I have been in a recent exchange with a leftist on the topic of Captial Punishment. He is against it because it is possible for innocent people to receive it. The response to this is that on every system it is possible that innocent people are charged with crimes. That would invalidate systems of justice across the board. He contends that CP is worse because its effects are more everlasting. I pointed out that being in prison until your death has everlasting effects on people. Even if one were to prove their innocence it still can have physical/psychological effects forever. So, his alternative barely has a solution to these issues. Here is where the conversation is now:
First on the writing-you are dead right. I have fat fingers and sometimes don’t proofread. Now, I don’t understand why god is necessary for law. I am not arguing whether there is or isn’t a god just that one is not dependent on the other.A society of atheist would still need laws
A society of atheists is just like a bunch of kids making a game. It really isn’t that laws exist and they are discovering them(natural law) rather they make the laws up. They are human conventions that are byproducts of evolutionary history. The point is that their laws are arbitrary. They don’t think humans actually have ‘rights'(some do think that they do but they can’t cash that out) but rather they are part of a made-up game called society.
If laws are arbitrary, then they can be changed on a whim. So, they end up not acting like laws at all. Furthermore, many atheists deny moral realism. So, why care about human lives? It is merely preference at that point and that is hardly able to guide society. It is exactly why classic democracy falls into mob rule.
.think there are many different reason people don’t like the death penalty. 1. It doesn’t deter crime (imho that shouldn’t matter – the idea is punishment not rehabilitation with a murderer so neither would life prison deter). 2. It’s immoral playing god and killing someone…
It seems like you understand that (1) isn’t a good argument as it stands. God states that it is a good deterrent. That misses the issue that it doesn’t deal with whether we still ought to do it. Let me give another example, letting people drive cars allows people to hit other people with their cars. But I doubt anyone thinks that they don’t have a right to own and drive cars. This is why consequentialist perspectives aren’t the final say in these matters. (2) it isn’t playing God because God has given the state the right and obligation to carry out Capital punishment.
…my priest holds this opinion. I am against for the reasons mentioned. There are also legitimate arguments for the death penalty. Ones I made at one time.
There are no more Preist in the NT other than Christ and the universal Priesthood. Roman Catholicism is an apostate Church that only recently turned against the death penalty.