The left has mastered the art of framing a debate using semantics and accusations of hypocrisy, but let’s not despise them for this work of sophistry. Rather, while we destroy these arguments with logic and rational thought, let’s also explore them to see how we can be more consistent at applying our ethics and values.
A prime example of this is the abortion debate; the primary weapon against the abolition of abortion is how they define what is pro-life and what is pro-choice. Almost to a person, they will say that they are “pro-life”, and they then claim that pro-life means being against war, the death penalty, and against abortion (though they are only “personally” against it). Well, they are defining pro-life as an ethic of pacifism, which is certainly not required to be against abortion. They point out how hypocritical we are by calling for the end of legal abortion while not speaking against state sanctioned killing and war. To them I say that if being against the death penalty is required to be against legalized abortion, then the converse must be true making them as big of hypocrites as us. Actually, by claiming the pacifist mantle along with legalized abortion, I believe they are the hypocrites. The problem is however that the language is just a cover for their actual beliefs about abortion; that the fetus is a parasite and not a person with rights. We can see through history that oppressors and murders always dehumanize their targets, which is no different than what is happening in the abortion argument.
Having said all of this, we need to take their charges of hypocrisy and look inside our thinking to make sure our pro-life ethic is consistently applied to other issues. As I said before, the pro-life ethic is not necessarily one of pacifism (although pacifism can certainly be pro-life), but rather one of justice and the protection of innocent life. Whether it is the Just War Theory (JWT), the death penalty, or abortion, we must always seek to protect innocent life. There is a huge vacuum of thought on the JWT when it comes to our modern wars and an almost reactionary ideology when there are suggestions that the death penalty is unfairly administered. It seems like we must justify any state sanction of violence with sound and just reason.
Does our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan meet the critera for a Just War?
The general criteria for a just war as is follows:
• having just cause
• being a last resort
• being declared by a proper authority
• possessing right intention
• having a reasonable chance of success
• and the end being proportional to the means used
Does the current administration of the death penalty take enough reasonable care to ensure that innocents are not executed? Is there enough deterrence to mitigate the innocent people that will be executed?
What I have begun to realize is that I don’t have enough answers on these questions to take firm positions on the wars or on the death penalty as currently administered. Not that I can’t take a stand one way or the other, but I have to constantly reexamine my positions based on new evidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment