Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
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…
Similarly, one does not cease being a person by comitting a series of murders. This is just bad use of language.
|
"Monster" is a figurative term that I use. Evil gets used far too frequently. the defining characteristic of a "human" is one that recognizes the rights of other humans. An "inhuman" or an act of that of a monster, is on that disregards the rights estitled to other humans.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
If we decide that serious criminals no longer have rights, where do we draw the line?
|
As I said military is in a category all its own. I am apposed to war but I understand that soldiers are protecting innocent that cannot protect themselves. Patriotism is not the issue. I couldn't care if someone wasn't patriotic or if one was. I myself am not the Be-All-American. The issue is of a higher law that beings should be following and what happens when those laws are broken. If everyone followed and accepted that all have the basic human rights, then why would there be murder, aside from extremes of mental illness or disease.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
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.
|
The idea is the government must recognize these higher laws of life. However when an act that is destructive to another's life and rights (i.e. rape and murder), then the perpetrator has forfeited his or her rights. The perp. did not recognize the rights of others, so now their rights are not recognized. I strongly believe in the "Do unto others" bit and I am taking it a step further. The government cannot take away rights of those that are innocent. If my system that I propose got out of hand to the point where the government began taking away anyone's rights, I would be the first one to take action. That is why the Constitution is there for those that abide by the higher law. When the rights of the innocent are taken away then the people are allowed to change the government, forcefully if necessary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asaris
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.
|
No, the prisoner is no longer human (from that mentality stand point) because of the fact that the perp. removed the rights of someone else. What good is having these higher rights to life if the criminal can disregard them and still keep their own?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Master_Shake
That just sounds really iffy, I mean, it assumes that we all share the same ideas of human rights and that we all agree what is or is not an inhuman act.
|
And I understand that. And the most destructive acts against life (besides terrorism) would be rape and murder. HOWEVER, there are instances where murder is justifiable. For instance, when your own life or the lives of those you are love are in direct threat of death by another. But the fact is Ranger got the nail on the head.