Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 23, 2014, 07:08:53 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Can a person forfeit his or her right to life?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Can a person forfeit his or her right to life?  (Read 1668 times)
Yelnoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6559
United States
View Profile WWW
« on: April 07, 2012, 05:18:25 pm »
Ignore

If a person commits acts heinous enough (or enough of them), do they forfeit their right to life?  I say yes, and that rationale underlies my support for capital punishment.  What say you?
Logged

Goodbye
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21401
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2012, 05:28:36 pm »
Ignore

Either you have an undeniable right to life or you don't. While the morality of capital punishment (compared to other legal penalties like prison) isn't an entirely clear issue in my mind, I would be very reluctant to refer to someone as "forfeiting" his right to life.

And, of course, whether or not you think a murderer deserves it, capital punishment is a terribly broken system in the United States and needs to be abolished. There's no legitimate argument that can be made in favor of the status quo.
Logged
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15635


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2012, 05:28:59 pm »

Well, apparently in Florida you can forfeit your right to life if you "lunge" at someone, and that person happens to be carrying a handgun and claims that he thought you were going to kill him. All I ask is that in this situation you at least receive some sort of formal post-mortem procedure before the state implicitly takes away your entitlement to justice, but apparently it's too much for the ALEC/NRA/GOP types.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18785
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2012, 06:55:51 pm »
Ignore

In principle I think so, however our justice system is flawed and innocent people end up getting executed too much so I don't view the death penalty as viable. Just lock the really heinous up for life to protect society.
Logged

Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2012, 07:41:44 pm »
Ignore

I reject the notion of natural rights but my stance is no person ought to be killed unless they are presenting an imminent and serious, if not deadly threat of inflicting bodily harm on another, and no non-lethal steps can reasonably be taken to avert said threat. I'm strongly opposed to capital punishment. Prisoners in custody are unarmed civilians states arenít obliged to abuse or execute.

If some individuals are too dangerous to be set loose in society at large then isolate and secure them - reducing their personal autonomy to the extent necessary to prevent them from inflicting further harm onto others. I think there are good reasons to limit individual freedom, yet few (and even then only under specific sets of circumstances) for taking the life of a person without their consent. To answer the OP's question though... a person technically can forfeit their right to live.
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21655
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2012, 08:01:59 pm »
Ignore

The only way a person can forfeit their right to life is by committing suicide.
Logged

farewell
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58527
India


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2012, 01:00:17 pm »
Ignore

Isn't it traditional, in claiming someone has forfeited a right, to also claim it was never a right in the first place but a 'privilege'?
Logged

I may conceivably reconsider.

Knowing me it's more likely than not.
shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10274
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2012, 06:01:46 pm »
Ignore

No, it is inalienable.   The only justification for killing has to do with whose right to life takes priority in case of conflict.
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21401
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2012, 06:23:36 pm »
Ignore

Isn't it traditional, in claiming someone has forfeited a right, to also claim it was never a right in the first place but a 'privilege'?

Yes, that's my problem with the way this is worded. Either a right exists or it doesn't exist - much like voting. (Which doesn't seem to be a right either in the U.S.)
Logged
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11296


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2012, 08:54:10 pm »
Ignore

The only way a person can forfeit their right to life is by committing suicide.

This. (Distinguished from being martyred, of course.)
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Carlos Danger
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8410
Liechtenstein


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2012, 08:58:38 pm »
Ignore

Not permanently, but one temporarily chooses to forfeit one's rights if one deliberately infringes on the rights of others, and the right to life is no different.
Logged

IDS Attorney General PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22342
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2012, 10:31:15 pm »
Ignore

The only way a person can forfeit their right to life is by committing suicide.

     That was my thought when reading the topic title. Given that each person owns his or her own self, that person also reserves the prerogative to dispose of his or her own self.
Logged

Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30956
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2012, 11:07:54 pm »
Ignore

No one has an inherent "right to life." The state grants it and can take it away, like with all "rights."
Logged

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8112


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2012, 05:36:54 pm »
Ignore

I see two issues convoluted in the posts here. One is the basic philosophical question about the right to life. The second is whether the limitations of human justice prevent a nation from considering forfeiture of the right to life as a punishment.

