What's with the self-limitations when administering justice?

[Norsefire]

So we could have the right to think you are wrong about this. We could make this right, as you have pointed out. A culture could even decide to execute you for your ideas. They could make that right for themselves also. Right?

Yes. At least in the eyes of themselves and the governing body. In my eyes, of course, I would have the right to defend myself.

 

[wise acre]

Yes. At least in the eyes of themselves and the governing body. In my eyes, of course, I would have the right to defend myself.

So then there really is no problem in people trying to get society to be like they want it, whether they use words like 'right' or not.

In a sense it is like you are saying they are cheating if they use words a certain way. But this is a value judgment.

There is nothing wrong with what they are doing.

 

[Norsefire]

There's nothing "wrong" with anything. It's all about power, and that makes something "right" or not. Power, and majority.

And this ties in to the death penalty in this way: we can abolish it if it is what "society" wants...but let it be because of that reason, not because of "we don't have the right"

If you want it and are just worried about that, worry no more. We can do it because we say so. That's why we have the death penalty.

 

[wise acre]

There's nothing "wrong" with anything. It's all about power, and that makes something "right" or not. Power, and majority.

And this ties in to the death penalty in this way: we can abolish it if it is what "society" wants...but let it be because of that reason, not because of "we don't have the right"

If you want it and are just worried about that, worry no more. We can do it because we say so. That's why we have the death penalty.

So want it to be for the right reasons. It still sounds to me like you have objective values.

 

[iceaura]

As far as "we" having a right to execute people - who is that, exactly?
”
"Society"

OK, so who is "society", exactly?

Meanwhile, the OP question has been answered, I take it? - that since justice involves fidelity to declared rule, it is inherently self-limiting: it consists of self-limitation, and without self-limitation no justice exists.

 

[Saven]

Nay, it doesn't make sense. This topic rests entirely on a VERY weird and nonsensical definition of "rights." We need to define our terms here. The OP seems to be defining a "right" as "something that has the power to be done."

Well... I don't know about all of you, but I don't know anyone who means such a thing, when discussing whether or not anyone has "a right to do something." That may be an affectation on the OP's part.

Most people, when talking about "the right to kill somebody" or "the right to defend oneself," mean "having just cause to kill somebody" or "having just cause to defend oneself." That is truly the essence of what people mean, when talking about rights. Nobody means what the OP is talking about... so we can just throw all that nonsense in the trashbin.

 

[scott3x]

This is basically about the people who will say things like "wait, you don't have the right to execute people" or "we don't have the right to decide if someone lives or dies"

We don't. And we do. The point is, we decide what rights we have. From a legal standpoint, why burden yourself? Of course we have the right to decide of someone lives or dies, because we give ourself that right.


Rights are not innate; they don't exist objectively. They are entirely what we make them. And the world is just a rough world like that.

As for the death penalty, of course we have the right to execute people! If we recognize the government as a legitimate organization, then everything else falls into place...we have the right to execute "criminals" because the government, which is supposedly us, says so.

There we go.

I think the important thing isn't to focus so much on 'rights' per se; in many ways, they can be equated with what's legal and what's legal is just what a government decides. I think terms like what's moral and ethical are much better; they speak to what we think of as ideal; when we can agree on what should be ideal rights, it will become law. It'll probably take us the rest of eternity to get there, but this constant perfecting will also mean we'll always have something to do too ;-).

 

[James R]

Not true, obviously, since, for instance, here in Texas we do have and use quite frequently the death penalty.

Texas has never been at the forefront of human rights, and this is just one more example of the general pattern.

Here, obviously then, our law recognizes that people have an interest in executing criminals and will allow it.

Actually, the law right to execute people is reserved by the state. Even in Texas, vigilantism is against the law.

Therefore my point was, if you do want the death penalty then nothing is stopping you. Just change the law.

Obvious point. So, are we done here?

 

[Norsefire]

OK, so who is "society", exactly?

It is nothing. "Society" is an illusion; I am merely using the term because among you collectivists, it has meaning, and that meaning is the "collective"

Meanwhile, the OP question has been answered, I take it? - that since justice involves fidelity to declared rule, it is inherently self-limiting: it consists of self-limitation, and without self-limitation no justice exists.

Then the only matter is where the limits are drawn. And that is up to whim.

I think the important thing isn't to focus so much on 'rights' per se; in many ways, they can be equated with what's legal and what's legal is just what a government decides. I think terms like what's moral and ethical are much better; they speak to what we think of as ideal; when we can agree on what should be ideal rights, it will become law. It'll probably take us the rest of eternity to get there, but this constant perfecting will also mean we'll always have something to do too ;-).

Even ethics and morals are up to perception, right? Then what is allowed and what occurs is up to whim.

That is why it was OK in Nazi Germany to kill Jews...because society, German society, and German government thought it was ok and ethical.

Perhaps there were the nonconformists but for the most part.

Texas has never been at the forefront of human rights

Under your definition of "human rights"; under my definition of human rights, Texas violates no human rights because execution isn't murder

Actually, the law right to execute people is reserved by the state. Even in Texas, vigilantism is against the law.

The point was that it is allowed because WE declare that we have that right. There's nothing more to it.

It all comes down to enforcement and power, in reality. That is what makes something moral or ethical or right, not because I like that this is the case but because it is just the reality; there is no alternative. It is the way things work. And right now, the "sane" people thankfully are, for the most part, in charge. But that could change.

 

[James R]

Norsefire:

Texas violates no human rights because execution isn't murder

Who said killing has to be murder to violate human rights?

It all comes down to enforcement and power, in reality. That is what makes something moral or ethical or right, not because I like that this is the case but because it is just the reality; there is no alternative.

It is strange, then, that so many people talk so often about the rights of the powerless. According to you, the powerless have no rights.

Something about that suggests that you're making a fundamental mistake.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I read that the Belgian government was planning to issue a warrant for Bush for his war crimes. Eventually they were persuaded to drop it since going after a sitting President could be bad for everything from exports to tourism, and could even precipitate a shootout between national police and Secret Service agents on an airfield.

But now that he's out of office I notice that a judge in Spain plans to go after several of his underlings. It won't be long before the European countries which assume international jurisdiction over human rights abuses come gunning for Bush. He won't be able to leave American soil.

-=-

I wish he couldn't leave Elba soil.