The Paradoxicality of Morality
	“What I am now saying is false.” (Sainsbury 1). A difficult paradox; an old riddle of thought presented by Sainsbury in the introduction of Paradoxes. Sainsbury goes on to explain how if the speaker is being truthful then their words are false, but if they are lying, then the sentence becomes true. When most people hear the word, paradox, they jump to these riddles in a hope to tease their brain and solve the unsolvable, but paradoxes go beyond that. Every day people face moral paradoxes, deciding one thing versus another, hoping to make the “right” choice.
	Sainsbury claims a paradox is a “working definition...an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable means from apparently acceptable premises.” A paradox is not just a word, but an idea; rooted in all kinds of situations. People are faced with decisions of right and wrong all the time, and though they do not always make the right choice, a choice must always be made.
	The chapter on moral paradoxes begins with a proposal of crime reduction: to reduce, or completely negate, the crime of carjacking by imposing capital punishment. Sainsbury states “The penalty is so severe that it is 100 percent effective as a deterrent: car-jacking…never occurs, and so is never punished” (22) as a proposed moral paradox. There are two sides to this idea. The good side, that the crime of carjacking has been completely removed so no one is killed for carjacking. On the other hand, it promotes an unfair and unjust society; condemning people to death for one crime is an extreme and “injustice” (22). Therefore, this begins a paradox, as someone cannot agree that it is a good idea to rid the world of carjackers, but at the same time think the punishment in unfair.
	Capital punishment has been a big debate in the United States, and for that matter the world, for quite some time. Centuries ago punishment for the most insignificant of things was quite severe, and even though we have evolved to a more just society, people still wonder whether death is inhumane. Just this year in California there were two separate propositions on the death penalty, and it can be assumed that there will be more. Proposition 62 was a simple yes/no vote; yes, to repeal the death penalty, and no to keep it. If passed, Prop 62 “…would have repealed the state death penalty and replaced the maximum punishment for murder with life in prison without possibility of parole.” Another moral paradox. If the vote passed there are two sides; the good: people can be proud an outdated and potentially inhumane form of punishment is now removed, the bad: there will be an increased strain on prisons, taxes and state spending, and could potentially result in more felonies. However, if the vote failed there are, again, two sides; the good: People will be more unwilling to commit crimes if they knew they were going to face a more severe punishment and prison sizes will be reduced, the bad: the system can be considered unjust and in certain cases, people may be wrongly executed (just one example).
	Similarly, Proposition 66 was on the same ballot. Its goal was to “Change the death penalty procedures to speed up the appeals process by putting trial courts in charge of initial petitions challenging death penalty convictions, establishing a time frame for death penalty review…” Instead of repealing the death penalty, Prop 66 hoped to make it easier to appeal the death penalty quickly, instead of it taking years and many trials.  Just like with Prop 62, this has a good side and a bad side for either vote.  If voted yes and the proposition passed; the good: as before, the death penalty staying would result in less overcrowded prisons and potentially less crime, the bad: on a moral level, potentially more criminals that should be charged with the death penalty may not be and will just face life in prison. But if the vote were to fail; the good: some people may say that is better that criminals cannot get out of the death penalty as easily, the bad: prisons will continue to be crowded with death row inmates and potentially unjustly accused people. Neither view can exist at the same time, as having contradicting thoughts on one matter is not right. Funnily enough, Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are also a paradox of sorts. If 62 passed then 66 could not exist, and if 66 passed but then 62 passed, it could logically not exist either—however the propositions were set in that if both passed, the one with more yes votes will automatically take over.