Issodhos writes:
> If the killing party(ies) have the power to legitimize their act of
> killing, yes, they are able to make a "just claim" to killing. In other
> instances it depends on who is doing the killing and who is being killed.
> People in government kill their fellow citizens as punishment for criminal
> activity, and just recently individuals got together and decided to launch an
> aerial killing spree over Yugoslavia in which Serb men, women, and children
> guilty of no wrongdoing, were killed to further the political objectives of
> members of the US government and its figleaf NATO partners. Those who
> supported this action engaged in killing through a proxy.
...as did those who did nothing to stop it.
> All it took to get them on board was to give the supporters an
> emotional feel-good excuse for their crucial support of the killing
> spree, and this was easily accomplished by propangandizing and
> demonizing Milosevic in particular and the Serbian people in
> general.
Even that wasn't necessary, since even those who didn't swallow it
were still unable to do anything to stop it.
> These innocent men, women, and children were killed by the
> "leaders" of the State(s) and their enthusiatic supporters, none of
> which will ever be held accountable. They had the "right" to kill
> with impunity, and without any consideration of the legal concept of
> "Due Process"( a fundamental tenet of the US constitution).
But there was and is no legal system that could have implemented "Due
process", since there is no world government that can enforce it.
> From an evolutionary point of view, one has the right to kill in
> order to increase one's chances for survival.
Nonsense. Evolution and rights have nothing in common. The concept
of rights does not apply to the process of evolution.
> One has the right to kill in order to increase one's security by
> eliminating the competition for the material goods one needs for
> survival. One also has the right to kill in defense of one's group
> if one's survival is dependent on the survival of the group. One is
> still free to kill a member of the group without fear of punishment
> if that is a part of the culture of that group. This last would be
> especially true in regard to mating "rights".
None of these "rights" has anything to do with evolution. As rights
they are all abstract ideas created by human beings. They are made
real when a state is created to enforce them.
> The key is having the power or having a power legitimize one's rights.
> Though we may wail about having "natural rights", if we do not have the
> ability to enforce those rights, they are meaningless. And of course, often
> enforcing or defending those rights (liberties) requires killing, and there
> is always some power willing to recognize the right to kill for liberty.
> Indeed, they are even glorified as wars of liberation, and to participate
> means one is "in struggle". Romantic, no?:-)
>
> From a strictly secular level it seems silly to even pretend a case
> could be made against a right of people to kill. Or are we to assume that
> merely feeling that an act is wrong, constitutes an absolute against such an
> act?
No, defining a system of morals, passing a law against killing based
on that system of morals, and having the power to enforce the law is
what constitutes an absolute against such an act. The boundary of the
absolute is where the law can not be enforced. The US Declaration
of Independence assumes that the right to life is inalienable. The US
then takes away that right when and where it chooses. Many other
states do the same. I think the best that we can achieve is to
minimize the number of killings by sovereign states. The only way to
achieve that is to reduce the number of sovereign states to one.
martin
Martin Smith Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway Fax. : +47 330 35701
|