RE: Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?
August 10, 2022 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: August 10, 2022 at 9:58 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Laws are an explicitly deontological overlay to what the social contract is talking about (or is alleged to be talking about, if we prefer, lol). The thing it's trying to explain societal organization without.
So, for example, when I asked if you knew that you couldn't chop off arms for breach of contract - it isn't on the basis of any law that a person in society would be expected to know that - rather..that knowing that, informs what laws we may make explicit if it's up to us to do so. Even in a country where the laws did allow for as much, we might reject complicity in that process as it doesn't match our ideal concept of society. The social contract is what a society feels responsible for, what they don't, what they will and will not do, but not necessarily the laws written.
You and I may not agree with a society that doesn't believe in killing killers - but even if there were a legal pathway to do so, or no legal barriers to doing so (exactly where we find ourselves), we may still reject doing so (where a good many of us on the boards find ourselves). Or, conversely, even if there were legal barriers and it was fundamentally illegal to do so, we may still kill a killer and count on our society to shield us from the consequences of what we would likely perceive to be an unjust legal system. Occupied and exploited people often find themselves in this situation.
This is why there doesn't have to be any fallback in the case of a society that doesn't kill..even to kill killers. Any given killer may have stepped out on the this hypothetical social contract, but the society hasn't. It isn't rights based, or legal in any way - rather, the ideas that rights and laws flow from. Some people think that the closer explicit laws are to some underlying relative moral agreement, the more content and more peaceful a society would be. IDK about that. I can think of some pretty wild shit we've agreed to over the years. As it stands, though - like I mentioned in previous posts..I don;t see executing war criminals as a great bad - and insomuch as we have the legal pathway to do it, but a society turning away from capital punishment in any form - I think we have the best of both worlds. Where, if by necessity in the moral or societal sewer we just have to hit a guy over the head with a brick, we can do so....and the decision will be heavily scrutinized.
So, for example, when I asked if you knew that you couldn't chop off arms for breach of contract - it isn't on the basis of any law that a person in society would be expected to know that - rather..that knowing that, informs what laws we may make explicit if it's up to us to do so. Even in a country where the laws did allow for as much, we might reject complicity in that process as it doesn't match our ideal concept of society. The social contract is what a society feels responsible for, what they don't, what they will and will not do, but not necessarily the laws written.
You and I may not agree with a society that doesn't believe in killing killers - but even if there were a legal pathway to do so, or no legal barriers to doing so (exactly where we find ourselves), we may still reject doing so (where a good many of us on the boards find ourselves). Or, conversely, even if there were legal barriers and it was fundamentally illegal to do so, we may still kill a killer and count on our society to shield us from the consequences of what we would likely perceive to be an unjust legal system. Occupied and exploited people often find themselves in this situation.
This is why there doesn't have to be any fallback in the case of a society that doesn't kill..even to kill killers. Any given killer may have stepped out on the this hypothetical social contract, but the society hasn't. It isn't rights based, or legal in any way - rather, the ideas that rights and laws flow from. Some people think that the closer explicit laws are to some underlying relative moral agreement, the more content and more peaceful a society would be. IDK about that. I can think of some pretty wild shit we've agreed to over the years. As it stands, though - like I mentioned in previous posts..I don;t see executing war criminals as a great bad - and insomuch as we have the legal pathway to do it, but a society turning away from capital punishment in any form - I think we have the best of both worlds. Where, if by necessity in the moral or societal sewer we just have to hit a guy over the head with a brick, we can do so....and the decision will be heavily scrutinized.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
