Don:

Yes, ethical sounds a lot better than moral. However there are schools of ethics, & different breeds of philsophy too! How do you square Socrates vs. Plato for instance?

The rights of the individual against the rights of the group/society? The two often conflict. How do you strike a balance? Despite your remarks, I do not believe that it is as objective as you would like to suggest.

If it's wrong for me as an individual member of society to kill someone, it is equally wrong for the society as a whole to do so.

Only by your strain of morality, ethics, philosophy, whatever you want to call it, Don. I, for one do NOT agree. I do not see that any society derives any benefit (tangible or otherwise) from holding the likes of Ian Brady or Myra Hindley in prison until they die. I would suggest that, even incarcerated, they continue to have an effect equivalent to a cancer (only negative) upon the body of human society.

If I, an individual, go out & cold-bloodedly shoot an individual, I am guilty of murder. If society cold-bloodedly & rationally decides that individuals have placed themselves too far beyond the laws & mores of society, that is not the same case. Thou shalt not kill (inaccurate) vs. Thou shalt not murder (accurate) again.

If the decisions of society are automatically wrong when they are not the same as the choice of the individual, then any & all attempt at government is wrong, because all government must inevitably rule against the rights of the individual at some point. "Wrong for me = wrong for society" is as false a piece of argument as you could wish to make!

The answer to someone else's remark, BTW, is that if I, innocent, were sentenced to death, I would argue my innocence to the grave. I do not believe that I would argue for the abolition of CP simply because it would save my life!