DBT
Contributor
Never mind the mixed message. It's not moral to kill unless defending against a threat to life....but its ok for the state to execute prisoners because they deserve killing.
Well, that ship has sailed -- once you've accepted "defending against a threat to life" as a sufficient reason to kill, you have accepted that killing people is a suitable solution in principle. The rest is just haggling over details.Which conveys the message that killing people is a suitable solution. If it's good for the judicial system and society to kill its problematic members, it's acceptable as a solution in principle.
It's not implied at all. There's no mixed message being sent; there's only a mixed message you're constructing yourself by the way you choose to "read between the lines." The state never says "it's not ok to kill, unless in self defense"; the state says it's not okay to kill unless in accordance with the law. Then the law lists circumstances where it allows people to kill. One of them is self-defense, yes; but another is obeying a lawful order to kill an enemy combatant; another is carrying out a lawful sentence of death after due process; and so forth. The circumstance that you find one item on the state's list worthier than the rest has no power to cause the state to have a double standard or to have sent a mixed message. "It's not ok to kill, unless in self defense." is your premise, and your message, not theirs.A double standard of ethics is clearly implied. As described several times.
Laws are related to moral standards. The moral standards of a society may vary, and its laws set accordingly. If something is not seen as wrong, right or wrong being a moral standard, there is no reason to have a law against it.