Is it intellectually consistent for a death penalty abolitionist to feed her dog?
There are those who claim that the death penalty is always wrong. It doesn't matter if the criminal tortured his victims for days before killing them. It doesn't even matter if the criminal enjoyed it. That view is mere speciesism.
We say that because a person is a human, he's special. We don't define what makes a human, human. We ignore that what separates us from other animals is higher cognitive processes, reasoning, and empathy. We say, "Humans are special. That's the end of it." Meanwhile, we give no second thought to "putting down" a violent dog. We have, in other words, the death penalty for dogs.
Yet are things so obvious? Is human life really inherently more valuable than an animal's life? Is it really wrong to kill a violent person - while it's right to kill a violent dog - because the person is a human? Seems easy, right? Well, here's something for you.
Today I am going to feed my dog. That costs money. I spend around $60 a month on my dog's food. That $60 could save at least one human in Africa.
None of you would say, "Mike, how can you let people die to save a dog?!" Yet that is exactly what I'm doing. Through my choices, I am elevating my dog's life over human life. Through inaction, I am killing a person.
Saying that the death penalty is wrong all of the time ignores very hard philosophical questions. What are humans? What moral duties do I owe to humans? What moral duties does the state owe to humans? Can a person surrender his humanity? If so, how? If not, why not? Is a human's life always more valuable than a dog's life?
The obvious rejoinder is that failing to save a life (by doing something as risky as as writing a check) is materially different from affirmatively executing a person. Yet that rejoinder ignores my entire argument.
We have the death penalty for dogs. Why not for humans, too? Because humans are better than dogs; because humans are special? That argument is circular.
A Christian would answer that we must not execute a person, because the person has a soul. The soul is redeemable. We should not interfere with God's work in redeeming a person. If the person's soul is so important to God, God will find a way to save the person. Indeed, claiming that allowing the person to live is going to let God do God's work presupposes that God needs man to do God's work. If that's so, then there isn't much point to God, is there?
If people want to oppose the death penalty, fine with me. I am friends with pagans, heathens, sinners, Christians, Republicans, Democrats, narcissists, and sociopaths. Just spare me the moral superiority and moral certainty.
Disagreements make life interesting. Moral superiority does not. Moral superiority is especially irksome when the morally superior are driving expensive cars, eating expensive food, and sending their kids on expensive vacations while actual human beings starving to death.
