Do murderers have a right to life?

Steve,

... you ... made like he was the expert on this aspect of human rights ...

Actually, all I said was that a single sentence of his written wording was potentially problematic. That's a long way from making someone out to be an expert, Steve -- a long way. The only thing granting any hint of authority or, better yet, generalization (representation of common view) on this issue is that it's from Standford and it's edited by peers (sort of like a "peer-review") -- not because the guy is anything special.

Besides, unless you forget, I previously cited Merriam-Webster as a common dictionary source saying the exact same thing. And I didn't say it's proof, but only strong evidence. What would be weak evidence? Well, an outdated book would be weak (citing common opinion from centuries ago). A random, but well-written web link would be weak, too (because we'd be unsure regarding generalizability). But not what I have shown. That's not what weak evidence looks like on this topic.

Are we straight on that now?

You point at that poor, thread-bare, unsupported assertion by Dr. Nichols, call it strong evidence ...

See above. Could you show me -- no, could you even tell me -- what strong evidence, on this topic, would look like?

... are you kidding? That fellow's quote assigns plausability or meaning to what Rand thought? You need to get back to reasoning ...

See above. You, yourself, were the one to initially make the argument that, in the case of rights, it's best to rely on common or generalized use of terms (rather than inventing our own meanings; or creating special Objectivist definitions for everything).

Really. look at the chain of connections above.

Actually, you'd better take your own advice on that one.

The word "selfishness" is categorized as a sin in some lexicons - that doesn't make that meaning right - not even if it is the most common usage - not even if Dr. Nickels agreed.

It is true that different people may use the word "inalienable" in different ways, but that is no reason why "inalienable" must preclude "rights being lost due to bad conduct."

See above.

Ed

Post 21

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 11:49am

Ed,

Okay, If what you mean by saying that rights are "metaphysical" is that they are a product of nature rather than of human design, then I think you are correct in the sense in which, given our nature (as rational animals), our survival requires them.

I asked, "Also what about my point that 'what it means to say that someone has a right to something is that others are obligated to respect it (i.e., not to interfere with its exercise). If they are not so obligated, then it makes no sense to say that the person has a "right" to it.'?"

Okay, let's take a concrete case because the issue is so easy to misunderstand. Let's take a dude in prison for rape. This dude appears to have lost some of his right to freedom -- otherwise he would not be in jail (or would not be judiciously "jailable"). That's one way to look at the issue -- that, in committing a rape, he surrendered some of his right to freedom. And , no longer having the same amount of the human right to freedom as we do, it is proper to go ahead and put him in jail.

But what about what I say about it? I say that the guy lost circumstantial (or "existential") freedom without losing the right to freedom. That the guy lost something "man-make-able" without losing something metaphysical. I say that the guy had (and has) a metaphysical right to (the full exercise of) circumstantial freedom, but with one limiting rule -- that he does not violate the rights of others. In such cases, I say that he surrenders a portion of the man-make-able (circumstantial) part, the otherwise unfettered exercise, of his metaphysical rights.

Well, I don't think there's a valid distinction between the exercise of one's rights and the rights themselves. To say that I have a right to something is equivalent to saying that I have a right to its exercise. What are the criminal's rights in this case? He no longer has the right to live freely outside of jail. Otherwise, by jailing him, one would be violating his rights. Remember, to say that someone has a right means that others are obligated to respect it. So if the criminal has a right to live outside of jail, then the authorities are obligated to respect it; they have no right to put him in jail. Conversely, if they do have the right to put him in jail, then he no longer has the right to live outside of jail. He cannot have it both ways: He cannot have the right to live outside of jail and at the same time justifiably be kept within a jail.

Yes, rights are metaphysical (in the sense that they are required by man's nature for his proper survival), but they only apply to people who respect them. A person doesn't have the right to violate other people's freedom of action while retaining a commensurate right to his own. That doesn't mean that he loses the right to all of his freedom. He still retains a right to that portion of it to which he is entitled. However, if he destroys the freedom of another person entirely by murdering him, then he does lose the right to all of his freedom: he loses the right to his life.

