Hey Rasheed,
RASHEED
> This discussion brings back some memories, though i've only been on this
site
> less than a year.
RICK
I've been on it for about 4 years and let me tell you, you're gonna see the
same topics come up often. I've seen this passage discussed several
times... I wanted to see what Erin thought about it.
RASHEED
If you keep reading, Pirsig argues that by killing a human
> being, you are killing a source of thought, a source of intellect. This
is
> society destroying intellect, which is immoral.
RICK
Yes. He does say this.
RASHEED
Society can only kill a
> human being if that human being threatens the very existence of that
society,
> which happens in cases of treason and insurrection.
RICK
But not ONLY in cases of treason and insurrection.
He says, "When a society itself is not threatened, as in the execution of
individual criminals, the issue becomes more complex. In the case of treason
or insurrection or war a criminal's threat to a society can be very real.
But if an established social structure is not seriously threatened by a
criminal, then an evolutionary morality would argue that there is no moral
justification for killing him."
The first sentence tells us he's talking about cases where the crime DOESN'T
threaten society itself. He seems to be saying that at a time when the very
existence of a society is being threatened by something like treason,
insurrection or war, the society is justified taking more drastic measures
against even ordinary criminals, up to and including the death penalty,
depending on how dire the situation becomes. I think his point is that the
more fragile a society becomes, the more justification it has for defending
itself on all scales and by all means necessary.
RASHEED
I, along with others,
> have argued that by successfully capturing a criminal, his ability to
commit
> treason is gone and he is no longer any kind of threat.
RICK
Right. But a society that isn't stable enough to keep criminals confined
would be justified in killing ones that threatened its stability. So the US
wouldn't be justified in executing anyone because we can afford to
incarcerate prisoners. But a society that couldn't afford such
incarcerations would be more justified in executing prisoners.
thanks for your input,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:58 BST