The Ethics of Justice

[Shai]

I have stumbled upon few problems with my ethics concerning individualism and justice. I believe that every man is free to do as they will as long as they don't offend other people's freedom. The crime as I perceive it is offending the freedom of others in one form or another. Murder is of course the offense against the freedom to live - the most important freedom of all. In the prominent liberalist nation of the world, USA, many of the states accept death penalty. The ethics beyond the practise is based on a thought that when you offend man's right to live you no longer have right to live yourself. Yet I fail to accept death penalty as a solution.

But is there one? Very, very few of us safe if any one of us decides to kill a person randomly. No man can ever be that protected in free society. I could pick almost any man from the free world and have him dead if I had enough perverted sense of justice. That thought made me realize how unsafe a man is from the greatest offense of all. And there is only that much free society can do to prevent a murder...not very much at all.

I succeed, on some level, to emphatize both with the victim and with the murderer...but I fail to come up with a perfect ethical solution. I'm against the right of the state to murder an individual under any circumstances except to preserve the freedom of society...but isn't murdering the murderer preserving the freedom of living? I find murder outrageous and unacceptable act of inhumanity. However my liberal ethics do not condone state's right of murder. I find that only solution is to completely shut these people out of society. To have them removed without killing them since they can no longer have a right to remain as a member of society. So what do you do? Drop them into the international waters somewhere in the middle of pacific ocean?

This probably doesn't make any sense...

 

[Merlijn]

The ethics beyond the practise is based on a thought that when you offend man's right to live you no longer have right to live yourself.

But what is the definitive argument to accept this?

and IF the idea that when one offends the right to live of some person, one looses the right to live oneselves, THEN why do we not kill all those who ever threatened to kill, tried to kill, accidentely killed, etc. another?
i.e. what is the true criterium?

 

[Tiassa]

Merlijn ... (also notes on topic)

and IF the idea that when one offends the right to live of some person, one looses the right to live oneselves, THEN why do we not kill all those who ever threatened to kill, tried to kill, accidentely killed, etc. another?
i.e. what is the true criterium?

Comments on criteria

Capital punishment usually considers:

• The severity of the crime
• The remorse of the guilty
• The potential of the guilty to do further harm

These criteria, of course, are subjective. Take Texas, for instance. A woman followed her lawyer's advice upon the death of her husband and was sent to her death by George W. Bush, Jr. Oh, wait ... that's right, George Bush, who claims his administration is tough on crime, had no say. I recall reading that Dubya once noted that he didn't have the power as governor to stop executions.

Comments on "Why not"

I think the key point is in the presumption noted. It is a faulty presumption in any objective sense, as rights are a conventional agreement. "Rights", as such, are subjectively acknowledged; they are tantamount to a religious standard in this manner.

The US Declaration of Independence notes that all men are created equally, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Even if we strip God from the notion of the creator, the assertion is that we are endowed as such by the living phenomenon itself. This is ... well ... pretty thin when we get right down to it.

As such, the criteria of individuals for the deprivation of another's life are strange. In this country, rape used to be a capital crime. In 1850, in Kansas, a cow was hanged for sorcery. As we look around the country today, people call for the death penalty for a number of strange offenses.

Treat American principles like a religion and then look for consistency; we follow a lot of the same paradoxical patterns that American Judeo-Christianity suffers through.

Everybody talks about efficiency in various processes. I agree that executing transgressors would be efficient, but it wouldn't be progressive. Killing someone is the easy way out, for murderers and governments alike.

Note on the topic

I just wanted to remind that the opening pages of a seminal American novel, Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, remind us that among society's perpetual necessities are jails and cemeteries.

In the long run, the solution will need a new paradigm, one that looks at issues as part of a whole system. The key to reducing crime is education, which is a way to fight poverty and, obviously, ignorance. Until we start looking at how our political issues work together, we are condemned to this endless cycle of crime and punishment. Anyone know how many gun murders there were in Canada? What proportion of murders does that constitute? I heard some shocking numbers the other night from Michael Moore, suggesting that there are less than 100 gun murders a year in Canada, but I can't find that stat elsewhere. There might still be embezzlers and crimes of passion, but education is the key to undermining the current epidemic of violent crime in the US.