If I start with the unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence I see a natural hierarchy that is reflected in criminal justice. For the least of crimes that are penalized, a person is fined, so that they lose their right to pursuit of happiness as reflected in that loss of wealth. For more severe crimes comes a loss of liberty as a person is penalized by incarceration. The natural extension is for the most severe crimes to be penalized by loss of life.

Note that all three rights are listed as unalienable, and no one is arguing that one cannot lose the right to liberty or pursuit of happiness as punishment for a crime. One could make a case that these punishments are also sometimes delivered without fairness in our system, yet that does not mean those rights cannot be forfeited. By the same token the right to life must be viewed as one that can be forfeited in appropriate circumstances. How to make the imposition of such a penalty fair remains important, but in my mind is different from the question at hand.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35356
United States
View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2012, 06:00:23 pm »
Ignore

be careful when arguing a 'no' along these lines or you'll unintentionally carve out a human rights criticism of wage labor.
Logged
Yelnoc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6559
United States
View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2012, 09:13:35 pm »
Ignore

No one has an inherent "right to life." The state grants it and can take it away, like with all "rights."
Ah ha.  I chose the title intentionally to see if anyone would challenge me on that assertion.  I agree that what we usually think of when discussing "rights" are merely privileges enforced by the state.  But let's discuss rights on a more philosophical or fundamental level.  If there is no concept of a right to life, can one not rationalize murder?  If a person has no right to live, why shouldn't they die?
Logged

Goodbye
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2415
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2012, 12:48:08 am »
Ignore

No one has an inherent "right to life." The state grants it and can take it away, like with all "rights."
Ah ha.  I chose the title intentionally to see if anyone would challenge me on that assertion.  I agree that what we usually think of when discussing "rights" are merely privileges enforced by the state.  But let's discuss rights on a more philosophical or fundamental level.  If there is no concept of a right to life, can one not rationalize murder?  If a person has no right to live, why shouldn't they die?

The way I see it, all killing can be rationalized. It is neither innately good nor bad for one to live or die. All rights are privileges... but we have many of them nonetheless since establishing and then enforcing a social contract of sorts among people is conducive to the advancement of most of their respective, rational pursuits of self-interest.

It is as if everyone plays a game and "rights" are the most basic guidelines everyone is expected to abide by ito enhance the overall quality of experience for those who participate. The goals underlying the rules and their exact stipulations vary from one culture to the next, but the point is people fabricate rights for themselves and use them as tools for improving the overall qualities of their lives. They are useful adaptations in the evolution of society. Deeming rights inalienable or absolute is merely an outmoded way to shore up the legitimacy of rules when, in fact, there is no such thing as good or evil outside the mind. We've to decide upon, claim, and defend those rights we wish to enjoy unless we are willing to let everyone do anything they want however they want.

Or at least those are my initial thoughts while considering the matter. What do you think, Yelnoc?
Logged

Liberal socialist
Political Matrix results: -3 (Economic), -8 (Social)
and then a skeleton popped out
Ghost_white
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3427


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: 7.39

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2012, 01:36:16 am »
Ignore

No one has an inherent "right to life." The state grants it and can take it away, like with all "rights."
Ah ha.  I chose the title intentionally to see if anyone would challenge me on that assertion.  I agree that what we usually think of when discussing "rights" are merely privileges enforced by the state.  But let's discuss rights on a more philosophical or fundamental level.  If there is no concept of a right to life, can one not rationalize murder?  If a person has no right to live, why shouldn't they die?

That's simple, just because someone doesn't believe in a right to life doesn't mean that they can't believe people have an ethical duty to preserve innocent life. Not that I necessarily believe there is no right to life, just saying.
Logged


That has got to be one of the most retarded proposals I have read on this forum.

Don't worry, I'm sure more will crop up shortly.
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines