Why Death Penalty is Murder

October 27, 2019 Morality, Sociocultural Issues No Comments

Taking into account full human being, there is no relevant difference between the accused and the accuser.

‘Taking conscious human life’

This is a quite good definition of murder. In case of the death penalty, it’s murder with full premeditation.

In ‘taking,’ one can see a relevant fuzziness which makes thinking about, for instance, euthanasia important. Can one ‘take’ one’s own life? One can end it for sure.

To ‘take’ it means that it’s not already yours.

Is it of ‘God’? Which one (of millions)? Would the real one care, or if indeed, would he care more for an abstract notion of life than for conscious suffering? Who says? Who knows?

Who has the hubris to tell others?

There is no rationality in this. Nor any decent poetry. Actually, I see only and merely ego, the actions of anxious individuals. [see: “Difference between Fear and Anxiety”]

The full human being

should be taken into consideration, always.

It’s not ethical to think about human being, in any circumstance, as only the tiny part which is ‘ego’. [see: “The Story of Ego”] Full human being is immensely much more. One can feel this best within oneself through communicating with it. [see: “Dancing With the ‘Deeper Self’”] Or take any of the 1000+ AURELIS exercises.

Fully taking into account the full human being changes everything, from healthcare to politics to religion to so much more, including:

death penalty.

A certain person has – in most cases only very probably – committed an atrocity, such as murder. People agree that this deserves death. The sociocultural environment makes them do so. Simply: another culture (time, place) -> no death penalty.

Culture engenders death penalty.

As, in the same vein, culture engenders the atrocity itself. No baby is born with the idea “Gosh, now I’m in this world, I will grow up to become a murderer.” The cultural environment makes him so, murder of any kind being part of this.

Or he might become a judge.

Who’s responsible for the cultural environment?

‘Guilty’ only makes sense in a mere-ego-world.

[see: “Always Responsible, Never Guilty”]

Let alone the ultimate penalty.

Protecting people and society at large

Apart from revenge and other crazy motivations for legalized murder, this may indeed be a sensible argument: inflicting injury and suffering to avoid more injury and suffering. After all, that’s why the surgeon takes his scalpel.

One should thread this very carefully.

The death penalty may heighten aggression and the commitment of atrocities in that specific society, in many covert ways. I do think this is the case.

It’s not because something is covert that it’s not real, nor unreal.

One needs to think it over, very much.

A deluge of scientific data points to the fact that the present view on human being as it lives in most of Western culture – from healthcare to etc. – is strongly outdated. This is related to what I, again and again, refer to as ‘the subconceptual’ or ‘deeper self.’

No mumbo-jumbo. Science of the highest quality and replication.

Jurisdiction which doesn’t take this into account isn’t worthy.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Delayed Gratification, No Frustration

The ability to delay gratification is important in any well-functioning society. Can it be fostered with little frustration? Western culture evolves towards a cult of ‘immediate gratification.’ Is this healthy? Marshmallow In a 1960s experiment at Stanford, a number of kids got one marshmallow and could get three if the child wouldn’t eat the one Read the full article…

Nature and Nurture of Morality

Evidently, there is nature and there is nurture. Much less evident is how they relate to each other. Nevertheless, we can learn and take appropriate action. A mollusk has no morality because it’s pure nature. No nurture, very small degree of freedom. Obviously. What the mollusk teaches us is that ‘morality’ starts where hardwired structuring Read the full article…

‘Doing Your Best’ is Good Enough

The title of this piece can be seen as a ‘categorical invitation’, an (auto-)suggestion to strive and keep striving and at the same time not ego-wisely strive at all. The goal is to be human. People do not act morally consistent much of the time. An often used example is about a natural disaster striking Read the full article…

Translate »