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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can we also add to the list people who say "you don't have the right to rape me", "you don't have the right to steal from me", etc etc, since these things are also equally outside the "objective"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolutely, because again those are subjective statements. They are rational, of course, and indeed I personally do believe that nobody has the "right" to rape another...but unfortunately that does little to stop the rapist. Therefore, in reality, it is might that makes right.

And when dealing with criminals, why limit ourselves? Let's not only execute them, but do so much more...because we have the right to.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So let's get this straight.

Since there are no rights, we have the right to do anything to someone who transgresses our rights?

How do you propose to distinguish between criminal activity and law enforcement?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I said there are no objective rights. Rights and breaches of rights are complete perspective; in our society, we establish a standard for rights and enforce that. Therefore you have the right to do anything to he who transgresses on your right in so far as you and those around you recognize that right.

 

Which leaves us with the problem of distinguishing criminal activities from law enforcement since both can lay claim to an identical work ethic.

:shrug:

 

And that is up to us, just like every other subjective aspect of society.

 

Soooo ...... since its up to us and we have this idea that social laws exist in their current state, what's your point?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That we could change them if we want to. So let's not have them burdening us. Let's change them so that they allow us to do what we want, which is execute criminals.

 

The fact that we can change them and that we aren't indicates that not everyone shares your opinion of them being burdensome.

 

No, they aren't being changed because people don't understand that they can change them. Hence, that's why I said about the people who say "we don't have the right" , they don't understand that they have the power.

 

sheesh

just google "capital punishment controversy"

:shrug:

 

If it's not self-limited, it isn't justice.

Justice in the law is fidelity to declared rules. You have to have declared rules, and they have to be consistent (or fidelity would be impossible).

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

 

Not enough of the right people want to.

That's just what you want. Its not what we want.

 

I would say that is just a formal recognition that there are certain fundimental aspects of life which a significant number of people are willing to fight for rather than have unduly abridged.

While exactly what those are tends to be bound up in tradition and culture, there seem to be some which are fundimental enough that even the sheeple will eventually revolt.

Oddly enough greed seems more dear than life, limb, family and religion.

 

Absolutely, and they can be changed.

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

Therefore, as I said, it is simply a matter of perspective. Here, obviously then, our law recognizes that people have an interest in executing criminals and will allow it.

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

Not objectively, which was what I was saying.

Such as? The UN Declaration of Human rights?

What if the national gov't doesn't recognize it? Then it is powerless, unfortunately.

"Society"

Perhaps, depending on where you live.

That's what many people want; and many people are against it.

However, then let's argue on a "I don't want it/I want it" basis, not a "you can't do it" basis.

Because sure we can.

 

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?