Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - When is a Human not a Human?- A Conceit of the Death Penalty

asaris · 01-31-2005, 07:04 AM

First, let's give up this nonsense about murderers not being human any more. "Human" is a scientific term referring to a member of a specific species, and so we can no more cease being human through our actions than a lion who was too old to hunt would cease being a lion. Similarly, one does not cease being a person by comitting a series of murders. This is just bad use of language.

Second, there's a slippery slope lurking around here somewhere. If we decide that serious criminals no longer have rights, where do we draw the line? Do terrorists have rights? Enemy combatants? Enemy non-combatants? Quislings? People who aren't quite as patriotic as they 'should' be? I'm in general suspicious of slippery slope arguments, but this seems to be one case where they should be looked at.

Third, assume for the moment that there are no such creatures as 'human rights'; that is, that rights are granted to us by the government is order to make society happier/more productive/whatever. I mean that, on this story, governments at some point figured out that things run more smoothly if people have rights. But how would people react if they saw the government taking away rights? They would start to be nervous that their own rights could be taken away as well, especially if the gov't started moving down the slippery slope. The gov't contradicts itself by creating rights and then taking them away.

Fourth, assume that human rights are something held by every human person, merely in virtue of being human. In that case, since prisoners, whatever they have done, are still human, they still have rights.

01-31-2005, 07:04 AM	#16 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	First, let's give up this nonsense about murderers not being human any more. "Human" is a scientific term referring to a member of a specific species, and so we can no more cease being human through our actions than a lion who was too old to hunt would cease being a lion. Similarly, one does not cease being a person by comitting a series of murders. This is just bad use of language. Second, there's a slippery slope lurking around here somewhere. If we decide that serious criminals no longer have rights, where do we draw the line? Do terrorists have rights? Enemy combatants? Enemy non-combatants? Quislings? People who aren't quite as patriotic as they 'should' be? I'm in general suspicious of slippery slope arguments, but this seems to be one case where they should be looked at. Third, assume for the moment that there are no such creatures as 'human rights'; that is, that rights are granted to us by the government is order to make society happier/more productive/whatever. I mean that, on this story, governments at some point figured out that things run more smoothly if people have rights. But how would people react if they saw the government taking away rights? They would start to be nervous that their own rights could be taken away as well, especially if the gov't started moving down the slippery slope. The gov't contradicts itself by creating rights and then taking them away. Fourth, assume that human rights are something held by every human person, merely in virtue of being human. In that case, since prisoners, whatever they have done, are still human, they still have rights. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche