"Human Rights" --European Court

[rabid]

But actually-- although its hard not to get too specific... my initial post was regarding if The European Court have too much power in making decisions.

den

[feral chile]

Was it just that homosexuality was illegal and used to be punished by imprisonment?

Obviously, it's unjust now, but was it unjust then? Because if it was, then justice and the justice system are not one and the same.

If they are, then justice is totally relative.

[eFestivals]

Was it just that homosexuality was illegal and used to be punished by imprisonment?

Obviously, it's unjust now, but was it unjust then? Because if it was, then justice and the justice system are not one and the same.

If they are, then justice is totally relative.

Justice is completely subjective, you mean. If someone says "I want justice", then know one can know what they mean by that until they define what they mean exactly with the specifics.

[feral chile]

Justice is completely subjective, you mean. If someone says "I want justice", then know one can know what they mean by that until they define what they mean exactly with the specifics.

Edited February 21, 2011 by feral chile

[feral chile]

I think den's point is that this person came into the country illegally, didn't respect our laws, so shouldn't be protected by our laws as they shouldn't apply to him. And he shouldn't be considered part of our society.

Lots of people born here don't respect our laws though, and we don't deport them. Though we do usually exclude them from society for a while.

[eFestivals]

I think den's point is that this person came into the country illegally, didn't respect our laws, so shouldn't be protected by our laws as they shouldn't apply to him. And he shouldn't be considered part of our society.

Lots of people born here don't respect our laws though, and we don't deport them. Though we do usually exclude them from society for a while.

What a great idea - the Human Rights Act only applies to those people who us Brits get to deem as human. Which of course isn't any bloody foreigners, all of them are sub-human.

There's a political party which has that view too, perhaps Den might like to join them? Their leader is called Nick someone I think.

[feral chile]

What a great idea - the Human Rights Act only applies to those people who us Brits get to deem as human. Which of course isn't any bloody foreigners, all of them are sub-human.

There's a political party which has that view too, perhaps Den might like to join them? Their leader is called Nick someone I think.

[feral chile]

I'm with Neil..

in a way, it (justice) is often enough totally unatainable. How do you 'get' justice for someone being murdered, or simply mugged, or burgled? You can never get back a feeling that you're 'safe' after events like that, no matter what punishment or sense of justice takes place

[eFestivals]

I'm not calling den racist,

Nor am I. But I am pointing out the political bedfellows of that view.

I don't think he's talking specifically about newcomers, just people who don't obey the law generally. And how far they forfeit their societal rights.

They forfeit their societal rights.

They don't forfeit their human rights - and one such right is the right to vote towards the govt of the society that a person lives within.

That doesn't mean votes for all prisoners, but it should mean that anyone who will be free within society (rather than in jail) during the term (or presumed term - 5 years in the case of the UK) of the govt that is being elected should be able to help elect that govt.

[feral chile]

Nor am I. But I am pointing out the political bedfellows of that view.

They forfeit their societal rights.

They don't forfeit their human rights - and one such right is the right to vote towards the govt of the society that a person lives within.

That doesn't mean votes for all prisoners, but it should mean that anyone who will be free within society (rather than in jail) during the term (or presumed term - 5 years in the case of the UK) of the govt that is being elected should be able to help elect that govt.

[feral chile]

not just that, but (how I imagine other's idea of justice) redressing some kind of imbalance... which I see as almost undoable

indeed

whenever I hear that justice has or hasn't been 'done', I'm confused as to how

and I think the idea that it's achievable all the time is another of our hopeless aims...

[eFestivals]

I think the victims and family never feel that justice has been done, because as you rightly say, what's been done can't be undone.

sorry, but it's only the stupid victims and families that feel like that.

A real sense of justice surely has to include a proper sense of reality - because asking for or wanting the impossible is irrational, and wanting the impossible is always outside of the reasonable and rational.

To me, the idea of justice is a rational one, based on trying to right a wrong in some manner. Once a person is wanting what is not rational it ceases to be justice.