As regards Rand's use of the term "inalienable," here is what she says: "When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate -- not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever." ("Textbook of Americanism," pamphlet, 12)

When we jail a thief or execute a murderer, we are not taking way, suspending, infringing, restricting or violating his rights. He, the criminal, forfeited (lost) those rights when he committed the crime. The act of jailing or executing him does not take away or violate his rights, because having committed the crime, he no longer possesses them.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/04, 12:01pm)

Post 22

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 6:20pm

Bill,

It looks like we're at a robust stalemate on this one. I think we've said all we could say on it now -- and all that's left for us is to repeat our key points back and forth to each other in futility. Thanks for the debate.

Ed

Post 23

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 7:04pm

You're welcome, Ed! :-)

Post 24

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 7:49pm

My POV on this is that I don't trust giving any government the power to kill anyone, because I regard government as no different than a gang of thugs with really good PR. I don't have much confidence in their ability to dispense justice and avoid killing innocents unjustly accused. The number of death row inmates released due to DNA evidence seems like compelling evidence of their inability to get justice. And, unlike imprisonment, once you kill someone there isn't anyway to undo that if evidence of wrongful conviction surfaces.

The track record of governments in starting wars and killing millions of people, including innocent bystanders, is just one example of the problem of their license to kill, with the execution of alleged murderers being a special case of that general power.

Would anyone here be OK with giving the Mafia or a street gang the legal right to kill people in retaliation for an alleged murder?

Post 25

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 8:20pm

Jim,

You're an anarchist! No one here expects you to pop up and say loving things about government. Gee, you don't like or trust the government? Glad we have that on the record now :-)

Post 26

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:06am

Jim,

Thanks for chiming in. Though I guess I would put you on the Steve-Bill side of this debate. You see, I counter-intuitively think that governments should be allowed to kill you -- even if you have all of your rights intact. I mean, talk about a brutal dictatorship!

:-)

I do agree with your cautionary point about the imperfection, or inexactitude, in regard to exacting justice.

Ed

Post 27

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 12:27am

Well, I don't much trust the government either, since it's an institution that does not have the discipline of the market to keep it honest. Since it's vulnerable to corruption, it is best not to give it the power to execute convicted murderers.

Furthermore, even with the best of intentions, human beings are fallible and can mistakenly convict an innocent person. Giving convicted murderers life in prison at least allows for the possibility that new DNA evidence may overturn a conviction and give them some measure of compensation. Once they're dead, that possibility is gone.

Post 28

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 1:24pm

FYI, this topic (the nature of rights) has come up multiple times before, one of the longer and more extensive debates being here. I had disagreed with Bill and Ed in that thread, and I can't tell whether either of them have actually changed their views since then.

Let me offer a controversial and radical thought that will probably make people scream in horror. It may be that whole concept of individual rights is conceptually flawed. What I mean is that while it may appear useful and informative when you're being a little vague, when you try to be very specific and detailed, the concept gets in the way. This would explain why everyone can broadly discuss politics and individual rights, and seemingly agree, but when corner-cases are discussed, the debates turn to semantics and many possible concepts are used.

Consider some of the different ideas that are vaguely referred to when people are talking about individual rights:
1.) Each person's need to be able to think and act on their own judgment in order to pursue their own lives.
2.) A reference to a moral justification for why you should not attack others or violate their freedom.
3.) The claim that others should not infringe upon your own life or liberty.
4.) A principle that connects certain kinds of actions to certain kinds of consequences, without any necessary value judgment.
5.) A rule-of-thumb that tells you how to behave.
6.) Etc.

Consider the fact that 'rights' are expressed as if they are things. That works if you're talking about moral claims, which are also things. But it makes it difficult to say talk about the fact that other people shouldn't infringe on your life or liberty. Saying that you have X does not normally imply that others should treat you in a particular way.

Also, consider that they are described as something you own, that belongs to you. Think about that. It is using an analogy of ownership to describe them, but ownership is dependent on the concept of rights in the first place. You can say that you 'have' or 'own' a right, that it belongs to you, like the right to speak your mind, and like other things that belong to you, others shouldn't be able to take it away from you. But why shouldn't people be able to take away what belongs to you? Because of rights! Why can't they take those rights from you? Because they belong to you!!!! Isn't that circular?

