The philosophies behind the death sentence and abortion?

Question

I like consistency, and I don't understand some views that people have regarding abortion and the death sentence. From what I can see, there are three possible logical views.

1. Euthanist. Someone who believes in discarding people who are unproductive to society support both abortion and the death sentence, or at least should by all reason. Also they would toss out our senior citizens.

2. Mercyist. Someone who believes in continual mercy should oppose both the death sentence, since mercy would dictate the protection of all life (except perhaps when someone is actively taking the lives of other people, in which case you are showing mercy to those under attack).

3. Total Justice. This one can get a little hairy depending on your definition of justice, but I can follow how some of them would support the death sentence but oppose abortion.

I don't understand, though, why some people would support abortion and oppose the death penalty, is there a philosophy that justifies this?

And before everyone starts crying foul, no, I'm not trying to make a stab at anyone, I'm just curious as to the philosophy behind someone who supports abortion and opposes the death penalty.

Lame Duck:
How are they not the same? They both involve ending human life, therefore they are connected at the most core component.

Super:
Thanks for taking this question seriously, and I appreciate your input. I don't fully understand why the person is not a human life without the ability to support itself, unless you are then a form of lesser euthanist? I suspect then you would agree with taking people off of life support rather than wait for an organ donor?

Since I'm seeing some confusion on how the two are related, let me clarify. The way they are related is that they both, by definition, end human life. I am basing this definition on our current medical and legal definition of what a human life is. The question on the logic is what is the reasoning for the ending of one life, but sparing another.

And for the record, all views inevitably are linked when it comes to philosophy, since that is the nature of philosophy.

Bush:
Your response is confusing, given that it is not the normal euthanist view, but still supports both abortion and death sentence. If the Freedom of Choice is of a higher value than the Freedom of Life, then by definition you should not agree with the killing of murderers and rapists, since that was their freedom of choice. To kill either an unborn or a seasoned killer imputes another person's will over the executed's choice. It seems that it would create a spiral of who has the right to kill who based off of their Freedom of Choice.

Answer 1

Here is why one might oppose the death penalty but support abortion:

In discussing the death penalty we are talking about human beings with clear interests (e.g., a desire to continue living, capable of pleasure and pain, consciousness, etc.). Furthermore, when looking at the judicial system we see that the courts do not have a way to guarantee that the death penalty is applied fairly. Prejudice and politics do enter into murder trials. If a person unfairly convicted of murder is executed, then there is no recourse if he is later discovered to have been innocent. Most of the people on death row are poor and black and are unable to afford adequate legal representation, which makes it more likely that they will get the death penalty. As one gets richer and whiter the chances of a defendant beating a conviction rises commensurably. Consequently, given the inherent racial and social unfairness, blatant absence of competent legal representation, lack of any immutable certainty, and the finality after execution there seems to be strong reason to cease the death penalty.

Of course now the rejoinder is: If you believe we should protect the lives of ‘alleged’ criminals then why would you support the “killing of innocent babies” as one poster put it. I think a response can turn on the absence of interests for typical cases of abortion. Virtually all abortions occur prior to 25-32 weeks after fertilization—much before the existence any electrical activity in its cerebral cortex—and thus before any possibility of consciousness, capacity for pain/pleasure, or thoughts/desires. Now unlike the death penalty case (where we are dealing clearly with a being with interests) in the case of abortion we are predominately dealing with a thing lacking any interests (one must be careful not to confuse having an interest and being in something’s interest). Given these facts, one could provide a strong argument that to “harm” something requires that it possess interests and not merely be living. I do nothing morally wrong, most people would agree, by taking a stuffed animal or carrot and throwing it against the wall and then lighting it on fire. However, if I did that with a dog most people would express moral outrage. Why? Because the dog has interests (can experience pain, fear, desire to avoid these feelings) while the toy or vegetable does not. Similarly, a 12 week old fetus lacks any interests and therefore it is not morally wrong to kill it unlike the case of the convicted murder who clearly does have interests that can be violated by an unfair and fallible justice system.

But the abortionist is likely to say you shouldn’t take any life. But of course, most people against abortion lament its horrible killing of babies and yet see no problem in the killing and eating of billions of creatures that possess greater interests and intelligence than any fetus ever has (e.g., cows, pigs, chickens, etc.). So really they are saying you shouldn’t take any innocent “human” life. But what is so special about species membership? What if we discovered that the DNA of some people was slightly different and thus were a different species than the rest of humanity—would be automatically think that they lacked the right to life all humans supposedly have? I think most people would say no. This suggests that a being’s value/rights are not dependent on being a member of the human species but must be grounded in something else. And I think a strong candidate would be the possession of certain interests like the capacity to feel pain, having consciousness, and various beliefs and desires—precisely the qualities a person on death row has and a fetus does not.

I hope this addresses your question to some degree.

Answer 2

I think that many people who oppose the death penalty do so because of practical concerns about it. These have to do with a variety of things. The moral objection of many who oppose the death penalty comes from seeing that so many (now 123) people on death row have been released with evidence of their innocence. For many people, the moral and philosophical belief that no system crafted by human beings can ever be free from errors has made them decide to oppose the death penalty.

Other people who oppose the death penalty do not believe that justice requires a person to die for his crimes. Many believe that long prison sentences (and life without parole) provides justice.

You have asked about philosophical reasons. If you had asked about the other reasons that people oppose the death penalty, I would write about the issues of cost, deterrence, effect of the death penalty on families of murder victims, who gets the death penalty and other things.

Answer 3

I fall under the category of people, I suppose, who would support abortion, but oppose the death penalty. So let me see if I can explain my position.

Firstly, I don't believe that I support abortion as much as I defend a woman's right to decide what happens to her body. A fetus, if it cannot sustain itself artificially or naturally outside of the womb, is not a human life to me. Therefore, I would give the right to the fully formed human life.

As for the death penalty, I don't believe that any man has the right to end another person's life. (Again, please see that I do not regard early stage fetuses as human life.) Two wrongs do not make a right. And while I despise the notion that tax dollars will support a murderer for the rest of his life, I believe that it makes us a better society than one that murders murderers.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak my position on this...


To your comment....if I have to choose between the rights of a fully formed human (woman), and the rights of a group of cells that cannot support itself, even with the assistance of life support, then yes, I will support the rights of the woman. And as for being a euthanist...yes, in cases of a living will, I believe in active euthanasia - not passive.

Answer 4

Your logical views don't make much sense, especially trying to link abortion to "total justice." The two are simply not directly linked. Any attempt to try to equate murderers with the most innocent human life possible requires a complete lack of logic.

Answer 5

There's no logic that makes those two issues the same. They're entirely separate.

That said, I'm a liberal who is pro-choice (which has nothing to do with my opinion of abortion itself, but rather, my authority to prevent a woman from having one) and pro-death penalty.

But if you're pro-life, according to your own logic, you should be opposed to the death penalty.

Answer 6

Hah! Don't expect a decent answer.I've still got to hear a satisfactory response as to why people oppose the death penalty for convicted criminals but support the killing of innocent babies.

Answer 7

Simpy put, abortion is the taking of a life that had no say so in the decision. The death penalty is for people who made the decision to murder, rape, etc. I believe they give up their rights.

Answer 8

Well I would suppose the belief that everyone deserves a chance in life but if you blow it and kill someone else ending their chance in life then your done.

Answer 9

Why should we kill INNOCENT BABIES and not kill GUILTY MURDERERS?

Who decides when someone should end their own life?

I hope this helps.