Whole life sentences are a breach of human rights - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380237]Then you must hate modern society. Under that definition literally any positive right is not a real right. Also, my entire argument is that there is no real objective truth regarding human rights. It seems you are agreeing with this. [/QUOTE] minus the fact that human rights were universally constructed?

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;41380276]minus the fact that human rights were universally constructed?[/QUOTE] Let me rephrase: My argument is that there is no objective moral truth regarding human rights. The argument that comes from this is that we should only enforce/create rights insofar as they better society. If at any point a so called human right hurts society we have the absolute right to either change or get rid of it. I believe life sentences to be one of these cases. I am arguing against the argument that we can't have life sentences because it is against human rights.

[QUOTE=T553412;41380252]The law is supposed to be absolute, and to not give any special treatment for anyone. Killing someone is a crime and MUST be punished, regardless of the mental estate of the killer.[/QUOTE] Except mental state is taken into account in all murder cases. That is why some people go to prison and others go to psychiatric facilities.

prison systems are borked

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380237]Then you must hate modern society. Under that definition literally any positive right is not a real right. Also, my entire argument is that there is no real objective truth regarding human rights. It seems you are agreeing with this. If there is no objective truth regarding something then they don't objectively exist. That's just the way it works. It seems you are agreeing with my argument, but are then argument that it is irrelevant and that we should believe what helps society, even if it isn't true.[/QUOTE] if there is no objective truth then why not apply whatever outlook that allows for the realization of human liberty and dignity, then? that's what i'v basically been arguing this entire time. i personally find the benefits of respect for human life to outweigh the risks associated with that outlook.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380218]yea because my definition of a right is anything you can do in the absence of authority(that also doesn't impose authority on others). you obviously have a different definition, which is why this discussion is sorta pointless. that's why i keep saying there is no truth in this. you or i can have different definitions for the concept and they are both valid and backed by logic. that's why i'm saying that the outlook applied is what is important, not some search for an objective truth, because in the end the outlook is what ends up being practical for our lives.[/QUOTE] Well I'm not sure how you can hope to argue anything when you consider rights one thing and only thing, while most everyone else makes some distinction between 'natural rights' and 'legal rights', and generally don't suggest that rights only exist in the absence of a state system regulating or guaranteeing them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380323]if there is no objective truth then why not apply whatever outlook that allows for the realization of human liberty and dignity, then? that's what i'v basically been arguing this entire time. i personally find the benefits of respect for human life to outweigh the risks associated with that outlook.[/QUOTE] A human created in the likeness of God also increases human dignity. We also can't prove that that isn't true. Therefore we should assume it to be true. Same logic.

[QUOTE=Megafan;41380342]Well I'm not sure how you can hope to argue anything when you consider rights one thing and only thing, while most everyone else makes some distinction between 'natural rights' and 'legal rights', and generally don't suggest that rights only exist in the absence of a state system regulating or guaranteeing them.[/QUOTE] i acknowledge the idea of different types of rights, i just don't really subscribe to them because i believe natural rights tend to be a bit more encompassing and straightforward.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380366]i acknowledge the idea of different types of rights, i just don't really subscribe to them because i believe natural rights tend to be a bit more encompassing and straightforward.[/QUOTE] Well just as an example, let's say the government writes into law a guarantee to provide healthcare via taxation. Now, you need to go to the hospital, and because of this agreement (contract, if you prefer) you receive treatment for some injury or illness both out of your own taxation and by all accounts some others' as well. Without the contract existing you would not have been able to get that care (without assuming the existence of something else to do it), so I'll ask: Why do you believe it impossible for the government to guarantee a right that otherwise would not exist?

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380363]A human created in the likeness of God also increases human dignity. We also can't prove that that isn't true. Therefore we should assume it to be true. Same logic.[/QUOTE] but god would be an actual thing that exists in some plane of existence. it's different from an idea applied to rights because rights are abstract and non-existent like many things in human language and philosophy. you can't say believing in an idea is comparable to believing in god, the two are pretty distinct. [editline]9th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;41380418]Well just as an example, let's say the government writes into law a guarantee to provide healthcare via taxation. Now, you need to go to the hospital, and because of this agreement (contract, if you prefer) you receive treatment for some injury or illness both out of your own taxation and by all accounts some others' as well. Without the contract existing you would not been able to get that care (without assuming the existence of something else to do it), so I'll ask: Why do you believe it impossible for the government to guarantee a right that otherwise would not exist?[/QUOTE] i just said i acknowledge legal rights. i'm saying that i prefer to look at natural rights as being the basis for my philosophy on human rights in general. i find it simpler and more practical. legal rights can change, natural rights stay consistent.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380422]but god would be an actual thing that exists in some plane of existence. it's different from an idea applied to rights because rights are abstract and non-existent like many things in human language and philosophy. you can't say believing in an idea is comparable to believing in god, the two are pretty distinct.[/QUOTE] Alright, enough of this. In the end you aren't even presenting an argument based on anything provable. You are saying truth is irrelevant and what matters is creating a happier and better society. I get that, and I'm not even saying that is bad, but you need to recognize that there's literally no compelling reason for anyone to agree with you. You might as well just state your opinion and move on.

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380471]Alright, enough of this. In the end you aren't even presenting an argument based on anything provable. You are saying truth is irrelevant and what matters is creating a happier and better society. I get that, and I'm not even saying that is bad, but you need to recognize that there's literally no compelling reason for anyone to agree with you. You might as well just state your opinion and move on.[/QUOTE] you're prolly right. sorry if i am having trouble articulating my point of view clearly. i just think one definition of what a right is is superior to another. i'm not interested in an objective truth for what a right is, because it's just an idea. i just prefer to live with an outlook that i feel respects human dignity.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41380542]you're prolly right. sorry if i am having trouble articulating my point of view clearly. i just think one definition of what a right is is superior to another. i'm not interested in an objective truth for what a right is, because it's just an idea. i just prefer to live with an outlook that i feel respects human dignity.[/QUOTE] This is what I don't understand: You seem to be arguing that you hold your view on natural rights because it is better for society, but you also seem to be following those natural rights in a legalistic way whether the effects are good or not. Just a clarifying question: Do you think having life sentences will make society a better or worse place, completely ignoring the idea of rights?

[QUOTE=sgman91;41380600]This is what I don't understand: You seem to be arguing that you hold your view on natural rights because it is better for society, but you also seem to be following those natural rights in a legalistic way whether the effects are good or not. Just a clarifying question: Do you think having life sentences will make society a better or worse place, completely ignoring the idea of rights?[/QUOTE] ignoring any idea of rights, i have mixed feelings about it. my main opposition to it is because of my philosophy regarding human rights. to a certain extent, it makes sense to lock people up forever if only because it serves a purely practical purpose of preventing future crime in the society. but it also wastes resources keeping people locked up when you aren't 100% certain that they will commit a crime again or not. ignoring morality or the idea of rights, it would make more sense just to execute criminals, frankly.

[QUOTE=T553412;41380252]The law is supposed to be absolute, and to not give any special treatment for anyone. Killing someone is a crime and MUST be punished, regardless of the mental estate of the killer.[/QUOTE] If you can't count on the law to work in every circumstance, the law isn't good enough.