I think it's important to understand that the ideas behind the concept of rights are what is really important, and the concept of rights is just one way of expressing these ideas. And there's no reason to believe that this particular way of expressing these ideas is the best way. Describing rights as "things" that "belong to you" is a nice short-hand that allows you to talk efficiently about the fact that you have certain expectations of what you should be free to do without interference from others. But it is also just an analogy, and an analogy that is dependent on the concept of rights.

My claim is that the very structure of the concept is what leads to these endless discussions. People try to shove all of these important philosophical ideas into on word, that already has a lot of baggage, as if by defining this once concept in just the right way, it can take the place of countless others.

Post 29

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 2:41pm

I think you guys already know my position on the matter.

Rights are not an intrinsic property. The "unalienable Rights" in the Declaration of Independence are not unalienable.

Rights are rules that limit or permit certain behaviors. One can claim that he has a "Right". In other words, one can claim that he should be permitted to do something, should be limited in doing something, or others should be limited/prohibited.

Rights can be used as the basis of law. One set of Rights can contradict another. It is up to the individuals in a society to determine what set of Rights they enforce and live with.

An objectivist declaring what Rights we should have is based on his goals and values. A communist declaring what Rights we should have is based on his goals and values.

Post 30

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 3:16pm

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. � That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted

We hold these Rights to be evident as true to maximize the success of productive individuals. That all productive individuals should have: unlimited action within the confines of one's own property; unlimited expression in private; unlimited mutually consensual trade; not be a victim to unauthorized use of their own property.

To maximize our success, we have created an alliance to defend these Rights. Our alliance will honor information collected by the victim to determine whether these Rights have been infringed, who was the cause, what the guilty must do to restore the value to the victim. We will destroy those who are unable or unwilling to restore.

Post 31

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 3:18pm

Joe,

I'm reminded of Thomas Kuhns understanding of how science progresses - the idea that scientists would work at tweaking this bit of knowledge, building out yet another tiny application of a princple, all busy like a group of kids carefully putting blocks one on top of another, building a grand structure. But then someone spots a flawed combination of blocks near the base of a key building - that kid wants to pull it out. It's wrong the others say. The others are upset and attached to what they have. But it becomes apparent that it has to be done. The all change their thinking about how a building should be - paradigm shift accomplished. Then they go back to the business of extending, adding and tweaking. And if was an improvement in the base principles, the resulting structures will be better. Kuhn was discussing the two modes by which thought evolves... a revolution where things are turned upside down, a paradigm shift, and the steady building upon what is not currently being questioned. (He also advocated a subjective viewpoint I don't share, but that's a different story)

I mention this because I'd like to have a better gut feeling for when I am holding principles that might need major adjustments. When my thought might need more of a revolutionary approach. A warning as to when I need to check premises and doing that effectively means a kind of emotional acceptance of letting go of those principles that ought to be replaced.

I look at what you wrote, "It may be that whole concept of individual rights is conceptually flawed."

I wonder when I read that if you might have a flawed grasp of individual rights in some way, or if you have a good grasp of rights, but it somehow doesn't fit in smoothly with some other basic principle that you have and that principle needs to be examined. Either of those would explain your discomfort with individual rights as we have been attempting to work with them. But it might be you are right, and you are sensing just exactly what Kuhn was talking about and that we need to pull a significantly fundamental structure down and put it back together with more accurate definiitions, or models.

We have two constraints here: The purpose of having this kind of moral structure is evident and critical, and the need to create the model, the conceptualization of the elements to accurately represent reality.

I've had the same feelings about individual rights - but coming from a different direction. I saw the failures in the following areas as causing many of the problems:
1.) Failing to separate types of rights - e.g., confusing moral with legal.
2.) Not locating the universality in human nature.
3.) Losing the context of rights as actions
4.) Mistaking property as other than a bundle of rights and seeing "property" as meaning an object, like a car.

So, my implicit belief was that when we stopped making those errors everything would be perfect. But my gut is telling me that even if these are all cleaned up and properly worked with, we are missing something. And I'm clear that there are many things we don't understand things clearly.

I think that there is more to advance in the area of a hierarchy, of layers, that can be parsed in a particular statement of a right. And that one of the fuzziest areas is about the relationship between externals but is conceptual - my claim to have a right to drive my car to the store is the assertion that a moral link is there between me and the car. That link is only in the minds of men - no physical entity or force. But it is broader than that because it somehow is an assertion of a moral 'structure' that includes all men (those who cannot interfere with my driving my car to the store). What, specifically is a concrete here? Is it the right to drive this car, at this instance, in this fashion, over this path? No, that is still abstract because of the concept right and the issue you brought up - the concept of a right as my property or my property as a right.