When this education of the masses happens, it will (A) educate future potential criminals and possibly divert them from crime, and (B) educate future "victims" and hopefully allow for some more intelligent considerations of what the problem is in the public sphere. CNN? Political debates? Your local newspaper? They're all tremendously shallow compared to the events they cover. It's kind of a vicious cycle. The dumber we get, the dumber we need to be, and the more violent things become.

My two cents ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Shai]

The education, working against social injustice, real ethical discussion in public...the works. Still, the free society, by definition(?), will always suffer from individuals not able to take the social responsibility. Liberal society will always "produce" individuals who fail to internalize the rules of society. And some of them commit crimes that insult human rights - such as murder. What does the social justice demand from us?

Clearly, state killing the murderers is an easy way out. But it doesn't sound right no matter how you look at it. There's some hard to define justice in capital punishment...but it still doesn't seem right. The right of state to use capital punishment sounds more than a bit scary. State, or any community, easily transforms into impersonal entity where responsibility is lost. Only individual can really be hold ethically responsible. You don't blame the community, you find those individuals inside the community who are to blame. The fact that, IMHO, sense of responsibility is often lost in any community(party, state, union etc) is still only one dimension of this ethical dilemma.

Justice. A real key question. What is the fate of the murderer in a community? My only solution is a life sentence in which the individual is aparted from the community but his human rights unviolated. By murdering a member of his society he can no longer have a right to function as a member of that society. But no man can have an absolute power over other man. No one can be given right to violate human rights that essentially protect us from the horrors of absolute power. Therefore the only solution of the state is a sentence which doesn't violate these inherent rights.

 

[Xev]

Shai:
Doesn't confinement without consent violate "human rights" however you cut it?

*Edit*

My point being, you have to do something to "criminals" that violates their "human rights" or you have to let them run amok. Not good.

Perhaps one forfits these "rights" when one commits a "crime"?

Now what is a crime?

 

[Tiassa]

Consent and rights

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,

• Doesn't confinement without consent violate "human rights" however you cut it?

In the Declaration of Independence, the colonies assert that a government derives its authority from the people; this is a fairly stunning notion when contrasted against the "divine right" of kings and emperors.

Inherently, American citizenship constitutes that consent to abide by the law, and the Constitution protects that consent by awarding it due process. If one chooses to commit a crime, and is awarded full due process which results in conviction, one has consented to the penalties merely by being a citizen.

It may sound a little strange, but no court in the land would reject such a basic argument. Beyond the US, it's a matter of the rhetoric of each nation's Constitution.

Furthermore, as the courts see the Pledge of Allegiance as important enough to insert a separation of church and state (e.g. "under God"), one might consider whether they have ever recited the pledge and what is demanded by their allegiance to the Flag and the Republic For Which It Stands. I don't know anyone who hasn't recited the Pledge at least once in their lives.

And yes, it is indoctrination. But until we do away with nations, it's not that bad by comparison. But I tend to think that if I get busted, say, smoking a joint, I would have to refer to Xev's notion of what is a crime (and also "why"), because I am committed by my citizenship and by my honor to the laws of the nation.

Two cents ....

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Shai]

Good point which further enforces my initial thought that the problems of ethics and justive we're trying to solve are far too complex to solve...but let's keep trying.

Doesn't confinement without consent violate "human rights" however you cut it?

In a way...yes. I suppose it does.

My point being, you have to do something to "criminals" that violates their "human rights" or you have to let them run amok. Not good.

Perhaps one forfits these "rights" when one commits a "crime"?

The laws of society are essential for the continuing success of the society so you definitely need to process the criminals in a way they no longer pose a threat to the society. I don't think any society or goverment should go beyond certain acts that violate human rights(eg. torture or killing). Because when there are no clear limits to the power invested in goverment and police those institutions tend to enforce the rights of the rulers. Definitely the rules of society define what kind of people may function as a part of the society.


The democratic goverments of the world generally "derive their authority from the people". However, those goverments are necessarily controlled by limited number of people. Now, maybe I've read too much Nietzsche but in any goverment there is a certain risk that power corrupts the democracy and civil society. We've seen this happening in weak democracies. I believe the laws and ethics of society essentially determine the opportunities for misuse of power. That's why I promote healthy sceptisism towards capital punishment.

