Than 'nature's judgement' of 'value', and man's, differ in important respects. (Idi Amin 'survived'... not so sure many would say their was any value for mankind in that.....)
Not necessarily. It is that man has this sense of what is valuable, a sense that is ever shifting and that is not fixed in nature. Nature, on the other hand, simply "promotes" for life, but only due to its structure.
So, you are opposed to the death penalty?
Well if the human is innocent of infringing upon the life of another human, then obviously I am against the death penalty.
Correct. But we exist as a 'nation of laws' (as do all nations to varying degrees). So, the legal framework that organizes our social structure has significance in our lives.
Yes it does, and optimally the laws that govern our society should correspond to the natural "legal" structure of nature. But they do not. People now arbitrarily determine who is in their club and who is not. So rights of "citizenship" are quite arbitrary. That is why we cannot pinpoint when anyone gains citizenship rights (the right to vote, etc)...
Back to the death penalty again, (or, to industrial pollution, etc., etc., which may deprive individuals of their lives or health --- albeit, at some remove from the individual, and often a difficult causual link to precisely verify... especially when dealing with the interactions of MULTIPLE pollutants.)
Well, once again, the innocence of the human is critical. Regarding pollution, motive is also critical. Indeed motive is critical in any moral determination. |
