(March 21, 2012 at 7:17 am)NoMoreFaith Wrote: True as it may be, the rational way to respect human life is to not kill.
Whatever it is, your eye for an eye retribution is not humanism.
If the justice system fails, in such a titanic matter as per your hypothetical, then it would be deserving of a massive outcry for change, for the preservation and evolution of society. Positive action through numbers. A humanist should have some faith in people to do the right thing, otherwise, whats the point in being humanist.
Whether that is true is up for debate certainly, I will grant that.
Its a very simple principle of humanism, and there aren't many of them. The golden moral rule is not discarded because someone else refused to live by it. You live by it, and you respect human life, even if they do not.
This is all true enough. To humbly point out the brilliance of my point, it follows what you say [and what humanism itself gently suggests], that you are to trust your fellow man to do the right thing. And if you would kill in blind rage [understandably, given the circumstances in this hypothetical, but while understandable, still not condonable], if you trust in your fellow humans...you'll trust them to hold you back, to soothe your rage and to keep you elevated above the killer by not stooping to his level. You are very much correct, though; eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.
The justice system itself DOES need some serious overhauling, badly. Too much bullshit involving slippery slopes and deals being cut by prosecutors...or prosecutors botching their presentations [OJ Simpson comes to mind...].
