Nuremberg and the Rule of Law

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Hello Imp:

— yes, they would have.
O- They would have gased them…no trial needed, right?

— hold accountable? for what “objective and universal” crime?
O- Did I say “objective and universal”?

— mass murder is a crime?
O- No! Lord forbid!! Who could have the gall to resent a good killing of an innocent?

— is there a statute of limitations?
O- Death. Can’t prosecute the dead. Columbus is off the hook!

— what court is going to say who was murdered? oh the court with the army to back it up…
O- No. That is the court which will be able to prosecute but that does not mean that anyone waits until a court calls it a murder for they to think that it is. Iranians are already calling Bush a criminal and Nader too, though they still lack a court to indict him.

— american indians murdered? by the millions? they have no court…
O- No court, no crime, hey? Can’t call Jackson a murderer. It is not a crime killing killing negroes and jews or natives until a court says that it is. Playing aside, have you noticed that mass murderers like these did not consider any of them human? For them killing a jew, a negro, a native, was like killing cattle or wiping off parasites.

— their murders were justified? it was manifest destiny
O- Let me get this straight: You are saying that in your opinion the Trail of Tears was JUSTIFIED because it was Jackson’s Manifest Destinity? That if he decided to kill every man woman and child was open game because of what the europeans thought was their destinity?..sounds very much like the hebrews who conquered Cannan. Palestinians?..just unfortunate obstacle’s in the Divine Plan…

— simple greed and the nazi’s needed a scapegoat…
O- And there you have it folks: The holocaust in a nutshell.

— the party who had the power believed they had the moral authority to act as they did.
O- This explains why they permitted themselves to carry out the final solution but not why the final solution had to be genocide. I don’t even need a particular moral high ground to kill someone. We do not easily restrain our aggression. But my question is that somebody kills his wife BECAUSE she was cheating; just an example. The point is that they had a supposed reason, a motive, to do what they did. Greed may explain the laws enacted to despoil them of jobs and property, but not their lives. It cost money to kill people. As for a “scapegoat”…you might be on to something…jew: human being , or “goat”?

22

it only cost a bullet to kill them… sometimes less.

-Imp

23

Hello Imp:

— if that is what their justice system mandated, sure…
O- “System”? I would not call that a system…

— it was implied, “But like I said above justice does not depend on the righteousness of the judge.”
O- That has nothing to do with the universality or objectivity of a law. Judges are fallible, Imp, just like all of us, but that does not change the fact that we still can have trials. In fact, trials are the direct result of our fallibility. To put it differently:“Justice does not issue from our righteousness but from our unrighteousness”. Seems paradoxical but it is a parable.

— exactly… there are no innocents…
O- “Innocent”? Innocent what? There are innocents but you have define what is.

— and the slave traders as well?
O- Alive? How old are they?

— empty accusations without the force to make them official…
O- Accusation remain forever empty, unless you are Judged by the Almight who sees into your very soul. We mortals can’t so our accusations are just that: Accusations. Doesn’t matter if I have the force to imprision you, that does not mean that you are actually guilty only that we have no evidence to prove otherwise. All of this has nothing to do with our revulsion at undeserved death or capricious killings.

— it was justified in the eyes of those doing it…
O- I agree. But I asked about your opinion not theirs.

— it was never justified in the eyes of the oppressed…
O- Of course not. But I asked your opinion not theirs.

— and it was justified by the force behind the ones who did it… might makes right.
O- So the Trail of Tears was a lawful act that should be praised as one of the highest and most glorious moments in American history. Tell me Imp, do you have native american ancestry? I thought for some reason that you did, but now I am not too sure…

— it only cost a bullet to kill them… sometimes less.
O- Multiply that value by millions and you have a budget problem.

24

not near as much as housing and feeding cost…

-Imp

25

Hello Imp:

—some systems are simpler
O- Right. But the simpler it is the less I would call it Law. Kill someone without trial, when he could have been afforded a trial? That is an execution, not a simpler system of Law.

— sure it does… the universality and objectivity of the law is wrapped up in the meaning of justice… especially since it doesn’t depend on the judge…
O- The person found guilty is not EVIL…unless you ask Mr President…and yes it depends on the judge. Is aborting legal or illegal? Who gets to decide? Judges…

— deserve and capriciousness have everything to do with it… just ask the killers.
O- If they deserve then it cannot be capricious…

— I do. Abenaki. might makes right.
O- What do other indians say to you when you bring them this little ditty? Do you ever hear them complain about their situation and you tell them: “Don’t complain. What happened to our people was right.”

26

that’s not my argument at all…

what happened to our people was right in the eyes of those who did it.

-Imp

27

Hello Imp:

—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. simple law…
O- Simple inference perhaps…but if there is an action then the reaction is not caprise.

— I said nothing about good or evil…
O- You do know that evil is universal and objective…

— who desides the deserving nature? it can still appear capricious to an outside party…
O- But the purpose of lawyers is to make a subjective seem like objective…the lawyer must make a case for an action/reaction scheme… as you said: Law.

— that’s not my argument at all…
O- Was the death of native americans wrong or right? You said that might makes right. This is, you insist, your opinion, and therefore, I conclude, that you would deny that any wrong was commited by the US Army pushing natives out of their ancestral lands because they had might on their side.

— what happened to our people was right in the eyes of those who did it.
O- I cannot ask dead people whether they thought it was right or wrong. I already have said that I agree. From the perspective of the killers they were right and from the perspective of the killed they were not, but I am asking about you. Can you be both? Are you without a perspective of your own? Granted the parties involved differ diametrically, but a third party is called to settle matters such as these. I am only asking that you be the judge. But since you say over and over that “Might makes Right”, like a mantra, I am bound to believe that your perspective is the same as the one of the killers and not the perspective of the ones being killed. Am I wrong? So, is what happened to YOUR PEOPLE RIGHT, IN YOUR EYES, because THEY HAD THE MIGHT TO DO AS THEY DID? Not in the eyes of Adrew Jackson…in your eyes…

28

that’s exactly how it is. they are right in the eyes of history because they have the might to be right…

and when something mightier comes along and pronounces them wrong, they will be wrong…

and as time marches on they will be forgotten and then they will be nothing…

history never repeats…

-Imp

29

Hello Imp:

— a change of mind could easily be the reaction…
O- There is no change. My change of mind was actually the only mind state possible from the state of affairs previous to it. Is not that I change minds at will but that I am ignorant of just which mind entails from causes I don’t know. