Register
Events
Popular
More
Post #1
Basically, this was the topic of discussion for a 4 page shit storm I started, so I wanted to take it over here to start a non-hostile discussion about the idea and the mechanics for and against it. I'd just like to hear more opinions on the matter.
Here is an example, to clarify when something like this would apply. Say a terrorist bombs a train station or whatever, and it kills 50 innocent people. Should he be tortured to find out if there are other attacks that put innocent people at risk? Does this bomber deserve death or harsh punishment for killing the innocent people?
With my radical opinion, I believe that someone who commits such an atrocious act is no longer worthy of these rights because of a blatant disregard for human life. Since rights cannot be taken away, they must just be privileges, correct? This opinion is comparable to Hammurabi's code, "An eye for an eye" or "A hand for a hand". In this circumstance it would be more like, "A life for a life" as fair retribution.
In what circumstances do you believe this is applicable, if at all? Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Rights can't be taken away, we get it. We're debating if they should be privileges, which CAN be taken away. Stop posting the same argument repeatedly.
-
-
Human rights should be irrevocable
-
This is a debate, explain why.
-
If exceptions are made for human rights violations, where exactly do we draw the line?
-
This is exactly my point from the last thread.
Whether or not you agree with the idea of Hammurabian justice, eye for an eye, etc.., you have to realize the danger of giving authority the power to choose who gets to be a human and who doesn't.
-
Well what do you think that line should be?
-
He was asking the question to you.
-
I'm pretty sure his point is that you can't draw a line and be fair about it.
-
Human Privileges
Yeah, I think Human Rights has more of a ring to it.
-
I think the real problem with this sort of discussion also comes in when you consider that it's not always as easy as in the hypothetical example to know exactly who did it. If you know for sure, undeniably that someone did the atrocious crime then yes by all means I feel that they have revoked their right to life and humane treatment. However, if someone is a suspect it gets a little bit shady because you don't want to hurt an innocent person. That's why I think we've gotten so soft is for fear of hurting the wrong people. However, there are some people that just think we're above "violence" and I personally think they're naive idiots.
-
pretty fucking stupid question if you ask me
-
^Pretty stupid response from someone who clearly can't grasp the relevance and importance of the subject in every single government.
-
If someone loses their right to humane treatment that means that we could hand them over to anybody and we wouldn't care. If that were the case people would be tortured horribly and receive punishments worse than the crimes they committed. If you're afraid of us getting "soft" I don't want to see you in the justice system any time soon.
We also know that torture really isn't that effective because the victim is more interested in getting you to stop then giving you true information. People should check out Taxi to the Dark Side for a good documentary on the US and torture.
-
I didn't imply you should lose humane treatment if you stole a bar of candy, but if you bomb 50 innocent civilians with a clear intention to just kill innocents then you have no right to humane treatment. If it's an unfortunate event of warfare and was collateral damage then it's a different subject. How can you think people deserve humane treatment after they torture and murder innocent people? I would hate to have an attitude like that as a judge in any of the rape/murder/torture/terror cases. Also, think about how the person that was affected by it feels, not just how you think it is as an outsider. Anyone that intentionally and maliciously harms innocents deserves equal treatment.
I do agree though that torture isn't exactly the best way of finding things out, haven't given much thought to a reasonable alternative. However, as a way of fair and equal punishment I'm supportive.
-
Technically all a "right" is is a privilege that a governing body of some kinds tells you you are entitled to. Now in order to facilitate fair justice within said governing body's jurisdiction, if they define a privilege as a "right," they should then treat such privilege as inalienable, and that each person, no matter whom or what they did, is still entitled to that privilege. Once a right is defined, no leeway should be permitted, no exceptions should be made, at that point everyone under that jurisdiction is entitled to it no matter what, and the governing body and justice system of said body should treat it as such.
-
this would be retarded. it would give men the power to decide what essential rights others have, and that would be similar to having someone play god. This has never worked out well in any society, ever.
-
In my opinion, they're called "rights" for a reason.
-
Why should anyone have a "right" to life when they take life and put other people in unimaginable pain for the sole purpose of causing pain because that person enjoys it? People have a right to do whatever the hell they want with their own bodies and lives as long as it only affects them.
-
If someone kills a bunch of people you throw them in jail forever.
Humane treatment doesn't mean being nice to criminals. It means preventing treatment that is absolutely barbaric and pointless.
So let's say someone has done something so bad that you declare they no longer have any rights. What do you believe should happen to them?
