The recent story of Troy Davis has recently given new life to the death penalty debate. While many argue that there was too much doubt surrounding Davis' conviction in order to justly execute him, I ask, is it ever right to execute another human being? It seems that in the last two or three days, between Troy Davis' execution and Dr. Appiah's talk regarding the Honor Code, I have learned more about myself than I ever thought possible.
What I felt yesterday when Troy Davis was executed was shame. As Dr. Appiah pointed out, one cannot feel guilty for acts they did not commit (however, I am still undecided as to whether or not I agree with that fact), but instead, the individual feels guilty for acts of dishonor in their name. Yesterday, Troy Davis was executed in the name of Americans everywhere. But is Davis' guilt or innocence of his crime make his execution any less despicable?
Since 1976, there have been 1,269 executions.
As in as much as this is an ethics class, I will do my best to relate the death penalty to the class material. Having recently discussed Stoicism and Epicureanism, I found myself thinking about how these individuals might treat what I referred to as shame above. It seems to me that perhaps what I felt when Troy Davis was executed is a result of my failure to reduce pain in my life. By passionately involving myself the dealings of other human beings I am effectively maximizing the amount of pain to which I am potentially exposed. In addition, I might argue that stoics of Epictetus' vane would simply name his execution as an event that "happen[ed] as [it did] happen, [so their] life will go well" (Epictetus 56-8). To me, the ending of human's lives is never something that I want to see happen, but it does happen, so I suppose my life will not "go well."
If it means not having my life "go well" in order for executions to cease, and thus the shame it casts upon us, then I embrace the pain that comes my way.
Would Stoics concern themselves with this debate?
Learn more.
I think this is a very timely post given the Troy Davis story.
ReplyDeleteIt's a perfect example of not only why the death penalty is wrong, but how it's abused.
When one is wrongly imprisoned by the state, retribution is possible. That wrong can be undone. The Death Penalty is obviously an irreversible penalty (this makes Troy Davis story that much more tragic and outrageous, given that uncertainty in inconclusiveness surrounding the evidence that led to his conviction)
As to your question regarding stoics, I'm not sure they would feel strongly about the issue. When stoics act unemotionally to death, it is usually in a different context. That is, it's outside of the death penalty debate and more focused on the natural or accidental death of family/friends/etc.
Also, based on our reading they seem to be more concerned with the individual's (un)emotional *reaction* to death, not their personal involvement in causing the death or judging its appropriateness in certain contexts.
Of course, in reaction to Troy Davis's death they'd respond fairly predictably. "What a shame" would be about as much as we could get them to say. They would argue that his death is unfortunate but not worth lamenting over. I think the quote you gave sums up how they'd respond to this issue.
First I'd like to congratulate you on making so many connections among such a variety of topics we've discussed lately in class.
ReplyDeleteLike Thomas, I'd agree that the death penalty is a tragedy in almost every situation. The death penalty only seems reasonable as a punishment in a society that has no other way of keeping its citizens safe from the most violent offenders. In America and most other societies today, the prisons are secure enough that a sentence of life in prison is sufficient to achieve this goal of protecting the populace. Any punishment beyond this level is a mere exercise in vengeance, a base motive bound to bring shame to any member of the society that recognizes it.
In regards to the Stoics, I don't think they could have much of a reaction. To them, putting your emotional well-being in the hands of the foolish decisions of government would be asking for misfortune. Even if it were the Stoic or one of their close family members or friends who was the victim of an unjust usage of the death penalty, it would be more important to them to accept it as part of the reason of the universe (albeit a part that they don't fully understand with their limited human reason) than to respond with extravagant emotion and fight the ruling.
Rush,
ReplyDeletein regards to the death penalty, you, Thomas and Stephanie have said it all. So saying "yes I agree" at this point will only repetitive.
As far as the stoics go, I wonder if they really would be as passive as "simply nam[ing] his execution as an event that "happen[ed] as [it did] happen, [so their] life will go well" (Epictetus 56-8)." I would like to explore another point of view.
Stoics believe in nature and it's balance right? So, even though we haven't really talked (in detail) about the stoics view on justice, I would like to think they will view justice as something that needs balance as well. Meaning punishment must equal the crime. So in this case, I am pretty sure that they would be ...... uncomfortable (this was the only adjective i could think of that was not packed with emotions) with the situation, and would think leaders of this country that allowed this tragedy to occur pathetic (in the sense of giving into their emotions).
However, I do agree with the rest of you guys that they would not take anything to heart, because they must first and foremost protect themselves from feeling anything (such as rage and anger) in regards to the situation.
This view of justice for the Stoics is up for debate, let me know what you (all) think.
Rush, I am really glad you wrote on this topic. I was hoping there would be a post regarding the Troy Davis case. I agree with Thomas as this case does show how the death penalty can be abused as well as how it is wrong, as Thomas said.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Stoics, I think all has been addressed. They would not have much of a reaction to the situation as any execution would be in accord with nature for the Stoics. The Stoics would probably try and persuade you away from feeling even shame towards Troy Davis's execution. However, one of the question that I would have for the Stoics is would executing someone be in "accord with nature" even if it is a forced action that is killing Mr. Davis earlier than when he would have naturally died? I guess I am confused on what qualifies as "with nature" for the Stoics and if executions are justified as being in accord with nature?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRush,
ReplyDeleteRegarding the implementation of justice, I believe the death penalty is too much of an extreme, and is indubitably wrong. As Stephanie aptly stated, if the goal behind executing another human being is to protect the society, then prisons in America and most societies today serve this purpose well, since “they are secure enough that a sentence of life imprisonment…achieves this goal of protecting the populace.”
Also, regarding the Stoic view on this matter—the general consensus is that the Stoics would be indifferent to the execution, because they would consider this just another occurrence in accordance with nature. However, in viewing the issue from another angle, and relating it to Manali’s question, the Stoics also believe evil is the product of ignorance. If we consider the death-penalty as wrong, we might as well parallel it to “an evil.” If this is the case, I believe the Stoics would classify the decision-makers (judges, government, etc) as “ignorant” since they meted out a punishment that would kill Mr. Davis earlier than he would “naturally” have died.