At this point I like what I have in my mind about rights, as a starting place. At least to the degree that I'm not ready to pull down the structure I have. But I think there are still lots of loose ends and unknowns. I think that we all benefit if we start by admitting the degree of fuzzy and inadequately explored and poorly fleshed out areas there still are.

Post 32

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 3:20pm

In response to Joe's insights, it may be necessary to get somewhat unorthodox in our reasoning in order for us to understand rights. One unorthodox method of reasoning is reasoning from a counter-factual. Imagine this untrue scenario for a moment:

Besides humans, there is another creature on Earth called "dumans." These dumans (Domo sapiens) have such a nature that it results in them having less than half of the rights of a human. What this means is that it's okay to randomly jail them. The jails start to fill up and there is talk about letting some folks (of those incarcerated) out of jail.

Some folks say we should preferentially let humans out first, because dumans don't have a full complement of rights -- and that means that there is not as much injustice occurring when we hold them in jail. Other folks say we should preferentially let dumans out first, because your current complement of rights has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the justice of keeping you in jail or not (and at least the humans are in there because they did something wrong).

Who's right?

Why?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/05, 3:46pm)

Post 33

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 3:40pm

Ed,

"Who's right?"

You haven't made any suggestion of which solution might make my life (or a productive man's life) better in the long run.

What is the purpose of jail? The purpose of jail is to prevent those who perform unauthorized use of property from continuing to do so. Another purpose is to limit such a person's self generating action, a way to make the person net lose from their property right violating actions.

It doesn't make sense to randomly jail entities. We'd want ones that are productive and respect our property to be unlimited in action... so that we could trade with them.

It doesn't make sense to let those who do not respect our property to be unlimited in action... because their freedom results in a net loss to our lives.

Post 34

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 3:42pm

Dean,

An objectivist declaring what Rights we should have is based on his goals and values. A communist declaring what Rights we should have is based on his goals and values.

You mention these points side by side as if to make it a point that they are morally equivalent. That existentialist view, however, misses a point -- about objective values -- that the objectivists make. All talk about morality is talk about universality. Even a moral relativist claims that his moral truth extends to others -- i.e., you can't even argue for moral relativism "relativistically". And those things in life that aren't universal are treatable on a lower level of thinking -- the thinking of personal tastes or esthetic preferences.

Ed

Post 35

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 4:00pm

Dean,

It doesn't make sense to randomly jail entities. We'd want ones that are productive and respect our property to be unlimited in action... so that we could trade with them.

I made an edit at the end of that post and put it into parentheses. You're right it doesn't make sense to spend resources randomly jailing "rights-deficient" entities. There'd have to be other, sundry reasons for locking them up like that. But you are focusing on expediency, and my point is about justice (and morality). My point was to take the notion of rights previously espoused by my interlocuters in this thread out to its logical limits. Using their moral reasoning, it isn't morally wrong to jail dumans -- because the thing that would make it wrong is: the amount of rights they have (not only whether they've done something wrong or not).

It doesn't make sense to let those who do not respect our property to be unlimited in action... because their freedom results in a net loss to our lives.

You are right, but a case could be stated more strongly. I would argue not only that it doesn't make sense, but that there is no justifiable reason (i.e., that it couldn't ever "make sense") to let those, who do not respect rights, to be unlimited in action. Folks who don't like absolutes will surely chime in with a scenario where jails have to be closed because of lack of funding -- and convicts will have to be let loose on the world. Or when we may strategically let criminals go as part of a larger "sting" operation. I'll take those criticisms, one-by-one, as they come in ...

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/05, 4:04pm)

Post 36

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 4:00pm

You mention these points side by side as if to make it a point that they are morally equivalent.

Morally equivalent from who's viewpoint? God's (doesn't exist)? The universe's (non living, does not have goals)? A productive man's? A leech?

about objective values -- that the objectivists make

Objectivists are those who wish to be productive men. They have a particular set of values. I'm not sure what your point is, agree given what an objectivist's goals are, their values make sense.

