[RESOLVED] Death sentence and moral relativism

[realMakc]

I don't think it's a bad example. There are plenty of accounts of Nazi's regretting their actions and testifying that they knew it was wrong. Some resisted their orders. Sometimes, people do things that they know deep down are wrong.

I wouldnt really like to discuss how these statements are obviously helpful to them so, assuming the opposite - even if they are telling truth, what they feel about it NOW does not change what they have felt about it back THEN.

So, to make sure I understand, you believe that morality is genetic, or learned? You seem to suggest both.

surely I did not said the morality is genetic? what I did say is that, since on the large scale people are very similar and live similar lives where they deal with similar situations, there's no wonder that they develop/accept similar values.

I understand that you are saying that if someone thinks killing is bad, they should be consistent about it.

Now that's a something...

But, you're also ignoring that many people put forth a logical basis for why some killing is justified and others are not (ie. murderers damage society or the penalty of death deters the worst types of crimes).

Not at all, I am not ignoring it. Am not. Really.

Technically speaking, murder is an illegal killing. So, being sentenced to death is not a "murder." They are two, similar, yet clearly distinguished things... Those people are appealing to the concept that the death penalty is good for society and murderers are not. So, you may see it differently. But, they are not being hypocrites. Their premise allows for some kinds of killing and not others.

Great, so what you said here is: supposed majority of society who votes for people who make laws and so define what is illegal, thinks that killing is not bad, and murder (= illegal killing) is. Meanwhile, minority who kill for "no reason" (c) silver, thinks murder is not bad, either, and some cases are even good (that's why they do it). And yet another minority who sits in electric chairs now thinks killing is actually bad in at least one case, too. All of this sort of fits in my "relativisim" thing; on the other hand, what it does not fit is the existance of universal "good" that our oppinions have to converge to - or else we could expect the law (that separates murder from killing, and many other things like that) to converge to same formulas over 1000s of year. Yet, we just do not see it happening. States and societies come and go, their formulas change all the time. Even now in XXIst century some americans are concerned with supposed homo killings in Iran or political killing in China, but the majority local people seem to approve those (since we know that legal status of those is direct result of their moral beliefs, right).