Death Penalty and Killing
in War
By Lloyd Johns
The main difference between
death penalty, killing in war and murder seems to be that death penalty
and killing in war are socially approved, but murder is not. Killings
under death penalty are culturally approved actions. And most people would
not agree that “soldiers are murderers.” Even The Sixth Commandment
does not state “Thou shalt not kill,” but “Thou shalt not murder.”
It is consistent with the fact, that there were cases of killing even of
children, women, and elderly under God’s approval in the Old Testament.
And even the killing of Jesus has been ordered by the High Priest with
approval from the Synhedrion.
Legally, killing in war and
death penalty are not murders because they do not have intention to kill.
The intention of death penalty is punishment and prevention of further
crimes. In times of war, there is an intention to kill, but this intention
is brought about by instructions of a body which is legally empowered to
order killing whether we like it or not. For Hume, the central fact about
ethics is that moral judgments are formed not by reason alone but by the
sentiment of sympathy. Hume says that reason “is not sufficient alone to
produce any moral blame or approbation.” What limits the role of reason
in ethics is that reason makes judgments concerning matters of fact and
relations whereas moral judgments of good and evil are not limited to
matters of fact and relations.
Why do we judge murder to
be crime? Or, to use Hume’s words, “where is that matter of fact which
we here call crime?” If you describe the action, the exact time at which
it occurred, the weapon used, in short, if you assemble all the details
about the event, the faculty of reason would still not isolate that fact
to which the label of crime is attached. This act cannot always and in all
circumstances be considered a crime. The same action might be official
execution and not considered a crime. The judgment of good or evil should
be made after all the facts are known. So, according to Hume, we tend to
think about any killing of a human being as of evil, but some killings can
be justified and necessary, like capital punishment and killing in war.
It a mistake to think that
opponents of the death penalty are invariably pacifists, sentimentalists,
motivated by tenderness to those convicted of deliberate murder. They
might just as well often be motivated by compassion for criminals, who in
more rational, more just, or kinder society would not be criminals at all
– for example, soliciting prostitutes and drug addicts. So people who
are against capital punishment are not necessarily pacifists and
humanists.
There are also different
views at killing at war. Someone said that terrorists in one country are
defenders of independence and national heroes in another. In the same way
killings by soldiers who defend their country are considered justified,
whereas killings of invaders are of course unjust. Many people think that
it is just and moral to kill others to protect one’s country, whereas
the same people may se no real reason for death penalty and be opposed to
it.
Death penalty and killing
in war are similar in the way that they are justified by government even
though they may or may not be justified by society. Moreover, there can be
people who agree with necessity of death penalty but are opposed to wars
and visa versa.
Lloyd Johns was a
professional freelance writer for 13 years. Now he is a technical writer,
advertising copywriter, & website copywriter for Custom
Essay Writing Network |
