tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1887277208526784391.post8539260183178496457..comments2013-06-14T23:42:52.750+07:00Comments on The Anti-Politician: Capital punishment: the debate continuesGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07036571811589362729noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1887277208526784391.post-87687507516904796022010-03-21T00:10:10.357+07:002010-03-21T00:10:10.357+07:00I wish I'd come across this article sooner. Ir...I wish I'd come across this article sooner. Ironically, it was re-reading my own article on this subject that brought me back here.<br /><br />I may get around to responding properly to this article, well-written and reasoned as it is, at some point.<br /><br />Here, I'd just like to pick up on one thing;<br /><br />"To suggest a murder is an equally condemnable crime in any circumstances is to ignore human nature. Do we really believe that a man who shoots a burglar who has just told him he will rape his wife is equal in his sin to a man who gets drunk, walks up to someone in the street and kicks them to death?"<br /><br />As you've noted yourself, I've qualified my point with the word "offensive." The man who shoots the aggressive burglar commits an act of self-defence, the man who kicks a stranger to death without provocation commits an act of murder.<br /><br />Moral absolutism and moral universalism are <em>not</em> the same thing. Absolutism maintains that the <em>act</em> has the same level of right or wrong attached to it regardless of circumstances. Universalism holds that right or wrong needs to be determined by context rather than outcome (i.e. the distinction between offensive and defensive), but that the distinction is held up by the same criteria in all cases.<br /><br />As such, a premeditated act by the state should carry the same moral weight as an identical premeditated act by the individual.Phil Dickenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10997342020819898243noreply@blogger.com