But as you point out in your post, proof rarely enters into these types of judgments. For whatever reason, we seem to arrive at moral decisions reflexively and without an explicable set of formal rules. In a large number of the world’s cultures the moral instinct falls on the side of sanctioning (encouraging?) capital punishment for heinous crimes.
For those saying it’s a good decision to simply walk away from the house because its value dropped, and it’s not economically advantageous anymore, I present two extreme examples. Couple A buys a house. The next month, the value is halved. They walk away from the deal, because it’s no longer advantageous. Couple B buys a house. The next month, the value is doubled. Should the lending company be able to repo the house, walk away from the deal, and sell it to somebody else to increase their profits? Why or why not?
I TOTALLY agree. I was throwing that in to bolster my argument. We aren’t as logical or “reasoning” as we want to think. And laws and sentencing are more about FEELING it’s fair than any other goal. imo.