you're just saying that killing is always wrong (and, in addition, that abortion is killing).

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's what I'm saying - voluntarily killing another human being is immoral. This is, to me, the only consistent position when faced with all these issues.

This is not to say that people don't occasionally do immoral things, and have their reasons for them - only to underscore the basic theme that it is, in fact, wrong, and anything further is rationalization.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I think you're misusing the terms 'consistent' and 'rationalization' in order to comfort yourself about the unpopularity of your own moral choices.

It's just rationaliation, in other words.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

I am uninterested in what you think, but it is noted. Holding principles and striving to adhere to them is not a popularity contest.

[rowyn]

I agree that one can reasonably contend that the two positions should be conflated. But I think it's disingenous to imply that anyone who doesn't conflate them must be hypocritical or irrational. (Not saying that you are doing this, but most of the glib, flippant versions of this argument do.)

Also, I see just as many people complain that pro-choice people are irrational for not favoring the death penalty as that pro-life people are irrational for favoring it.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

I don't know what other people think or complain about, but I can see the ethical inconsistency in not conflating all issues that impact the deliberate and calculated ending of a human life.

[mmsword.livejournal.com]

Well, the core of this comes from the idea known as the Consistent Life Ethic or the Consistent Ethic if Life, which holds that all life is valuable and shouldn't be terminated prematurely, regardless of circumstance. In the eyes of some one who follows this ideology, killing a convict and having an abortion is the same thing, because in the end, you are still killing a person in their world view, and this is never correct. Needless to say, most people that follow this ideology are also pacifists of some flavor or another. And have a hard time finding political support for all three. Just off the top of my head from philosophy class.

[rowyn]

I hear this argument from people on both sides, though. Ie, people who support the death penalty expressing disgust at pro-choice people for opposing the death penalty. It's not just the "all life is sacred" crowd that uses it.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think consistency is a bit of a red herring anyway, even in places where it does apply.

There's some amount of altruistic value in being predictable -- it helps other people plan around your future actions. But that's really the only value that it has. Sometimes (like, say, if you're a politician and people are trying to vote on someone based on what they predict they'll do) this is *really important*, but normally it's just not.

So the threshhold for consistency should be (a) it's important that people correctly guess what you're going to do, and (b) your position is clear enough that they can correctly guess what you're going to do.

And for almost everyone in the world, on almost every possible topic, (a) doesn't apply.

[rowyn]

...

I don't think I've ever considered why consistency is considered a virtue before. O_o

I think it also has to do with fairness. I don't know, consistency in how you treat your friends is important, for example. And moreso in how employers treat employees (and vice versa). And really, really important for parents raising children. It seems like one of those things, like honesty, that it's easier to practice all the time than to figure out when it's important that you do so. Less likely to flub it that way.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

You're not really talking about the same kind of consistency here.

Still, that sort of fairness is only good because people want to know how you're going to treat them. If how you treat them doesn't matter (if you're the kid, say) then whether you're fair doesn't matter either.

But 'being fair' is more likely to matter to other people than 'holding logically consistent beliefs', sure. For one thing, you've narrowed it down to your actions instead of your philosophy, which is a huge step.

And it's not a matter of deciding to be consistent or not -- it's really, how do you react when what you know is right in two separate cases seems to conflict? If the answer is 'do the wrong thing in one of the situations', you're doing it wrong.

[zaimoni.livejournal.com]

it's really, how do you react when what you know is right in two separate cases seems to conflict?

Been there, done that: first reaction is that I'm transparently lying to myself, so stop the lie of knowing what is right.

The hypothetical doesn't have enough detail to go further than that.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It's a pure hypothetical so there isn't really any more detail to give.

I think your reaction is common, and becoming uncertain is definately a more reasonable reaction than choosing one or the other out of hand because it logically follows.

Usually, I end up discovering that there wasn't *really* an inconsistency in the first place, but in the process I learn more about my own values and stuff.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I think consistency is considered valuable because it implies more rationality going into your decision-making process than just "I do it just because it's what I feel like doing" - or, as I remember from my grade school days, the much shorter version of that would come out as "because." (Why'd you do that? Because. No clue whatsoever as to future behavior to expect out of this individual! Unapologetic admission of arbitrary behavior, surely!)

Sometimes, people reach certain moral/logical frameworks without doing all the math - and, if faced with an argument over the matter, it may be inferred that such people are morally or logically inferior because they didn't "do the math" to "come to their own conclusions."

