Ethics (Religion)

by dhw, Saturday, October 11, 2008, 20:13 (5681 days ago) @ dhw

An article in yesterday's Guardian reported that five countries (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US) were responsible for 88% of state executions in 2007. In Europe, only Belarus has retained the death penalty. China is the world's No. 1 executioner, and there are approx. 7500 people including children on Pakistan's death row. There are seven states that apply the death penalty for consensual sexual acts between adults of the same sex, and capital offences in Iran include "cursing the Prophet", adultery and drinking alcohol. - All of this seems to me to raise two wider questions. Firstly, where should one draw the line between individual freedom and society's right to protect itself? I suggested in an earlier post that morality consisted in "the right of all human beings to pursue happiness in such a way that it causes minimal harm to humanity and to other forms of life." But the facts listed above beg the question of who should decide what is harmful, i.e. what society needs protection against. Such decisions are in the hands of the law-makers and/or religious bodies, who frequently have an agenda of their own that can lead to oppression and tyranny. We in the West may see ourselves as liberal-minded, but in eastern eyes we may seem degenerate. God doesn't provide the answer, since different believers hear different messages. Can anyone come up with a formula? - My second question goes back to the death penalty, and it arose during a discussion between Carl and myself. Just what should we do with criminals when we've caught them? W.S. Gilbert's Mikado reckoned he had the answer:
 "My object all sublime
 I shall achieve in time ...
 To let the punishment fit the crime ...
 The punishment fit the crime."
But what punishment fits what crime? And is justice only about punishment?