Is it hypocrisy to oppose capital punishment on moral grounds yet condone war as sometimes being necessary? ... Perhaps _nobody_ has the right to decree death as punishment for a person, but then, doesn't that mean justifying war _by any means_ is a morally indefensible stance?
storageanddisposal answered Saturday June 3 2006, 9:15 am: I agree with Scribble. It's not necessarily hypocrisy, though I'm fairly against both. There's almost always the possibility of killing someone who was innocent. It's more harsh to kill someone in that than to follow through with war when you no longer have a choice.
"No one has a right to decree death as punishment"
Scribble answered Saturday June 3 2006, 7:04 am: I'm not sure that it is hypocrisy, only because the two terms- 'war' and 'capital punishment' seem incompatible. I mean, capital punishment is the decision to execute after judgmental process- first the defendant must be found guilty of a crime and then executed, essentially in cold blood, in front of witnesses. War seems like a different kettle of fish entirely. Although I DO see what you mean in comparing the two in that death is essentialy proscribed in both cases, the deaths that occur in in war are not really a form of punishment, are they? Also the decree of death could never be said to be 'for the greater good' in my opinion, whereas it is possible the reasonin for war could be to prevent further loss of life in future.
Attention: NOTHING on this site may be reproduced in any fashion whatsoever without explicit consent (in writing) of the owner of said material, unless otherwise stated on the page where the content originated. Search engines are free to index and cache our content. Users who post their account names or personal information in their questions have no expectation of privacy beyond that point for anything they disclose. Questions are otherwise considered anonymous to the general public.