Friday, September 10, 2010
Ethics, Morality, and Death by Stoning
Sakineh Ashtiani is an Azerbaijani-Iranian woman who has been convicted of adultery. She has been on death row in Iran since 2006. Her controversial case became recently known after high profile reports that she was convicted for the crime of adultery and sentenced to execution by stoning. The Iranian embassy in London responded these accusations by denying Ashtiani will be stoned to death. Sakineh's children promoted an international campaign to gain support in overturning her sentence. After protests in London and Washington, D.C., Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch petitioned her release. On July 2010, the president of Brazil offered Mohammadi Ashtiani asylum, which was refused by the Iranian government. Concerning Ashtiani's case, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Iran to respect the fundamental freedoms of its citizens in an official statement last month. When Carla Bruni, French President Sarkozy's wife, condemned the stoning sentence against Ashtiani in late August, the Iranian newspaper Kayhan called her a "prostitute who deserved death".
Yesterday, Iranian authorities announced they have suspended the execution by stoning of Ashtiani, after weeks of condemnation from around the world, but has also indicated Ashtiani could be hanged for her conviction of playing a role in her husband's 2005 murder. Ambassador Ali Akbar Naseri stressed though that Ashtiani had "had illicit relations with numerous men" and had been involved in the killing of her husband. "Her guilt has been demonstrated," he said. The European Union presidency said today that Iran's suspension of the stoning sentence is not enough and demands it be completely overturned.
While reading about this case, I thought about the distinction between Ethics and Morality that will be discussed in class next week. Feel free to post your comments/reactions about this case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actually learned about this case last year in my Ethics class and it still makes me shiver. What I always think about when I hear it is the difference of morality among cultures. Though the foundational beliefs are the same--adultery is wrong, lying is wrong--the traditions of dealing with these moral infractions are hugely different. In our culture, lapses in morality are generally dealt with on a private level, at least in terms of adultery. Unless the transgressing individual is a highly recognizable figure, it is a matter resolved privately. However, in Iran it is an extremely public matter and one with impossibly high stakes. While in the US adultery is a moral issue, in Iran it is a moral and legal issue. It's part of Iran code of ethics that women do not commit adultery and it is backed by law.
ReplyDeleteSome other info that my Professor last year gave us concerning this issue: for a woman to be charged with adultery, she needs only to have two male accusers say that she did, whether or not she did it. So in the movie, the woman's husband charged her with adultery and then he convinced the village mayor to back his charge. Also, in the Iranian legal code, it actually specifies the size of the rocks that are to be thrown; they have to fit comfortably in the hand and can't be too large or too small. Like the reporter in the movie said, it's designed to have the victim suffer just enough before dying. It's pretty scary and I have to say that I'm really glad that so many people worldwide are trying to respond to this issue.
But this raises the issue of whether it is fair to get involved in another culture's morals. The Cultural Relativism argument, which I personally don't believe in, says that a culture's rules are correct to them and others have no right to judge whether they are good or bad. I feel as though Iranians who are supporters of stoning will definitely try to push the relativism of the practice to Iran.
-Catherine Migueis
I completely agree with everything Catherine said. However, I just wanted to comment on death by stoning. I know the death penalty is a controversial subject, but what I am getting at is the way people die by getting stoned. It is an awful way to die and completely uncalled for. Stoning is the oldest form of execution. It is barbaric and some countries who used to do it hundreds of years ago have stopped because they have realized it is morally wrong. Countries tend to use it because not one person is held responsible as they all throw stones killing whomever "deserves" to be punished.
ReplyDeleteI am just stunned that people actually participate in the throwing of the stones. I guess this can be related to the Milgram experiment and how people are more likely to be okay with harming other people if they are relieved of the blame.
Also another shocker is that there is a restriction on the size of the rocks thrown: they cannot be too big, nor too small. Whether Capital Punishment is right or wrong is up you to decide considering your morals and culture. However, I do not see how anyone in their right mind can justify death by stoning.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI always knew that in Iran women were inferior to men, but I never knew the extent these people would go to just to punish those who go against their beliefs. Everyone knows that adultery is immoral but to stone someone to death because of it is just as wrong. The punishment here does not fit the crime. No matter what defense the stoners have, their actions will always be unethical. They think that by punishing those who act immorally, they are doing something good but in fact they are doing something even worse. No one deserves to die by being stoned- no matter what your cultural practices are.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that these so-called "religious" people are able to physically pick up stones and murder people with them is horrifying. Although the two accusers probably find the stoning rewarding, I wonder how the other stoners feel. How much convincing do they need in order to believe what they are doing is okay? Are they really as barbaric as they seem? I believe the law plays a major role in this situation. Because it is legal to stone people to death in Iran, the Iranian people who aren't against stoning probably think that since it's legal, it must be moral. However, in class we learned that this is not true. In order for these barbaric murders in Iran to come to a halt, the laws in favor of stoning would first have to change.
This case demonstrates an issue I have with the idea of a corporation's only moral responsibility being to obey the law. This case demonstrates, in the most black-and-white terms we will probably encounter in this course, that laws can be morally flawed.
