A Thinking Reed

Consistency and a "culture of life"

Written by

Lee M.

in

Julian Sanchez and Matthew Yglesias both ponder the oft-made argument that it’s inconsistent or hypocritical to be against legal abortion but in favor of the death penalty. Sanchez says that there’s nothing logically inconsistent about opposing abortion while favoring capital punishment while Yglesias argues that it’s fair game to ask anti-abortion death penalty proponents to live up to their “culture of life” rhetoric.

On the one hand, Sanchez is right that it’s possible to draw a morally significant distinction between killing an unborn child and executing, say, a convicted serial killer. (Interesting that almost no one makes the argument that the truly consistent position is to favor both legal abortion and the death penalty!)

Still, I think Yglesias is onto something when he points out that if you embrace the notion of a “culture of life” then you should at least be uncomfortable with the death penalty.

I would argue that the connecting thread is a strong presumption against the taking of human life. As Methodist Bishop Timothy Whitaker has said:

When John Wesley gave the General Rules to the people called Methodists the first thing he told them was to do no harm. In order to show evidence that we are a people who are being saved by God we should do no harm.

The rule to do no harm directs those of us who are Christians to practice non-violence. A Christian is someone who is horrified by violence, refrains from violence in her or his own life, and seeks to restrain violence in the world insofar as possible.

The practice of non-violence is advocated in many religious traditions and philosophical teachings down through history. More than that, it expresses the will of God who is revealed in the story of the Bible.

This horror of violence would make a people formed by a “culture of life” very hesitant to take the life of a fellow human being. This is sometimes combined with the idea that ready acceptance of killing in one sphere of life will spill over into others. There are differences of opinion among those who adhere to a “consistent life” ethic as to whether there are ever circumstances which permit the taking of life. The Catholic tradtion, as expressed in the catechism, allows that in some cases war and capital punishment may be legitimate responses to aggression, but only when other means of defense are unavailable.

But both groups can agree, I think, that to “seek to restrain violence in the world insofar as possible” would require that we seek alternatives to abortion, capital punishment, war, and euthanasia, even if perhaps under some circumstances they might be necessary. It does seem that conservatives can be too comfortable with war and capital punishment, while liberals too easily accept abortion and euthanasia. A “culture of life,” on the other hand, would not accept the prevalent rationalizations for the alleged necessity of these forms of violence.

Comments

6 responses to “Consistency and a "culture of life"”

  1. Kevin

    Is it inconsistent to be against spanking fetuses but for spanking ten-year-olds? Perhaps how we treat a person depends on the person’s age and overall maturity.

    Perhaps reserving death as a punishment for free moral agents who are of age is consistent with resisting the destruction of the unborn, who are defenseless and on their way to personhood.

    I’m not saying that’s my personal stance, but it’s something to discuss.

    Kevin

    Reply
  2. Lee

    Yeah – I don’t think there’s a strict inconsistency there – I do think there’s a morally relevant distinction between an unborn human being and a convicted murderer. What I do think, though, is that human life – even the life of the guilty – should be taken only when strictly necessary and I’m not sure that the death penalty is strictly necessary – at least in modern industrialized nations – to defend public safety and the common good.

    Of course, one could argue that murderers and the like deserve execution as a matter of retributive justice, in which case the DP would be justifiable irrespective of whether or not its necessary to defend the public from an aggressor.

    Reply
  3. roger

    This is a thoughtful discussion, much appreciated. I have two points to add.

    Recently, someone quoted the then Cardinal Ratzinger as having said that while, for Catholics, argument was permissible on, say, killing in war and similar questions, no argument was permissible on abortion and euthanasia. I find this double standard just comprehensible but still odd, notably since WWII was very much a moral exception as wars go.

    Secondly, I have never understood the argument that for Christians, physical life is an absolute value. I’m an Anglican myself, and it’s always struck me that physical life, from what we are allowed to infer is God’s point of view, seems remarkably unimportant. In the American culture war I get the impression that the sanctity of life is more a stick with which to beat those one hates viscerally anyway. On both sides.

    To a non-American, the elevation of abortion to an absolute political/electoral value is incomprehensible.

    Reply
  4. Lee

    Hi Roger – thanks for commenting!

    I think you’re right that for Christians physical life isn’t/shouldn’t be an absolute. However, moral theology has traditionally held that the direct taking of life, especially innocent life, is a very serious matter. Indeed, some Christian pacifists would argue that precisely because our lives are in God’s hands we don’t have to kill in order to protect them.

    You may be right that some American activists and politicians use abortion as a club with which to beat their opponents, but there are also many sincere people who think that a great injustice is being perpetrated when we deny legal protection to the lives of the unborn.

    Another part of the reason it is such a political hot potato is that the regulation of abortion has largely been taking out of the field of democratic politics due to Supreme Court decisions. As a result, the US actually has more permissive abortion laws than many European countries (as I understand it), leading many people to conclude that the law is out of whack with the sensibilites of most people, who would probably favor a more middle-ground approach.

    Reply
  5. Uncle Fatso

    What I do think, though, is that human life – even the life of the guilty – should be taken only when strictly necessary and I’m not sure that the death penalty is strictly necessary – at least in modern industrialized nations – to defend public safety and the common good.

    I have heard simmilar statements from many people it talking about issues like the DP. I have a hard time alowing this to hold up, because it’s a relative arguement. It is easy to say, “when strictly necissary,” but who determines necesity? You or I can not determine absolutes that make sense–to one person only those who take a life are worthy of death, for others anyone who sexually abuses a child is executable…(I’m not saying child-molesters or murderers are great people who deserve to walk around the streets of my town) the trick is that we cannot morally draw a straight black line with which we can judge people.

    It’s so tricky because in my own mind and heart I hear about someone guilty of abusing 14 children and raping # people and it makes me so sick I want to see him/her crucified…but I suppose I need to rely of God’s judgement, “Vengence is mine, says the Lord” and pray grace in my life to see these cold people through the eyes of Christ.

    Reply
  6. Lee

    UF – I think what I would want to do to determine “necessity” is to apply a kind of “just war” logic to capital punishment. That is, taking the life of an aggressor is permissible when it is necessary to protect the lives of the innocent. If, on the other hand, an aggressor can be locked up, then I would say DP is not necessary. This seems to be the reasoning of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:

    “Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.

    “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (Chapter 3, para. 56)

    I don’t think it’s necessary (or desirable!) for the state to try and decide who “deserves” death. To quote Gandalf, “Many that live deserve death, and some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.”

    Yes, I’m a dork. 🙂

    Reply

Leave a comment

More posts