Criticism of the death penalty as evidence of man's uniqueness

There is much campaigning nowadays about the evils of the death penalty; how it is cruel, inhuman, etc. and should be abolished. Much of this strikes me as hypocritical. Never in human history have so many claimed to believe man is just an animal; but yet here's a denial of the implications of such a claim.

- If man is just an animal, as the e.s claim, how can the death penalty be wrong. After all; animals kill animals all day long (handing out the death penalty as it were). No one says that's wrong. Therefore to say the death penalty is wrong one has to also claim that man is not an animal. This is the clear implication; but how many people are willing to admit this.

- Can you imagine an animal making such a claim? Animals (as far as we know) just accept the world as it is (even the human world it would seem) but human beings don't. Here's one more radical difference between man and the animals.

- If man is just an animal what foundation is there for being against one animal killing another? (The logical deduction is that man is not an animal; or killing an animal isn't wrong.)

- The irony here (if that's not too tame a word) is that on the one hand the materialist (E.) wants to claim man is just an animal so he can escape the limits of acting in a moral way; but then he finds he wants to insist on certain moral absolutes after all. He seems to 'forget' that if he is indeed just an animal he can't use moral arguments. Finding himself in such a bind he hopes people won't realize he's contradicting himself. What else can he do?

- In my opinion, the campaign to eliminate the death penalty is evidence man is not an animal; and that the people involved know (on some level) that this is the case. (You will notice that they don't try to get the State to prevent wolves from eating deer.) In other words, their actions give them away.

Notes;
1. Evolutionists rarely define what they mean by an animal; but a tentative definition is a creature that has no free will. (If man then is an animal, he has no free will. If he has no free will he can do no wrong. Therefore the death penalty isn't wrong.)
- and you see why the pc professor doesn't like logic.