> If I shoot someone dead, that's direct; if I hire someone else to do it,
> that's indirect. Same culpability, IMHO. Legal labels may vary, but in
> my moral landscape they're equivalent.
I've been ignoring this thread too but maybe I'll just jump right in
here as well. How far are you willing to take this moral equivalence? If
you vote for the state legislature that decides to impose the death
penalty and then gives legal authority to a third party to kill a
criminal on your behalf is that not the moral equivalent of stepping up
to the criminal yourself and shooting them point blank? Or, if you are
willing to justify such a legalized form of killing (my guess, however,
is that you would not) because the victim is a heinous criminal who has
committed cold blooded murder then wouldn't the same 'moral equivalence'
equate such a murderer with the tobacco executive who has deliberately
influenced people through lies and manipulation to slowly kill
themselves purely for personal profit and wouldn't that justify their
own execution? If on the other hand, you agree that the voting citizen
in the above example is indeed the moral equivalent of a murderer then
is it possible to always avoid participating in such an immoral act?
Whether you approve or not, the legislature in a democratic society is
acting on behalf of the people and so would indirectly implicate all of
its citizens in an act that is the moral equivalent of murder, wouldn't
it?
Jeff
--
>/\< You have received a message from:
>||< , ,
|| |\."./|
|| Ikuko Kaneko / _ _ \
__||__ / {|} {|} \ ______
/ \ and \== Y ==/"'` `.
\ / /`-._^_.-'\ ,- . \
/ () \ Jeff Schrepfer / ` \ / \ \
/ __ \ \ \.___./ /_ _\ / /
\ / \, \ / ,' (,-----' /
\______/ ""' '"" '------'
Email: NecoandJeff@mail.org