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

[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.