The Citizen Guest / Part Two

The Citizen Guest
Part Two

The Involuntary Guest

Simple mathematical principles, axioms, and solutions sometimes require elaborate, lengthy, and complex “proofs” in order to validate or demonstrate answers to numerical problems. Elegant, step-by-step, logically sequenced confirmations that gradually combine as a cumulative presentation of why a specific formula is “true”.

In like fashion, similar methods are sometimes employed so as to prove or illustrate why a certain stream of thought, an accusation of wrongdoing, an assertion of propriety, is correct, ethical, and/or obligatory.

Three cases that seem, on the surface, to confound most people who attempt to argue one side or the other, one viewpoint as correct, the other wrong, concern issues of capital punishment, fetal abortion rights, and the killing of animals as both a food source and a popular sport.

By far the less challenging of the three, capital punishment of condemned criminals has long been a source of controversy and debate. Once distilled to a few simple questions, however, one might well ponder what all the shouting and hair-pulling had been about. Why all the rage, finger-pointing and name-calling had, in the end, been unnecessary.

Capital Punishment:

Which of the following (A, B, or C) best describes your position on the issue of Capital Punishment?

A. Though regrettable and tragic if an innocent person is mistakenly put-to-death, an event that has rarely if ever happened, it is an acceptable risk and consequence in order to take the life of people who have, under special circumstances, taken the life of one or more other people.

Capital Execution produces three positive outcomes:

01. Justice for society.
02. Closure for family and friends.
03. Perpetrator can never again kill or harm anybody.

B. Though often regrettable that absolute justice cannot befall a convicted, imprisoned murderer, the fact that an innocent person may mistakenly be put-to-death remains under-evaluated; it has likely been exacted upon many innocent victims, and continues as a constant threat to all future convicts. Though rare, such an event is so egregious an act, that the death penalty itself should be forfeit in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

C. That it is preferable to set a guilty person free, to perhaps even kill again, than to commit the wholly immoral act of murdering another human under any circumstances, and especially when sanctioned by society as a whole.

Dependent on your choice of A, B, or C, how and why one stands on a particular side of this issue is quickly clarified and unambiguous. Immediately eliminated is an endless tedium of forever squabbling over vagaries and misunderstandings. All discussion has cut directly to what might be called, "core-qualities".

Once presented, stated and defined as one’s position, further argument is futile, unnecessary and unproductive. Core-qualities, known also as value judgments cannot and, perhaps, should not be debated. Such qualities lie at the very heart of what a person values most, what is absolutely sacred and inviolate. Other examples of core-values include:

01. Religion, belief in God.
02. War and patriotism.
03. Morality and ethics.
04. Home and family.

When someone values more the death of a convicted murderer, than the wrongful execution of an innocent victim, no additional repartee is required. Conversely, when one values more the sparing of an innocent victim, than the justice and satisfaction derived by slaying the guilty, further debate is also pointless.

At this level, minds are rarely changed. In a democratic republic, it is the votes that count, and simple tallies should, for a time, continue to dictate majority opinions. Note: Such voting should, however, be first determined by a clearer appreciation for the circumstances as outlined by the three choices (A,B,C) provided above.

Abortion:

More difficult to explain, even more emotional at its heart, is the topic of fetal abortion rights, and a woman’s right or denial to choose the extent to which she owns her own body. It is perhaps ironic that while suicide seems a logical albeit typically irrational option, a pregnant woman, in the minds and hearts of many, forfeits all such options.

Analogies and metaphors can often assist and clarify how we perceive and interpret otherwise complex and confusing dilemmas, especially those which involve issues of morality and religious faith. The following argument imagines (envisions) the conflict of fetal rights, versus those of the mother, as a form of warfare. The proposal is designed to illuminate a discourse that is free of the usual impasses which prevent meaningful resolutions to the problem. It is assumed that all sides are in basic agreement on issues of patriotism, the need for self-defense, both personal and national, and that someone must do the fighting, and some the dying.

So-called pro-life advocates cannot demand justice for the “unborn” and have things both ways in their favor. Either killing (or murdering) innocent kids is wrong all the time, or only some of the time, depending on whose child it is -- their race, perhaps, and what uniform is worn. Once made subjective, then democratic rule must, as always, be enforced.

Thus, if one accepts the need for sacrificial death on the battlefield, so that others may live in a peaceful, free society, one hardly demonstrates consistent thinking if, on the other hand, he or she argues against a woman’s right to choose whether or not to end her pregnancy. Rational consistency demands that the mother’s right to free self-determination should take precedence, and thus prevail.

A reasonable, logical, and intelligent viewpoint perceives the unborn infant as similar, if not identical to a young soldier who we otherwise allow to be slaughtered in the name of patriotism -- in the preservation of our way of life. The assertion is made that no irrational exceptions are acceptable with respect to issues of sovereignty, in this case, as if a woman’s body somehow existed as separate from her personhood.

It is more a matter of when, at what age, a person is abortable. Society readily sanctions the death of youngsters in uniform, the killing of innocent others, then somehow condemns the loss of yet other children who also must pay the ultimate price for freedom. A war no less real, in terms of a woman claiming ownership of her own body, than a country of peoples loudly proclaiming its autonomy among the world’s community of nations.

Those who oppose a woman’s “right to choose”, who would make it illegal and punishable, must also condemn the nature and exercise of warfare itself, under any circumstances. Most of whom do not. Such thinking is entirely emotional, inconsistent and illogical, and is prone to nonsensical and petty arguments.

The only true, authentic abortion abolitionist is, by nature and practice, a staunch and unwavering, conscientious objector.

Hunting:

Third among the original three issues under consideration is the topic of hunting, both for survival and as a sport. The subject again brings to bear an earlier main essay that deals with people as either guests or prisoners on planet Earth. An argument that indeed promotes humans as guests, defines them as such, and argues against adoption of a prisoner mentality. Also provided is a precise list of principles and rules of conduct which all guests are obliged to follow.

Those who are against the practice of hunting, for almost any reason, will find themselves in total and happy accord with a portrayal of human beings as guests. They will embrace the concepts put forth, and wholly endorse the conditions stated. The “guest” principle will be seen as an accurate depiction of one’s opposition to sport hunting, and serve as a basis for all subsequent discussion.

Only upon mutual agreement by all sides, of all persuasions, to the general validity of the Involuntary Guest commentary, can the debate in question be resolved. In the event that no agreement is reached, with little or no acceptance of the Guest Principle, additional dialogue can serve no added or beneficial purpose.

This ends Part Two of this three-part series as to the question of humanity's role on planet Earth. In Part Three, the practice of hunting, both for survival and as an entertaining sport, is examined in greater, and hopefully more enlightening detail.