The third contempory issue of the death penalty effected my principles in a way that challenged them. The pro death penalty argument was very compelling but I, personally, dont think as a society we can execute people justly. To be human is to erre. Society is not perfect, we dont get it right 100% of the time, and because of our prejudices, class division, and mistakes someone is bound to be falsely accused and executed. It is this margin of error that is just too great for us to overlook.
I need more experience and worldly insight to reasonably respond to these moral issues beyond a set of principles. I think the skill of objectivity would make me a more efficient ethical being because sometimes issues get muddled when we're too self involved.
I commented on http://ashantijones.blogspot.com/
I agree that more experience is needed when referring to ethical issues however, isnt self involvement the basis of exploring what is moral for you? I think that involving self will actually clarify what your beliefs are.
ReplyDeleteI found the same problem with a lot of the contemporary issues that we covered too. My principles were often being challenged and I wasn't ever able to come to a conclusion about which side to take. I can say the same about the death penalty too, my thoughts were that it should only be instituted in extreme cases and only if the suspect can be proven guilty one hundred percent. I also agree with you that society is not perfect, and that people do make mistakes which is the only other problem I have regarding the death penalty. Falsely accusing innocent people is something that cannot be overlooked.
ReplyDelete