tracker:

“Saying fairness is a muddy concept isn't the same as showing how it is.”

Right. And saying that fairness isn’t a muddy concept isn’t the same as demonstrating its clarity, is it? Frankly I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say at this point. You seem to be simultaneously arguing that capital punishment is good and necessary because: it’s transcendently fair in some plain-to-see way, it satisfies metaphysical justice in a way nothing else can; and most people are willing to tolerate a few lost lives for what they perceive to be a good cause. But from where I sit, you haven’t offered much beyond bare assertions to establish your notions of fairness and justice and what constitutes a good cause.

Do you really believe that reaching a consensus over what’s fair is a trivial task? I guess it may seem trivial in those cases where one’s personal notion of fairness happens to match the majority’s opinion. But given a significant divide in public opinion… For example, we don’t seem to have reached much of a consensus here in the U.S. on a fair response to our history of racism despite decades of effort. Clearly then, fairness can be a muddy concept.

So what should we make of those countries wherein the consensus seems to be that capital punishment is not the embodiment of fairness and justice? I’d say that illustrates that your notions of what’s fair and just aren’t self-evident to a big chunk of the world’s population. Is that enough to muddy the picture?