They say it's not polite to talk politics, especially among company you know might take offense to what you say.
So pardon my impudence.
I want to talk about the death penalty. It's been a huge topic of current events lately with audience outbursts at recent political events and today's controversial execution of Troy Davis. We can even consider the celebration of millions of Americans after the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden.
As I see it, any discussion of the death penalty inevitably comes with an elephant in the room, and perhaps people behaving like asses (sorry, my puns aren't as witty as Conor's). This has become a hugely partisan issue, leading to political stereotyping that, like most partisan issues, stymies actual discussion of the issue. So let's leave the ideology out, and we'd probably do well to try not to mention Texas (there's the one subtle jab I'll allow myself).
The death penalty is an issue deeply rooted in political and moral philosophy. Kant believed execution of criminals to be a matter of justice; in a polis founded on mutual agreement upon laws, to not permanently dispose of an offender was akin to condoning his crime. The other end of the spectrum, of course, contends that the death penalty is immoral in itself. It promotes the kind of barbarism that laws strive to suppress, and carries with it the tremendous burden of acting on a conviction that has been established by fallible human intellect.
These arguments are simplistic, and I would be eager to hear from those who find themselves aligned one way over the other and wish to better articulate their view. However, I ask that in our responses we consider:
Let's apply that theoretical PLS education in virtue of ours to a real issue. Respectful disagreement is very welcome; let's just try not to get personal.
So pardon my impudence.
I want to talk about the death penalty. It's been a huge topic of current events lately with audience outbursts at recent political events and today's controversial execution of Troy Davis. We can even consider the celebration of millions of Americans after the capture and execution of Osama Bin Laden.
As I see it, any discussion of the death penalty inevitably comes with an elephant in the room, and perhaps people behaving like asses (sorry, my puns aren't as witty as Conor's). This has become a hugely partisan issue, leading to political stereotyping that, like most partisan issues, stymies actual discussion of the issue. So let's leave the ideology out, and we'd probably do well to try not to mention Texas (there's the one subtle jab I'll allow myself).
The death penalty is an issue deeply rooted in political and moral philosophy. Kant believed execution of criminals to be a matter of justice; in a polis founded on mutual agreement upon laws, to not permanently dispose of an offender was akin to condoning his crime. The other end of the spectrum, of course, contends that the death penalty is immoral in itself. It promotes the kind of barbarism that laws strive to suppress, and carries with it the tremendous burden of acting on a conviction that has been established by fallible human intellect.
These arguments are simplistic, and I would be eager to hear from those who find themselves aligned one way over the other and wish to better articulate their view. However, I ask that in our responses we consider:
- whether the death penalty is ever politically necessary,
- whether the death penalty is ever morally necessary, and
- how our views on the death penalty are influenced by our religious views.
Let's apply that theoretical PLS education in virtue of ours to a real issue. Respectful disagreement is very welcome; let's just try not to get personal.
RSS Feed