Do Stem Cells Deserve the Death Penalty

When it comes to human life, We can't help but wonder what society places the greatest value upon. Is it keeping everyone alive at any cost? Or is it some lesser imperative, that allows for a cases by case analysis? Or is it a belief structure that allows for heroic efforts to save some lives, yet which requires the deliberate obscuration of the value of others?

We can't answer the question. But we can respond to what we perceive as an uncertainty in the collective will in this matter. Take for example stem cells. We have citizens who consider such cells (or their source) to be sacred life, and morally beyond the grasp of the experimentalists. And we have others, equally vested with credential and opinion, who would say disregard the source, (or the meaning) and say study and experiment away.

Move to another area of societal concern, the Tookies and the Nixons, and we find those very same citizens seemingly swapping moral ground, to argue for or against the deliberate removal of a being in existence, in a disconnect with their positions on stem cells. The death penalty divides and cleaves society at a ninety degree angle to stem cells.

My point is simply this (taking editorial authority, and not necessarily speaking for the we any longer), if one is opposed to the the taking of life for any reason, or not so opposed, choosing when it is appropriate to exercise one's belief, seems to be an act of hubris. The moral, policy, and legal implications of either choice is immensely complicated, and claiming certainty is either disingenuous or ignorance.

The Catholic Church is a good example of a morally consistent belief. Rome believes life is sacred. All life. So they oppose abortion, cloning, and the killing of convicted murders. Of course on this side of the Atlantic many purported followers find this consistent philosophy hard to swallow, and make line item vetos to the same.

I don't often agree with Peter Singer(burger anyone?), but I have taken the time to read some of his books, and he argues that one of our biggest problems is a lack of clarity and consistency in our moral thinking. While I cannot agree with his ultimate conclusions, he has no problem showing the reader how fluidly inconsistent many of society's precepts, moral or otherwise, truly are.

Take the death penalty. While many believe in an eye for an eye, and argue for quick executions, an interesting question exists. What if in 20 years we find a way to remove major mental defects in such a way as to say turn a sociopath into a normal guy.

We routinely warehouse people in vegetative or invalid like states, hoping to find a "cure". Why not warehouse prisoners, in case they might also be cured? Of course some of them may also be innocent too, but that is a different part of the debate. For our example assume them guilty. Are they truly healthy? Do we know they cannot be cured? (not reformed, cured) Should we hold off on executions until we are certain rehabilitation by medical cure is just a liberal pipe dream?

I didn't stake out my personal beliefs in this article. My sole purpose is to remind myself (and maybe everyone else) that these choices are not easy, and resolution is confounded by our inability to adopt and practice truly consistent belief structures.

Socrates says a just man is one who seeks to do justice at all times, even if he doesn't always make the just decision. I believe we must all seek to find a framework of beliefs which will create a unified understanding of the value of life, and how that value must be applied and weighed on a day to day basis. I'm also certain we won't always get it right, but we will be just.