(1) The idea of an evolving standard of human decency accurately describes the calibration of mankind’s moral compass over the previous 3000 years at minimum. Throughout human history, our response to conflict has evolved symbiotically with our sociality as a species, and developed to account for the severity of misdeeds. These correlations stem primarily from the way each stage of human conducted life. From the beginning when we made our start as nomadic herdsmen, to the tribes that were formed as we began settling we see changes in the social dynamic, and these changes affected interactions within groups, between groups, and beyond, and particularly rates of lethal violence were affected in these beginning transitionary times. Such changes
…show more content…
The role of capital punishment in the United States has been consistently controversial since our foundation, and even more so since the founding of the American Abolitionist Movement. The death penalty has been argued as a deterrent and a facet for retributive aggression and justice through punishment, bringing those who experienced tragedy closer to emotional stability. It has also been argued that it constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the U.S. constitution and has been abolished in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Ultimately, the question that needs to be addressed for a definitive answer to be found is whether or not the death penalty constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” for the stage of progression we have reached socially based on the evolution of our morality. Historically, we have a disposition towards violent behaviour, especially when inequity is attached to it. Due to the nature of the evolution of our morality to date, the death penalty is a valid form of punishment and is not immoral based on our …show more content…
This kind of inequity is the ever-present knowledge that perpetually remanifests itself in your thoughts to the point of depression, outrage, resentment, and any number of other painful emotions. The immediate response to being wronged is, naturally, to want to have it corrected for or see kind of balance achieved. If someone was to steal twenty dollars from you, the first reaction would be to be upset with that person until an equivalent negative event befalls them, allowing you to feel that their life no longer has any advantage over yours. This applies to wrongs of any extent. The reason all of this happens is the same reason we are the most successful at doing what nature intended, surviving. Our social nature makes us inherently place value in equity; for thousands of years homo sapiens have slowly but surely congregated into larger and larger entities. Multiple social groups quite literally use one another to figure out what they want for themselves based on what works or doesn’t for the other groups they interact with. This dynamic has consistently been marked with violence in cases of these feelings of wrongdoing and inequality. We see retaliation as a reward for suffering. The emotional imbalance between people caused by immoral actions often facilitate the use of immoral actions to the ends of equal suffering. The
The role of capital punishment in the United States has been consistently controversial since our foundation, and even more so since the founding of the American Abolitionist Movement. The death penalty has been argued as a deterrent and a facet for retributive aggression and justice through punishment, bringing those who experienced tragedy closer to emotional stability. It has also been argued that it constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the U.S. constitution and has been abolished in 19 states and the District of Columbia. Ultimately, the question that needs to be addressed for a definitive answer to be found is whether or not the death penalty constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” for the stage of progression we have reached socially based on the evolution of our morality. Historically, we have a disposition towards violent behaviour, especially when inequity is attached to it. Due to the nature of the evolution of our morality to date, the death penalty is a valid form of punishment and is not immoral based on our …show more content…
This kind of inequity is the ever-present knowledge that perpetually remanifests itself in your thoughts to the point of depression, outrage, resentment, and any number of other painful emotions. The immediate response to being wronged is, naturally, to want to have it corrected for or see kind of balance achieved. If someone was to steal twenty dollars from you, the first reaction would be to be upset with that person until an equivalent negative event befalls them, allowing you to feel that their life no longer has any advantage over yours. This applies to wrongs of any extent. The reason all of this happens is the same reason we are the most successful at doing what nature intended, surviving. Our social nature makes us inherently place value in equity; for thousands of years homo sapiens have slowly but surely congregated into larger and larger entities. Multiple social groups quite literally use one another to figure out what they want for themselves based on what works or doesn’t for the other groups they interact with. This dynamic has consistently been marked with violence in cases of these feelings of wrongdoing and inequality. We see retaliation as a reward for suffering. The emotional imbalance between people caused by immoral actions often facilitate the use of immoral actions to the ends of equal suffering. The