Moral justification for the execution of criminals of war?

[bennyboy]

I think that might be the item in question.  Whether well organized savagery still counts as savagery.  The primary utilitarian reason to treat all people better than livestock is so that no one has legitimate cause to act like livestock , and so they cannot mount such a defense caught in such an act... I'd imagine.

I mean..it may even be true that we're factually no better, but it probably doesn't help society to acknowledge as much - doesn't further any societal goal to which some response a b or c could be said to have some utility.  We've been known to execute the incompetent as well as the competent.  The guilty and the innocent.  Knowingly so, even - just a process.  Actual innocence and actual guilt are not necessarily bars or preconditions to conviction and punishment.

I argued once upon a time that black people, if they really thought that the police were serving as the speartip of the executive branch of a tyrannical government, then that would make them right to invoke the 2nd Amendment, in pursuit of a "well-organized militia."  I thought that would be a much more suitable approach than, say, shouting at white kids with dreadlocks, or looting TVs to make their point.

How long would it take the government to brand such a constitutionally-approved militia as a "terrorist organization?"  This, while Wall Street bankers cost maybe more than a million black families to lose their homes, and Republicans continue to attack social programs including health care, welfare, and so on?  Seems pretty unjust to me.

To me, this is the flip-side of the social contract argument.  I've said if a citizen will not fulfill his side of the contract, he shouldn't expect ANY of the benefits of that contract, including the rights to safety or the pursuit of happingess.  But ALSO-- if the government is not going to support the constitution, and specifically the equality of all citizens not only on paper but in reality, then who's left to decide what constitute "actual innocence and actual guilt?"

Short version:  that ship has sailed-- in fact, has always been sailing-- since the foundation of the States of America.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that there are many black revolutionaries who think that shouting at white kids with dreadlocks or looting tvs is a productive avenue. A solution in search of a problem.

How long might it take the us government to brand this or that militia, constitutionally approved or otherwise (none of them are..btw)...? A long damned time, we still haven't. Probably less if it were an exclusively black organization. If wall street organized it? We never would. They're called cops. You may misunderstand the idea of the social contract, I think, in a relatively common way. The social contract states what we civilized people will do -even when- we're dealing with a savage. That's the distinction that makes a difference.

So, sure, a criminal can (and should, and does) expect all of the benefits of the social contract afforded to his station or acts. That's usually not much, when it comes to criminals, but it's the basic unit. Think of it this way - just because a guy doesn't pay you, as per the contract, doesn't mean that you get to chop his arm off in retaliation. You already knew that, right?

[Jehanne]

Fact is, executions are a rarity in the United States. The State of Oklahoma, which has committed to one execution per month, will take the next several years to clear its backlog.

[The Grand Nudger]

Through the actions of advocates, yes, we've done alot when it comes to the most severe forms of punishment we dole out. It's always the same argument with the next thing, though. Okay..okay, so maybe strong action isn't ethical and doesn't work with offense set x - but surely, surely..it'll work with offense set y. One is left to wonder how violence and death would prevent a thing a war did not - and there may be some moral justification (or, more accurately, one which any given questioner might acknowledge) and that still doesn't stop the thing in question from happening That's the trouble with utilitarian justifications. They might work and be bad, or not work and be good, they may be bad and not work..but when they're good and do work, they're only both things coincidentally.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hmmm. . . quite colorful language.

You can execute people in an orderly way, without becoming "a group of savages shrieking for blood." How about a statistical analysis, whereby executions of persistent violent felons saves lives on average?

Cloaking savagery in utilitarianism does not make it less savage 

I have to say, though, that despite your emotional persuasive language, you really haven't explained why chronic violent felons, say people with more than a few victims, should be treated better than livestock. The last time I checked, a cow didn't murder a child, get paroled 20 years later, and then go out and do it again.

I refer back to the comment your responded to as you clearly didn't get it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I doubt that there are many black revolutionaries who think that shouting at white kids with dreadlocks or looting tvs is a productive avenue.  A solution in search of a problem.

How long might it take the us government to brand this or that militia, constitutionally approved or otherwise (none of them are..btw)...?  A long damned time, we still haven't.  Probably less if it were an exclusively black organization.  If wall street organized it?  We never would.  They're called cops.  You may misunderstand the idea of the social contract, I think, in a relatively common way.  The social contract states what we civilized people will do -even when- we're dealing with a savage.  That's the distinction that makes a difference.  

So, sure, a criminal can (and should, and does) expect all of the benefits of the social contract afforded to his station or acts.  That's usually not much, when it comes to criminals, but it's the basic unit.  Think of it this way - just because a guy doesn't pay you, as per the contract, doesn't mean that you get to chop his arm off in retaliation.  You already knew that, right?

[bennyboy]

So, sure, a criminal can (and should, and does) expect all of the benefits of the social contract afforded to his station or acts.  That's usually not much, when it comes to criminals, but it's the basic unit.  Think of it this way - just because a guy doesn't pay you, as per the contract, doesn't mean that you get to chop his arm off in retaliation.  You already knew that, right?

That's a strange analogy. Hypothetical guy has broken a financial contract, and I will not fulfill the services or promises that I made in exchange for money. But we are still both bound by the other laws of society, including not cutting off arms in retaliation for broken financial contracts.

It seems to me that the contract between citizen and state is at the top of the ethical food chain, and that respect for the lives of others, their families and their property is fundamental. There's no parent node left to fall back to if you've violated the rights of others to that degree, at least in my view.

[Angrboda]

I'm inclined to think the social contract is a myth. People respond to force and risk. Mythical tit-for-tats have little to do with it.

[Jehanne]

I'm inclined to think the social contract is a myth. People respond to force and risk. Mythical tit-for-tats have little to do with it.

It's only a myth until the police go on strike.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can see it at play in chronically underpoliced areas, too. Gated communities and the like.

I mean, idk to what extent we could call it mythical. Often ineffective. Poorly organized. Perhaps even unjust. To hear the story told some won’t feel satisfied u less they -can- chop off hands.

As far as parent nodes to fall back on, why would there need to be any? The people considering punishing some person for x haven’t breached the social contract. If they punish x in a way that does…then yeah, sure, it’s all a societal sewer for every involved party at that point. Killing killers ( war criminals or otherwise) is very often put forward as an example of just that situation.

I think it’s easy, when focusing on a hypothetical perpetrator, to feel more comfortable with things that would ultimately render us a perp just the same.