You know, there are things that we might disagree with, but if we hear good arguments in favor of a certain position, we can at least say, "That argument makes some sense, or is defensible."
I would not say that I love to catalog bad arguments on my own side, but that is mainly because I don't know what "side" I'm on, anyway.
One of the bad arguments for the death penalty is this, and it's not even an argument: "Some people I don't like, and who probably don't even believe in objective truth, are opposed to the death penalty. Therefore, I am in favor."
What sort of intemperate mental gesture inspires someone to ask me if I believe in objective truth, at the mere mention of the fact that I oppose the death penalty? Yes, I believe in objective truth; that's why I oppose the death penalty.
I am tempted to say that entire sectors of ideological camps operate according to these intemperate mental gestures, as if I must be some sort of pot-smoking hippie who attended the University of California-Berkeley.
And in fairness, I made some assumptions about my interlocutor, based on the quality of his responses. Even so, is it really so crazy to imagine that someone who believes that God spoke definitively in Jesus Christ would be against the intentional killing of convicted murderers? I think I could give arguments on behalf of the death penalty that would be more convincing than the ones I've heard lately. Let us hope so.
Comments