 

[Xev]

Tiassa:

That sounds like the argument Socrates used when he explained why he wouldn't escape from prison when facing execution.

Just a sidenote. Brain no worky today.

Shai:

The laws of society are essential for the continuing success of the society so you definitely need to process the criminals in a way they no longer pose a threat to the society. I don't think any society or goverment should go beyond certain acts that violate human rights(eg. torture or killing). Because when there are no clear limits to the power invested in goverment and police those institutions tend to enforce the rights of the rulers. Definitely the rules of society define what kind of people may function as a part of the society.

Thus the American Constitution and UN dec of universal human rights prohibit torture...or "cruel and unusual punishment".

I agree. However, we must keep in mind that these considerations are strictly utilitarian - i.e slave morality.

 

[fadingCaptain]

The laws of society are essential for the continuing success of the society so you definitely need to process the criminals in a way they no longer pose a threat to the society.

Yes. You need to remove the threat to society. But laws also are essential for another purpose : preventing further crimes of same sort from happening again. Crime deterrent is usually the reason given in support of capital punishment. If we put all murderers on an island (remember the movie Escape from New York?), there will not be sufficient deterrent. People need to be deathly afraid of killing someone.

For someone who has read alot of Nietzsche, you seem hypersensitive to 'human rights'. Just an observation not a slam...

 

[Shai]

I agree. However, we must keep in mind that these considerations are strictly utilitarian - i.e slave morality.

I think they are more based into common, partly unspoken, treaty of citizens. Such as described by John Locke and others. (I don't know the exact equivalent of the word in english). Laws don't always serve utilitarian ideals, not to even mention ethics. Nietzsche would of course consider this kind of moral treaty as slave morality...but Nietzsche wasn't that much concerned about society as he was from individual.

 

[Shai]

But laws also are essential for another purpose : preventing further crimes of same sort from happening again. Crime deterrent is usually the reason given in support of capital punishment.

And it's not a bad argument at all. You're also right about the very important function the law has to prevent crimes from happening. I suppose in a free society, where people adopt very different outlooks on life, it's hard to prevent crimes with "ethical education". The concept doesn't fit very well into liberal thinking. Considering all things are relative and absolute right is only an observation of individual.

Fear of capital punishment as a tool of crime prevention does reveal something unpleasant from the society. If the only way to prevent murder is to intimidate the potential murderer the ethics of society can't be very liberalist. Since in liberalist thinking you can not have freedom over others. You start wondering if such society can last? Not to define right or wrong rigidly the member of society should internalize the rights of others. Lasting society can only be founded upon moral consciousness. It can not be enforced. But it's important, and a relief, to remind ourselves that the murderers are a very small minority of any functioning society.

For someone who has read alot of Nietzsche, you seem hypersensitive to 'human rights'. Just an observation not a slam...

I believe in democracy and humanist ideals. I also believe in competition and *naturally formed class society. Those "hard" values may be inherited from Nietzsche but I'm mostly just intrigued by his daring and innovative thinking.


*In democractic free market the classes are formed without violation of citizens rights and are efficiently circulated in comparison to, say, dictatorship. My argument is that all human communities eventually form classes and in functioning democracy the class society is justified and serves the purpose of everyone.

 

[fadingCaptain]

Fear of capital punishment as a tool of crime prevention does reveal something unpleasant from the society. If the only way to prevent murder is to intimidate the potential murderer the ethics of society can't be very liberalist. Since in liberalist thinking you can not have freedom over others. You start wondering if such society can last?

Yes this is a conundrum. Fact is, I do not see a completely liberalist society functioning at all. At least not at this point in our history. So, you have to compromise. But, as you said, you risk corruption. Therefore, we must be vigilant that our society is heading in the right direction.
As a side note, there is so much progress that could be made if countries would look to each other to learn and improve. Patriotism and religious fundamentalism are becoming the killers of progress. People need to become world citizens.

 

[Xev]

Shai:

I think they are more based into common, partly unspoken, treaty of citizens. Such as described by John Locke and others. (I don't know the exact equivalent of the word in english). Laws don't always serve utilitarian ideals, not to even mention ethics. Nietzsche would of course consider this kind of moral treaty as slave morality...but Nietzsche wasn't that much concerned about society as he was from individual.

Basically, a social contract?

