This week's contemporary issue was on the death penalty. I do not agree with capital punishment because it is hypocritical to the morality of a human being. Our government is supposed to protect the individual's freedom. The one core freedom a human has is of his or her life. The death penalty should never exist because freedom of life is the one essential value of the people the government is supposed to protect. I'm not saying there aren't circumstances where murder can't be justified, but I am saying a government should not have a hand in whether or not one of its citizens should be alive or dead regardless of circumstance. Regarding murder, the only people who should have the hand of justice are the people who are involved in the situation. Such as self defense, one could justify murder if the situation entailed kill or be killed.
I exercised my principles according to this week's contemporary issues. One principle influenced by Taoism that I uphold in this argument is that life is sacred and shouldn't be treated with malice or revenge. Furthermore, the principle of freedom for me is what I recognize I value very highly. In this instance, if a person killed someone that person still has the opportunity to become benevolent and help out his or her fellow man. If one simply decided that their life is no longer worthy because of a past action, that person's chance at helping others out is diminished. So the principle of freedom is very important to me.
To evolve my personal ethical well being, I must experience new things. I can only learn so much by discussing and studying subjects. I'm open to the idea that an experience can completely alter the way I view and treat life. For example, I would probably be more ethically sound if I actually lived in places in the world where food and water is scarce, and I would then not waste as much as I do today. Overall, I think that I have learned to not be an absolutist and to be open to the idea that I am forever changing from this class and these ethical studies.
This week I've commented on, Ashanti's blog. http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-6-death-penalty-kill-for-kill.html?showComment=1335823844093#c2817070210928562286
Alex,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it is the government's main objective to protect the citizens that it tries to lead. I have to ask however isn't the government protecting its citizens from those who are sick or dangerous by enforcing the death penalty?
You also mention the principles of Taoism, and acting like water, but doesn't even water discriminate against oil and certain elements? It bonds to some things and not others, and even water cannot mix with everything for long, much as society with it's criminals. In being like water we are being human; water grows agitated and evaporates away, and grows cold and turns to ice. Much as our own emotions changes, so does water.
I respect your opinion, but I feel that after a certain point, even though someone may be human, it would be remiss to call them a "Person."
I am still on the fence with this issue and some of your arguments are very convincing. The one that I do not agree with is the Taoist principle. This principle would have already been broken because the murdered brought malice and benevolence to someone else's life. Also, you say that the government is supposed to protect life, but they've already failed protecting the victim. This is a very touchy subject and could ensue a debate that lasts for days. I do agree with you when you say that your principles are always changing. I do believe that as I hear new ideas and learn of new subjects, my ideals and principles constantly change.
ReplyDelete