Original story I think this is a small victory for civilization over barbary. One of the hallmarks of a civilized society, and one not demonstrated by the US, is that they act in a civilized manner even when it is not easy to do so. A truly mature society should hold up it's values as being more important than the safety and comfort of it's individual members. Let me cite two examples, capitol punishment and torture. In both cases the debate has centered not on the morality of these acts, but on their effacy. We don't talk about whether it is wrong for a society to kill it's members as a punisment, but rather we ask if this punishment deters others. We don't ask whether torture is wrong, we ask if it makes us safer. In order to truly consider ourselves civilized we must be willing to forgo a measure of personal safety in order to move towards the kind of society we wish to be.
Nice parallel, and you're right. Valuing ethics foremost is civilised, while valuing safety foremost is tribal. Doing the right thing is the act of a sentient, moral being, doing the safe thing is an animal instinct. But social psychology demonstrates time and again that we are social animals...
Good, capital punishment is barbaric and hardly a humane death <grammar nazi> I think this is a small victory for civilization over <barbary> barbarism</grammar nazi> Barbary is a type of ape found in Gibraltar, Morocco and Algeria, or an area of the coast of Africa famous for its pirates
Hang on, isn't that the line of thought that brings people to justify capital punishment on the grounds of an eye for an eye? i.e. "We're not doing it for the safety of our society but because the ******* deserved it." How is that civilised? That kind of thinking almost makes me sick.
Possibly, but you have to ask yourself if you think an eye for an eye is the basis of a good set of principles. I say no.
That would be a valid point if the society considered killing to be the right thing. I won't speak for Nexxo, but in my mind the proper approach is that killing is always wrong, but sometimes necessary. I think this position is born out in most western societies. Let me cite an example... If a police officer shoots a suspect who is armed and presents a clear and present danger to the officer or the public then society will usually approve of the officer's actions not because the suspect deserved to be shot, but because the officer took the best of a bad set of options. The killing of the suspect was not a desireable outcome, but an acceptable one. The position often taken by supporters of the death penalty is that it is desireable to kill someone if their death makes the rest of society safer by setting an example or else that such killing is desireable in retribution independent of any deterrent role.
Ok, maybe I didn't understand Nexxo's point. Is he saying that doing the right thing and doing the safe thing have in fact the same basis. I.e. our morals are evolved from the ability to survive and so doing the safest thing for society is in fact doing the morally correct thing? I had the impression that Nexxo was saying that morals transcend animal survival instincts and so to be civilised we need to argue the death penalty for it's own sake. In my mind that means arguing whether or not someone who has killed someone deserves to be killed themselves which in my view is just wrong.
