----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 3:28 AM Subject: Re: Death Penalty (Was: Re: EU Warns Iraq It Faces 'Last Chance')
> Rob said: > > > Prison should be either a punishment appropriate to a crime or a > > barrier that keeps violent types seperated from potential victims. > > Just out of interest, why is murdering a person or two so much worse > than, say, firing 800 cruise missiles at a Middle Eastern country? For > that matter, why is inter-state warfare so much more acceptable than > inter-gang warfare? > The real question that has to be asked is "what are the alternatives?" In the case of the Harris murder in Houston, the alternatives were to live knowing that your husband lied and cheated on you. It is a much better alternative than death. The alternative to fighting the Cold War was a world ruled by the Soviets. Inter-state warfare is much more acceptable than inter-gang warfare because of the options that are available. There are possibilities to escape from gang warfare, even though they might be limited by circumstances. There is no way to escape from directly confronting a nation that threatens one's own nation. In the US and UK, the police do exist, and they have the responsibility of protecting the lives and properties of the citizens. The courts exist, and they have the responsibility of determining guilt, awarding payments, etc. Even though there are flaws in the US and UK systems, for the most part, the rights of the citizens of these countries are best guaranteed the legal system; not individual lethal action. In countries where this is not true, the basis upon which the morality of action is changed. For example, if some of the gangs that exist are really extralegal military forces with political allegiance to the government, then fighting them might be the only option one has to preserve one's own life. Concerning nations, there is no world government. The closest thing to a world police force is the US military. Further, actions like electing Libya as the head of the UN human rights commission indicate that the international community cares little about human rights. In that context, we do still live in a Hobbsnian world. In that world, Gautam's original criterion for waging war seems reasonable. Granted, there are judgment calls about the relative merits of risking lives to overturn a repressive regime. But, that need not be answered to answer your question about why it is more moral for states than individuals to use force to achieve ends. Individuals living in countries that have representative governments have options for resolution that are not available in international affairs. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