All talk about morality is talk about universality

You can't have morality without entities that have goals. No such entities = no morality. Hence there is no universal morality, there is no universal goal that the universe is trying to accomplish. There is no universal goal that all entities are trying to accomplish.

Even a moral relativist claims that his moral truth extends to others -- i.e., you can't even argue for moral relativism "relativistically".

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I'm not arguing for moral relativism. I argue that us producers should band together and defend ourselves from the leeches, too bad for them if they want to take our stuff, were gonna do what we want with our stuff and do what is economically worthwhile to prevent unauthorized use!

And those things in life that aren't universal are treatable on a lower level of thinking -- the thinking of personal tastes or esthetic preferences.

I know you'd like to stick to your moral high ground of claiming that we've got universal true morality, and that if I take that away all that we are left with is "We want x, you want y, and we are going to fight for x!"... But sorry dude, the former is invalid and the later is the real. We have goals, leeches have goals, and they can't both be accomplished.

Post 37

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 4:13pm

Steve -- well, yes, I'm an anarchist. Yet, I completely agree with what Bill said in post 27 (sanction!), and to my knowledge he is a conventional Objectivist in believing in minarchy.

Re this: "So, my implicit belief was that when we stopped making those errors everything would be perfect. But my gut is telling me that even if these are all cleaned up and properly worked with, we are missing something. And I'm clear that there are many things we don't understand things clearly."

My gut feeling is that what is missing is what Dean was talking about in post 29 and post 30 (more sanctions): that there isn't this Objective, perfect, completely consistent set of what we call "rights" available and discernable by logic. What we ought to accept is that by "rights" we really mean "a set of rules that will allow me or those I care about to live and thrive".

Thus, for productive members of society who are not leftists, "rights" center around non-coercion, because we are the victims of predators and parasites who take from us.

For leftists, who want non-producers to live and thrive, "rights" mean what FDR talked about in his second proposed Bill of Rights, all centered around taking from the productive and giving the proceeds to the predators and parasites.

And, in the "lifeboat" scenarios, even Objectivists are willing to temporarily put aside their lofty notions of "rights" and do whatever it takes to survive. I recently read the book "Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea", in which the author talks about what people did to try to survive one of the famines brought about by that horrendous government. The survivors did whatever they had to, to survive: lie, steal, defraud, whatever. Those few people who were "too good to live" wound up in graves first. And, upon reflection, I knew I too would do whatever it took to get through all that, "rights" be damned. The same if I was trying to survive in an actual lifeboat, or a concentration camp.

So, what Objectivists refer to as "rights", if adhered to, generally prevent the sort of nastiness described by the book above, but the reality is that some people actually are personally better off violating the "rights" of others. An interesting case of that can be seen if you read the book or view the movie "The Time Traveller's Wife" (both excellent, I might add), where the protagonist is, as a result of his time travelling, constantly put in a situation where he must steal clothes to stay alive. He is not a bad person -- I would submit that he is a moral person, given the constraints he faces -- but what Objectivists view as "rights", if rigorously followed by him, would lead to his death.

/Darwinian POV
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 3/05, 4:37pm)

Post 38

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 4:32pm

Jim,

I too agree with Bill's post#27 - His distrust of government has more standing with me because he does not have an agenda to eliminate government. He sees the value of minarchy. He hasn't expressed what I see as an irrational passion against any kind of government.
---------------

For me the strongest practical reason for a death penalty (in spite of human fallibility, corruption, etc.) is that some murders are very likely to murder again if released and life sentences without parole are too often well intended, but then overturned later by some bureaucrat who manages to get them in front of a parole board and out they go. It becomes a matter of which path would result in the least loss of innocent lives over time. On this practical level we might attempt to institute policies that set more stringent rules of evidence for capital cases and that require evidence that this was not a murder that arose out of passion of the moment or accident - in other words, that it might be repeated. And finding better laws to prevent anyone ever letting someone go who was supposed to be in for life. But I'm comfortable with not using capital punishment for the reasons Bill gave.

(Except for piracy on the high seas where the offenders are caught in the act and the evidence is beyond any question - then I favor hanging them after a video-taped military tribunal and a week for a civilian attorney to appeal to the tribunal - but maybe that's because I'm a sailor).

Post 39

Saturday, March 5, 2011 - 4:42pm