However, there are cases wherein I repeatedly come to certain conclusions (relatively lightly held) without "doing the math." For instance, a friend of mine goes to see a movie, and informs me that it well and truly stinks and that I should not go to see it. Based on my good relationship with this friend, and the observation that we share in common many movies that we both enjoy, and that we happen to despise a great many movies in common as well, I may infer that I am likely to reach the same conclusion. I put a certain amount of trust into this individual. I may, of course, end up seeing the movie anyway, and find out that it wasn't all that bad. (Maybe my friend just had a bad day, or there were some particular points in the movie that were a hot button for him, but not for me, or various other reasons.)

I suppose it'd be silly of me to insist on liking the movie anyway - or claiming that I like it - even though my personal experience suggests otherwise. But I can't blame people for hearing arguments made by people they trust, and coming to certain conclusions without doing all the homework (seeing the movie, reading the passage in "the original Greek," etc.). Life's short. In such cases, it might be beneficial to point out genuine internal inconsistencies ... but it's a pretty rare thing in my experience to find truly blatant internal inconsistencies that can be easily shot down by "pointing out the obvious."

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

The "logical inconsistency" argument is disingenuous, and when it is made, I am not persuaded that the arguer is seriously approaching the topic. Rather, I interpret it as a visceral reaction, grabbing and tossing a "clever" argument one has heard before, rather than personally engaging in an attempt to understand the other party's reasons for coming to a wrong conclusion, and attempting to persuade that person of the rightness of your own position.

If such positions are "inconsistent," one might wonder why so many hold to one combination or the other: either "Pro-Death-Penalty / Anti-Abortion" or "Anti-Death-Penalty / Pro-Choice-to-Have-an-Abortion."

For the latter combination, I can see an ethical consistency. That would be, "It is wrong to kill a sapient life that is capable of living without support of the womb." The particulars may split a few different directions: Maybe it's the visceral opposition to approving death of someone who can plead for his own life. Maybe it's that you can see someone on death row as a human being, whereas a fetus is just a bulge in a belly. Or, it can be based on the idea that, yes, a fetus is a life form, but the mother's right to self-determination trumps the right of a not-fully-developed life to be born. (This latter viewpoint can be easier to accept, I am sure, if you think of a fetus as something sub-human, and concepts of "souls" don't enter into the equation.) And, even some persons who may be "pro-choice" and "anti-death-penalty" may still split on the issue of, say, assisted suicide, or "pulling the plug" on someone on life support under certain conditions.

Now, someone could say, "But babies are innocent!" or "But a child-rapist-and-murderer DESERVES to die!" or "God says you can't do that!" but that doesn't render this "internally inconsistent." It just can be made to seem such by breezing over the finer details and failing to recognize the values that led someone to this particular conclusion.

For the "Death Penalty but No Abortion" combo, I can also see an ethical consistency. From a judicial standpoint, execution is reserved for criminals. Someone who is a murderer has forfeited his right to live in a lawful society, and therefore it is within the rights of the state to sentence that person to death - either as the ultimate punishment, or simply to remove from society someone who has crossed and uncrossable line, without burdening the state with having to sustain this individual for the rest of a long, incarcerated life. On the other hand, an unborn child is innocent, so if you see that individual as human, abortion would be (in this viewpoint) equated with execution - and an unwarranted one at that.

Someone could say, "All execution is wrong!" or "That's not really a baby!" or "Criminals are just products of a flawed society!" but it still doesn't render this viewpoint internally inconsistent.

I can't really say much to argue my particular viewpoint on the matter of abortion, without first understanding where someone else is coming from. Certain points that I might consider "crucial" underpinnings to my own viewpoint might be irrelevant to how the other person came to his or her stance. (I could, of course, give it a good shot in the dark and try to address some of those starting points, if I felt that I could contribute anything to the discussion that hasn't already been said countless times before.)

If I come at this with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with me is: a) evil, b) stupid, and/or c) intellectually dishonest ... well, then, even if those things were TRUE, I think I'd have a hard time having a serious discussion on the topic anyway, right? It makes me wonder why anyone would bother - that is, if they really want to change anyone's opinion on the matter, after all.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, and coincidentally, just a few minutes ago, I read an article from Ted Rall in which he is for mandated abortion in cases such as Bristol Palin's. Not that this in any way reflects on anyone else, since I'm not really sure what sort of public-opinion bloc Ted Rall "represents" anyway.

I wouldn't accuse him of being morally or logically inconsistent on this, either, or suggest that he hasn't put any thought into his viewpoints. But I can see him as being internally consistent, I can understand that there are likely many others who would come to the same logical conclusion based on their assumptions and values, and yet I can still be very confident that it would be a terrible thing if he were to have his way.

[rowyn]

I'm not really sure what sort of public-opinion bloc Ted Rall "represents" anyway.

I sincerely hope he doesn't represent anyone other than himself. O_O It's like seeing a net.bastard given his own platform in mainstream media. A world-class cretin, and not just for his repugnant ideas on what behaviors should be legislated away.