ReplyDeleteWhen examining this case, we come to the conclusion that the Iranian government is fundamentally wrong here, even though they have (for the time being) the letter of the law on their side. When discussing the moral and ethical conduct of actors in any setting (public, economic, etc.), the only way to resolve this dissonance is to allow for the possibility of law to be inadequate for the situation at-hand.
For example,
1. All of our moral conduct as individuals, corporations, governments (etc.) is contained within the law.
2. Stoning women to death is acceptable by law.
3. Therefore, stoning women is morally acceptable.
We absolutely must not cede responsibility for our conduct to whoever is writing laws and setting legal limits to behavior. As this case in Iran demonstrates, the law is perfectly capable of being barbaric and reprehensible. It is up to us to hold ourselves to a higher, better standard.
Not only is death by stoning completely absurd, the reason for her death sentence is entirely illegitimate. Sakineh Ashtiani was accused of having an affair during her marriage and therefore was sentenced to death. The consequences for betraying morals in the Iranian culture are way to severe. Even though it is wrong, no one should ever be murdered for cheating on their spouse. Making a movie about this execution style is a good way to expose what is really happening in the world. And although some people in America support the death penalty, no one supports the torture style like stoning. Many societies hold different morals but by no means does this make them right. It is important that people take a stand against issues like these to prevent any future violence. No one deserves to be punished in this kind of manner.Even if this is back by the Iranian Law, someone should stand up and reject what is occurring in their society.
ReplyDelete-Kevin Linnane
About the validity of Iranian law. There is no question about whether or not she is guilty by Iranian court standards. The real question here is whether or not the law is just, and by who’s standards we should judge the justness of the Iranian law. It is helpful to look at the intentions of the law, which is, no doubt, based on religion. I assume that the law is intended to keep the citizens spiritually “clean”, and that in Iran, an act of infidelity is considered to be harmful to the soul. It is hard to measure whether or not this is true, i.e. whether or not it is helpful to the soul of an adulterer to be punished by death. One thing that you could question though is the process of creating the law, and the way it is implemented. Since the law was not created in a democracy, the citizens who are subjects to the law, and are expected to follow it, had no say in creating it. If a law is based on religious scripture that by nature can never be changed, the law can never be a democratic. Even though citizens of a democracy do not have a direct say in the creation of laws, they are indirectly creating laws by electing politicians to represent them, and by supporting interest groups. The fact that this law is applied differently to men and women is also very questionable. It does not make sense from a “fairness” point of view, since all citizens should be treated equally. It does not make sense from the perspective of the Iranian justice system either. If the law is there to promote spiritual cleanliness, then why should it not be applied to men in the same way. According to Martin Luther King, in his letter from the Birmingham Jail, “an unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself”. Even though Martin Luther King was referring to racially unjust laws, I think that the same principle can be applied to gender equality. In my opinion, the equality aspect is the most important point here. If the law is not applied equally to all citizens, it can never be just.
ReplyDelete- Marcus Lindberg
I believe that stoning a person to death is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime that is committed. I agree that Ashtiani's crime does not demonstrate cause for punishment of that kind. In terms of the Cultural Relativism argument that Catherine mentioned, we need to take a step out of our own beliefs and culture in order to ask ourselves: "Do Iranians truly perceive the crime of adultery in such a negative way that they believe that stoning is a fair punishment? In other words, is the crime of adultery equivalent to the punishment of stoning?" Different cultures perceive actions in different ways. Thus, western beliefs about adultery do not need to agree with middle eastern beliefs about the crime.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the big question at hand (regardless of the cultural aspects) that can tie into our course material is: How do we ultimately determine that something is 'wrong'?" A follow-up question might be, "How far do we go to punish someone for doing something that is 'wrong'?" People are raised with certain morals that are passed down through families, but the origin of what is right and what is wrong is still a mystery to me. However, the philosopher Immmanuel Kant would argue that we, as rational human beings, have an organic concept embedded within our minds called "duty" that helps us to decide how to act in situations and ultimately determine what is right and what is wrong.
Lastly, I would like to highlight Jenna's comment about relating the act of stoning to the Milgram experiment. It is interesting to consider how the act of stoning puts less responsibility and pressure upon one person because multiple people are throwing the stones. Through this example, we can see how people feel much more comfortable conforming with others' behavior and beliefs rather than being 'on their own' in situations, no matter how much pressure is involved.
-Claire Smith
Well pretty much what I was going to say, Catherine already said. however, I was also going to say that in every society, adultery is considered a terrible and "incorrect" action. However, some countries, like Iran, try to implement law with such moral issues. Hence its not only Iran that thinks adultery is wrong, but most of the world does too, but the problem is that Iran goes too far into the issue. I do not think it is right that people should be stoned to death because they committed adultery, even though I think it is still wrong. The reason why I think Iran is in this predicament is because it tries to take legal action against a moral issue. For the Iranians, like Catherine said, adultery is against the law and the punishment for breaking this law is capital punishment. This is a problem for ethics because the question is whether legal action can be taken against adultery. I do not believe that it can be, but playing the Devil's advocate, it seems rather plausible. The reason for this is because people get locked up in prison for lying and for stealing, which are moral issues, so why cannot Iran take legal action against the woman? Taking the relativist point of view, it is part of there moral principles and who are we to tell them that they cannot do this. Obviously, I am against the stoning, but I just wanted to say that Iranians may have a reasonable side in the issue
ReplyDelete