An extension of this thread in MPSIMS.
A common argument among those who are against the death penalty (which Bricker brings up in the above-linked thread) is that killing a killer makes us no better than he. I think this is patently ridiculous. There is an entire process of trials, appeals, sentences by juries and judges, and reviews of all available evidence before anyone is ever executed. In theory anyway, we never execute anyone unless there is no reasonable doubt that he is innocent. Murderers, on the other hand, kill whomever they please. The decision to take their victim’s life is only theirs, not that of any jury or judge, and not the result of the argument of any attorney. And often, the victim is guilty of no crime that the state would find worthy of killing him for.
I refuse to make the claim here that it is morally right to execute murderers. That’s another thread. I only claim that executing a murderer and murdering are not on the same moral level, so that executing a killer does not make us no better than that killer.
I’m sure we could all agree that it is morally wrong to steal money when not in need, and that it is morally wrong to kill a child. I think we could also agree that killing a child is much more morally wrong than stealing money. This is an extreme case, and I don’t claim that the same level of moral difference exists between executing a murderer and murdering. I only use it as an example to show what I mean by a difference in moral wrongness.
Again, I’m not claiming here that it is morally right to execute a murderer. I’m just claiming that it is not the case that executing a murder puts us on his level. Even though the state executes, I think it is still on higher moral ground than the killers it kills.