If needed, how would you weigh between two or more conflicting human rights?
Example:
A person A has been raped, the police won’t investigate and the domestic courts won’t produce a verdict to punish the perpetrator/politician B. A has written on social media that she has been raped and asked for the publics aid. B reported this to police and claimed being accused of crime on false grounds. B claims that he has the right to a good reputation and A claims to have the right to freedom of expression and get recognition of violations against her.
How would you decide which right is the most important among these? Would you rule in favor of A or B?
What is an optimal process of weighing ethics and conflicting rights? Thanks
First, I would ask to see the evidence from A. If there is none, I would demand the post(s) be removed and recommend person A to assertiveness training, self-defense, and training on how to get evidence and avoid being accused of false accusations. Actually, that should be taught in public school, along with other training on nonviolent self-advocacy in the public sphere.
Now you see why former vp was wise to never be alone with a woman. A politician that doesn’t get that should not be in office. Also, a politician that thinks s/he has to answer every false accusation (especially on policy that hasn’t changed and can be accessed and correctly interpreted by anyone) should come back with thicker skin. I would counsel them to drop counter-charges. The public should already be educated to demand evidence & ignore false accusations.
Unless there is evidence.
Innocent until shown otherwise.
If there is evidence, politician B should step down without media frenzy & make it whole.
Confession should have been his/her platform—AFTER making things whole. Everyone has an origin story.
Thanks! There is evidence, camera recording, but the police and courts won’t recognize it and investigate it further since B is a member of the communist party that is in power. Police chiefs and judges are chosen by the communist party.
The government promises you, as an international judge, to trust their judgement.
Simple. Innocence until proven guilty. This isn’t an issue of competing rights.
You don’t get to go around publicly accusing people of crimes unless you have evidence backing it up and are willing to share that with law enforcement as part of an investigation and criminal prosecution.
Just going on Twitter and be like “that guy raped me!” with no evidence and no legal investigation ongoing is itself a crime of defamation or libel.
Now, if you personally happen to KNOW FOR SURE that the accused person is actually guilty, and nothing is being done about it legally, the question arises whether or not you have a right to take justice into your own hands. That’s an interesting question. How does the right of the victim to have justice and your right (if it exists) to take justice into your own hands in an unjust situation in order to remedy that unjust situation balance out against the rights of the perpetrator to be innocent until proven guilty under the law? To what extent is revenge justified morally or legally, and how does a competing moral right vs legal right get resolved?
Morally I think the issue of revenge is a gray area, very much depends on specifics and nuances of the situation including the severity of the offense and the severity of the possible retributive action against the perpetrator, as well as requiring a very high standard of certainty as to their guilt. But it is certainly possible to construct a moral argument either for or against revenge or retributive justice, either within legality or outside of it.
Logic. You need to take every single relevant aspect and type of aspect into account properly as it in fact applies to the situation, including from all sides; condition each one of these pieces of data based on a degree of certainty and a severity of harm or possible harm; then this should emerge a hierarchy of principles that can guide the facts to a logical conclusion. Of course it’s not always possible that one solution clearly appears. Sometimes there is no way to meaningfully and comparatively relate qualitatively different things except by appealing to something like subjective preference, emotion, or personal biases. Like for example “should I save two unknown strangers or save one of my family members, if I can only choose one or the other?” Most people will choose their one family members and let the two unknown strangers die. That may be immoral from a utilitarian perspective, but that doesn’t mean it’s actually the wrong choice given the circumstances.
Here is an actual case file which may be more pertinent then a hypothetical example.
A drug runner had fatally overdosed his wife out of bizarre motives( intentions) with oxycodone laced with fentanyl. There was no doubt about him delivering the fatal concoction.
His uncle, per request prepared it and his nephew
delivered it. The district attorney did not take the case, even though a preponderance of evidence showed that there was a demonstrable intent and there was ample correspondence between the uncle and the nephew to back up substantial collusion.
As it turned out, the District Attirney did not prosecute the case due to budgetary and political reasons.
The case was pursued by the victims and successfully picked up by the FBI and the DEA.
The guy is facing 20 to life just for trafficking and in federal court no intent needs to be introduced.
Here is a good example of justice derailed but finally resolved for the better.
Here is an actual case file which may be more pertinent then a hypothetical example.
A drug runner had fatally overdosed his wife out of bizarre motives( intentions) with oxycodone laced with fentanyl. There was no doubt about him delivering the fatal concoction.
His uncle, per request prepared it and his nephew
delivered it. The district attorney did not take the case, even though a preponderance of evidence showed that there was a demonstrable intent and there was ample correspondence between the uncle and the nephew to back up substantial collusion.
As it turned out, the District Attirney did not prosecute the case due to budgetary and political reasons.
The case was pursued by the victims and successfully picked up by the FBI and the DEA.
The guy is facing 20 to life just for trafficking and in federal court no intent needs to be introduced.
Here is a good example of justice derailed but finally resolved for the better.