An Open Letter to Political Pundits: Convicts != Fetuses != Animals

[rowyn]

What is with this whole soundbite rhetorical argument that, somehow, one's position on the death penalty needs to be aligned with one's position on abortion and/or hunting? Is it so hard to imagine that one could believe that convicted criminals, fetuses, and wild animals are not, in fact, identical creatures and should not, therefore, be treated

Comments

[pyat]

Yes, thank you! Just so. :)

You hear a lot in the other direction, as well. "How can you be against the death penalty for grandpa rapers, but okay with killing unborn babies, you monster?" etc etc.

[rowyn]

Oh yes. That's why I cited versions of both positions. It's equally annoying from either side. O_o

[circuit_four]

This is merely supplementary information, clearly not a direct rebuttal nor is it intended to be... but it's just interesting:

Dr. Temple Grandin (made famous for being interviewed about her autism by Dr. Oliver Sacks) did some research that indicated the treatment of animals, the treatment of convicts, and the treatment of the disabled are actually highly statistically correlated. (By U.S. state, I believe it was.) I can dig: I believe the study was mentioned in Dr. Sacks' An Anthropologist on Mars.

Of course, take it with a grain of salt -- and note that Dr. Sacks also used to design "humane" abattoirs for a living. ^_^

[level_head]

Interesting. Does the research address the policy positions held by the subjects, or their actual treatment in personal contact? (For example, by prison guards.)

It occurs to me that a voting or "official" position may well be substantially out of phase with real behavior -- but I am not familiar with Dr. Grandin's work.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

A study on the correlation between actual behavior vs philosophy vs political beliefs would be interesting, too. Differences between practice and politics aren't necessarily indicative of hypocrisy, either: one can easily believe something is good without believing it should also be enforced by law.

[level_head]

"In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice..."

And the distinction between good and mandated is certainly a valid one. I don't think that very many people now believe that smoking is "good for you" -- but the people that agree it's bad aren't necessarily in favor of outlawing smoking in your own home. Their polls answers would vary wildly based upon the wording of the question.

There's a hierarchy of good -- and personal liberty trumps "we're going to legislate you for your own good" in most instances, it seems to me.

===|==============/ Level Head

[detroitfather]

Well said!

Too bad this post won't fit on a bumper sticker.

[rowyn]

Hee, thanks! I'm tempted to do a "Arguments I've Already Heard Enough Times" post, but I think I'm over my quota on snarky already. >:)

[terrycloth]

It sounds like you're saying that everyone has to be pro-life AND anti-death-penalty AND a total pacifist in order to be ethical. Your argument doesn't actually indicate a conflict between pro-life and pro-death-penalty stances, you're just saying that killing is always wrong (and, in addition, that abortion is killing).

[terrycloth]

I think you're misusing the terms 'consistent' and 'rationalization' in order to comfort yourself about the unpopularity of your own moral choices.

It's just rationaliation, in other words.

[rowyn]

I hear this argument from people on both sides, though. Ie, people who support the death penalty expressing disgust at pro-choice people for opposing the death penalty. It's not just the "all life is sacred" crowd that uses it.