And yes, this is slave morality, but there is a place for slave morality. If we use our prerogative as masters (now go in the kitchen and get me a beer, bitch - right) to create values, we may as well create some decent ones (like democracy, human rights, and getting beer for Xev).

My point is that slave morality has its place.

 

[fadingCaptain]

If we use our prerogative as masters (now go in the kitchen and get me a beer, bitch - right) to create values, we may as well create some decent ones (like democracy, human rights, and getting beer for Xev).

Yes, but how is this slave morality? Resentment and such are not playing a role.
A democratic ideal may have sprung from slave morality in our past, but that does not mean that a master morality cannot create these values as well.
The important thing to consider is the origination and motivation of the morality, not the result.

 

[Xev]

fading:

The social contract is basically "Don't hurt me and I won't hurt you", correct? It's, like, slave morality.

*Xev mutters "Ummmm" while hitting her head with her laptop*

Basically, I see slave morality as a way of saying "I am weak, and you are strong, but you should not hurt me because (insert reason)". I see this in the social contract.

Master morality, to me, is basically saying "Look, we are both strong. Hurt me, fight me, and we will see who is stronger". I don't see this in the social contract.

I actually don't consider democracy to be slave morality. I really think that democracy is better suited to master morality, but that really only works if the democracy is composed of masters.

Nietzsche pointed out that some of the "freest" societies were slave owning societies. The observation works.....those on the top were free and they used those who were not free. I see the same thing happening in modern industrial societies, only in a more insidious way.

If we're no longer chained physically, we are chained mentally. If we aren't enslaved by people, we're enslaved by values. If we are no longer being forced to abide by the will of the masters, we are still being forced to abide by their values.

I don't run the risk of being beaten into submission. I now run the risk of having my mind, my values, twisted and enslaved by those in power.
We don't risk being raped by the plantation owner. What we risk is the intellectual rape of imposed values.

The only real way out is to destroy those values. Which seems to involve no small amount of self destruction. It's a bit like the old cliche that only the person who makes you feel pain can truely make you feel pleasure. Only the person who breaks you can ever put you back together. Only by destroying all of one's values can you know which ones are really yours.

Break yourself so that no-one else can break you.

Sorry, think I ranted a bit.

 

[Chagur]

Dear, dear Xev,

Knew you had it in you ... You little anarchist.

Oh, and don't complain, don't explain, and never apolgize.

Take care

 

[Xev]

Chagur:

*Blushes*

Thanks.

 

[spookz]

xev's post kinda turned me on a bit!
she's not just a little anarchist

she is a "naughty little anarchist"

 

[Xev]

Spookz:

That's 'cause it's full of references to being enslaved and beaten into submission, you perverse little bastard.

Or maybe I just think about sex too much.

*Xev hits herself with the laptop again*

But isn't it funny, I couldn't have expressed my point any other way. Ach well.

*Edit*

I actually had a valid point about the social contract and slave morality. Somewhere.

Honestly.

 

[Shai]

Yes this is a conundrum...People need to become world citizens.

Agree with just about everything.



About slave morality... I think our society is partly based on slave morality or so could be argued. The weak co-exist with the strong sharing equal political rights. From Nietzsche's perspective this a submission of strong to the will of the weak. He considered this injustice...in fact he hated the idea of strong submitting to the will of the weak.

The human society as I perceive it however can never achieve total equality. So the masters will continue to exist on some level even if they loose their political priviledges. The necessity of class society can essentially be seen as a necessity of certain unequality. The democracy and market economy quite ingeniously harmonize the society. The division of strong and weak continue to exist but it no longer offends the humanity of the weak. And the society remains stable...One way to look at it.

I'm still not a fan of master morality. In my liberalist thinking people coexist and benefit each other in a society while having a genuine respect of others humanity. This, of course, is pretty much utopia as of now.

In the end I'm pretty much in line with your arguments Xev. "We don't risk being raped by the plantation owner. What we risk is the intellectual rape of imposed values." I'm very much able recognize the class in any democratic society whose values and ideas are most adopted. In western societies the new bourgeois class can be, in practise, seen as "a master class". What I mean is that...basically the ideals that fit best to their thinking eg. liberalism is very much adopted in all classes...People rarely face unequality and accept its existence.