[feral chile]

sorry, but it's only the stupid victims and families that feel like that.

A real sense of justice surely has to include a proper sense of reality - because asking for or wanting the impossible is irrational, and wanting the impossible is always outside of the reasonable and rational.

To me, the idea of justice is a rational one, based on trying to right a wrong in some manner. Once a person is wanting what is not rational it ceases to be justice.

[eFestivals]

like some kind of rehabilitation??

there must be a better word

and for many people - stupid or not - that wouldn't be thought of as justice

If justice is about "righting a wrong" then that means that impossible ideas of what might be justice cannot be justice (such as an often held idea that bringing back a murder victim from the dead would be the only possible justice in a particular case). "Righting a wrong" is a reference to the possible, not the impossible.

If someone is asking for an impossibility as 'justice' then by that definition that cannot be justice. You cannot right a wrong by suggesting something that is impossible to do.

[eFestivals]

But how do you go about righting a wrong?

in a manner that is able to achieve "righting a wrong" to a person's satisfaction.

Asking for the impossible - such as bringing a murder victim back from the dead - can't be about "righting a wrong" as it's not something which is possible to do.

If bringing that person back from the dead is the only idea of justice that will satisfy a person, then it's not possible for there to be justice.

Do you pay compensation to the victim/family? Do you punish the perpetrator? Do you operate an eye for an eye justice system?

it can be any of these ideas, or none of them. What can right a wrong is completely subjective, it differs for every person.

So realistic justice depends on the next best thing, whatever we as a society deem that to be.

that's actually a societial idea of justice; an individual's idea of justice is just as valid an idea of justice (providing it's working within the possible and not the impossible).

There are a few competing theories of justice.

My own theory is that the whole idea of justice is an empty one without the specifics of how it's achieved.

There's nothing of substance to the idea of justice without those specifics - it's as meaningless in any shared sense as the words "right", "wrong", "fair", "unfair", "ethics", etc, etc, etc - all of these things need specific examples for the meaning to be shared with others because one person's idea of what is 'right' (or any of those other words) might be the complete reverse of another person's.

So without also giving specifics of what is 'right' and 'wrong' and how it might be righted no actual concept of justice can be passed to another person - all they get is an empty meaningless noise.

[diddly-dee]

Okay, how about we disregard the concept of 'justice' (as an aspiration of 'outcome' or result of a process - as worm's correctly said, it's an intellectual ideal and entirely different from the 'justice system' which is a set of institutions and legal impositions). As we've established here, one person's justice is another person's injustice so all we're doing is playing with semantics. So, in order for us to be able to disregard all the philosophical disourses that, as this thread shows, don't end up with any resolution or conclusions of 'right' and 'wrong', why not have a system of 'consequences' (we can retain the manifestations of the present 'justice system' - i.e. courts, laws, prisons, sanctions etc. and call it the 'consequence system'). You kill someone; the 'consequence' is imprisonment for x years. You're in the UK illegally and knock someone down in an uninsured car and kill them; the 'consequence' is a prison sentence and deportation afterwards. You rob a bank; the 'consequence' is y years imprisonment (all of these 'consequences' with the scope for amendment of x or y by an adjudicating individual (i.e. judge) on the basis of the circumstances of the 'crime'). A bank robs you; the 'consequence' is a big fat bonus for the banker etc. etc. Now isn't that much more clear cut and less problematic? You don't have to worry about 'justice' as, as most of us agree, many things done once manifest cannot be undone.

We could debate whether certain 'consequences' were too harsh or too lenient but we'd be honest about what we were trying to do with a 'consequence' system in place.