-
I understand your way of thinking, but giving a government or any other organization the power to choose where to draw the line is just opening the door to massive amounts of corruption
-
Edited:
I'm not saying it can be perfectly implemented, I understand the potential pit falls. Every systems has its shortcomings though. I'm arguing from a theoretical standpoint. There's really no way to implement any system perfectly without human corruption unfortunately...
Edited:
Why would you put someone in jail forever? That just gives them free food and housing and if you never plan on letting them out what is the point in investing those resources? If they're so violent you want them put away forever, make them gone forever.
I would be able to answer better with an example but I would try to replicate whatever they did to others toward them. Also, if possible I would let the victims take part if they wanted because they deserve to take part in the punishment.
-
The word "rights" itself implies not privileges.
-
How can someone even think of thinking this thought? What
Everyone is deserving of basic human rights, and they can NEVER be revoked, no matter what the individual does.
-
So, someone who takes a family hostage and tortures the kids in front of the parents, kills them then burns the parents alive really deserves to be treated like they're humans? They're dogs, they deserve to die like them.
-
No, actually, they're humans.
No amount of emotional reaction to a horrible crime changes what they are.
-
Perhaps from a purely genetic standpoint. In terms of being part of humanity and society, they're not.
-
That sounds like a subjective claim based in emotion and not sense if I've ever heard one. A human right is not a right if you can take it away. If you think everyone has the privilege to life, fine. Call it like it is.
-
You would consider someone like that as a part of a civilized society that is in theory supposed to be peaceful toward one another and work cooperatively? I wouldn't, that's why I don't consider them part of "humanity". Sure, part of the human race, but nothing more.
I'll concede, life is a privilege.
-
Great.
I consider that you don't have the privilege to life because I believe that life is only deserved by forum posters whose opinions I agree with. Defend why I should let you live.
-
My belief that opposes yours does not directly affect or harm you in any physical or mental manner and it would be absurd to claim such. Therefore, you have no right to deprive me of my privilege of life. If I harassed you endlessly and ended up threatening your life in a serious way because of this disagreement then by all means, defend your privilege of life.
-
I see, so now we DO have certain rights. Life, the thing from which all other rights and privileges derive, is not a right, but a privilege, BUT I can have or not have the right to deprive you of life? How does that make any sense?
Who determines whether or not you have the privilege of life? Is it the majority of society-at-large? Does that mean that we're totally justified in taking slaves if most people want it?
-
Arguing semantics.. You would not have a reasonable cause to deprive me of my privilege of life.
Everyone has the privilege of life until they have revoked it through some action. No, taking slaves would not be justified because there is no real reason to do that and it would be taking someone else's privilege of right for an inherently bad cause, thus you have revoked your own privilege of life.
-
There is also no reason to give governments the authority to determine whether or not it's citizens are granted the privilege of life even though they are already able to have 'life' before the fact that the government can grant the privilege.
Also, the concept is entirely barbaric. Why would I want my government to determine whether or not I can have a human or a subhuman status?
-
I'm not arguing about the enforcing of it by a government. I'm discussing theoretically the privileges of people and punishments, not their actual implementations in governments.
-
He isn't arguing semantics he's basically revealing that past a reactionary, emotional response to crime/terrorism you haven't thought this out at all.
-
they are humans, like you, like me. they have reasons for what they do, if you were to be in there shoes you might do the same. we are all people trying to live our lives, shaped by experience. you don't stop to ask: why did he kill them, what drove him to. and instead of looking for a solution to the cause, you'd put a band aid over it by just killing them, who's acting like a dog now
-
How can you talk about this kind of thing in a purely theoretical way? You keep saying that there is some arbitrary reason to have your privilege to life revoked, but you never explain what that reason ever could be. Because it is so arbitrary that forms a weakness in your argument, anyone can choose any reason to deny privilege to life in your system and be justified.
-
It seems rather silly to argue about hypothetical situations regarding human rights without taking governments into consideration as they are the very institutions that make those rights necessary.
-
So, you think that the reason for torturing innocent people can justify saving their life? I should remind you that by innocent that means they have done nothing to that person. If the guy killed his dad because his dad had tortured him then I would agree with you his actions are justifiable. However, the OP asked about people killing innocents in particular; which is the point I am arguing from.
I have given this much thought and have not been presented with any reason why someone who maliciously kills innocents should have their own life preserved. Do you feel that we are just above that? Or that they deserve a second chance to be rehabilitated? So far I have just heard put them away forever, what does that do other than waste resources?
-
Doesn't devalue the point, particularly when the semantical distinction of "right" vs. "privilege" is a huge part of the argument.
Unjustified claim
What action? Why those actions? Who determines that those are correct?
Unjustified claim
Inherently bad according to who? What makes them right?
As unjustified as above.
