Individual Responsibility: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Individual Responsibility » Individual Responsibility

Individual Responsibility
with killing

Individual Responsibility

litkey
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 718

Posted 04/29/08 - 05:13 AM: Subject: Individual Responsibility	#1
I pose for debate: As Individuals we might know someone that we would want to die, a love-rival, a hated boss, a family member, a priest. The philosophical under-pinnings are born from the following wording that some Individuals Utter: "I wish that sonofabitch was dead!" Now, many advocate the death penalty, indeed, they will even attend, praise, and vote on it. What is going on here? What is the process? Is the state doing it for us? If there is someone you want dead, then why not kill the person? What is there to stop each Individual? It could be that this person, a lover-rival, or a rival over a crown (many nations developed through murder(s)), is causing very real mental and physical problems; the state won't do anything about it - although it is certainly ready to kill people that are a "threat" to the state; what about Individuals that are threats to Individuals? Aren't Individuals real, and the state...? I have never killed anyone. If I feel I want to act on my own behalf, it could be that the "executive" power will have me locked up for being a menace: but does the state care that I have an Individual trying to fuck me over? Does it care? There isn't a mystery behind this, the state has no feelings on this front. Looking at one idea from John Locke- he said that we each have the spark of God; he said that it was meant to be used ...for Justice; and he said that the Government was right in killing people, because we (as Individuals) had [previously] consented to be governed, or represented (although his form of consent is tacit). Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about someone about to be hanged in Texas, or Bagdad, I care more about people close to me- my friends and enemies alike: What if there was a serious and real* threat* to my resources? What would you do? What is "right" ? Anyway, just a talking point, Edited by litkey on 04/29/08 - 08:47 AM
_____________________ Develop an interest in life as you see it; the people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself. - The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware. -Henry Miller

Tad
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 17, 2007
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 44

Posted 04/29/08 - 12:12 PM:	#2
There are laws protecting individuals against threats against their person or property. I'm not familiar with letter of the law within the USA, but I'm sure there are some portions of it which deny an individual the right to threaten the life of another. Though this discussion is going to have to hinge on what we mean by a 'threat'. It probably is not against the law to say it once aloud, as in "I am going to kill you." If repeated, it may lead to come crime of harassment and warrant an investigation. On the other hand, if an individual is standing outside a bar waving a gun around saying, "I am going to kill you", then this may justify the state intervening on your behalf (reckless something-or-other?) Also, the law does allow individuals to kill in self-defense. It is justified because those individuals who violate the rights of others can not legitimately (or morally) claim certain rights for themselves - eg the right to be free from harm. Though, with respect to your concern that threats to the state or more readily prosecuted (or killed) than threats vis a vis individuals, I think this is an unjustifiable fact about many governments. It reflects the unequal power relationships that exist in society. The law serves the rich and powerful, so their interests are paramount, while our interests, and the threats against them, must reach a much higher bar to become legitimated by the very governments which is supposed to protect us. Edited by Tad on 04/29/08 - 12:22 PM
_____________________ Empty cages, not larger cages.

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/03/08 - 12:41 AM:	#3
Tad wrote: It reflects the unequal power relationships that exist in society. The law serves the rich and powerful, so their interests are paramount, while our interests, and the threats against them, must reach a much higher bar to become legitimated by the very governments which is supposed to protect us. Precisely, laws such as death penalty enforcement, exist for the interests of those who make the laws. Death penalty enforcement serves as no better a deterrent force against potential offenders than does a life sentence: often, the motivations for murder are far greater than the possible recompense. Death penalties do not exist to take from offenders appropriate retribution--they exist to protect the financial interests of the state, or to save it the costs of supporting that human life for forty to sixty years or more. I hate the death penalty, partly because I see the state as only a group of individuals, nothing less, nothing more. It should have no rights which transcend the rights it gives guaranteed to its individual citizens. Essentially, if the individual citizen cannot commit a pre-meditated murder, why should the state have the lawful right to commit a pre-meditated murder (execution)?
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/04/08 - 06:21 PM:	#4
The individual does have a right to destroy personal threats though, as should the state. My problem with the death penalty is twofold: One is semantics, death is not a penalty and should not be used as such. It is for protection. Two is partiality, the death penalty is applied unfairly. It's use can be correlated alarmingly with who your lawyer is, whether your judge and prosecutor are elected, what race your victim was and how many cameras are in the courtroom.
_____________________ It is what it is.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.