[eFestivals]

Okay, how about we disregard the concept of 'justice' (as an aspiration of 'outcome' or result of a process - as worm's correctly said, it's an intellectual ideal and entirely different from the 'justice system' which is a set of institutions and legal impositions). As we've established here, one person's justice is another person's injustice so all we're doing is playing with semantics. So, in order for us to be able to disregard all the philosophical disourses that, as this thread shows, don't end up with any resolution or conclusions of 'right' and 'wrong', why not have a system of 'consequences' (we can retain the manifestations of the present 'justice system' - i.e. courts, laws, prisons, sanctions etc. and call it the 'consequence system'). You kill someone; the 'consequence' is imprisonment for x years. You're in the UK illegally and knock someone down in an uninsured car and kill them; the 'consequence' is a prison sentence and deportation afterwards. You rob a bank; the 'consequence' is y years imprisonment (all of these 'consequences' with the scope for amendment of x or y by an adjudicating individual (i.e. judge) on the basis of the circumstances of the 'crime'). A bank robs you; the 'consequence' is a big fat bonus for the banker etc. etc. Now isn't that much more clear cut and less problematic? You don't have to worry about 'justice' as, as most of us agree, many things done once manifest cannot be undone.

We could debate whether certain 'consequences' were too harsh or too lenient but we'd be honest about what we were trying to do with a 'consequence' system in place.

and the differences in practice between a "system of consequences" and a "system of justice" is what exactly? Nothing at all.

In both instances, the meaning behind the system comes from what the system does (rather than the idea the system comes from - which makes the idea a meaningless one in all but semantics), and people still have all the same issues when that system doesn't deliver their own personal view of it.

[worm]

Was it just that homosexuality was illegal and used to be punished by imprisonment?

Obviously, it's unjust now, but was it unjust then? Because if it was, then justice and the justice system are not one and the same.

If they are, then justice is totally relative.

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[worm]

and the differences in practice between a "system of consequences" and a "system of justice" is what exactly?

[eFestivals]

Justice means righting wrong though, no matter what period you're looking at. Neil couldn't possibly say that it was subjective without it having this meaning. It's entirely due to the fact that it means righting wrong that it can be said to be subjective, because what is right and what is wrong is a subjective question.

and so "righting wrong" becomes completely meaningless without specifics of what is right and wrong. It's an empty concept without those specifics, just as the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are themselves.

[eFestivals]

He's just told you - It stops arguments about whether it's just or not. It's simply a matter of consequence, not righteousness.

It's known as legal postivism and it's pretty much the basis of our current legal system.

except of course, what are the consequences comes from what is considered to be 'righteousness' - after all, no one is suggesting those consequences would be random, are they?

And so in the real world it changes nothing, not a jot of anything. It still falls back onto subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and a subjective seriousness of what is right and wrong, and how others' ideas of those things match with those consequences.

It's a talkers charter than gets us no where at all. Here's betting that philosophy will spend the next X number of years talking about it and thinking it's a great idea (but which takes us no where better). PMSL.

[feral chile]

except of course, what are the consequences comes from what is considered to be 'righteousness' - after all, no one is suggesting those consequences would be random, are they?

And so in the real world it changes nothing, not a jot of anything. It still falls back onto subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and a subjective seriousness of what is right and wrong, and how others' ideas of those things match with those consequences.

It's a talkers charter than gets us no where at all. Here's betting that philosophy will spend the next X number of years talking about it and thinking it's a great idea (but which takes us no where better). PMSL.

[worm]

and so "righting wrong" becomes completely meaningless without specifics of what is right and wrong. It's an empty concept without those specifics, just as the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are themselves.

[worm]

except of course, what are the consequences comes from what is considered to be 'righteousness' - after all, no one is suggesting those consequences would be random, are they?

And so in the real world it changes nothing, not a jot of anything. It still falls back onto subjective ideas of what is right and wrong and a subjective seriousness of what is right and wrong, and how others' ideas of those things match with those consequences.

Edited February 21, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

But where does that leave us in terms of human rights? Are they part of a subjective or universal view of justice?

There is no universal view of justice. The best it can ever get to is an idea of justice that the majority will accept.

But to arrive at the fairest ideal of justice, the best way to arrive at that answer is NOT to consider what you think would be right for others, but to instead view what would be right for yourself - because a large part of the problem with people's individual ideas of justice is that they tend to place themselves in a place that they won't afford others.

There is no justice in double standards, that much is certainly true.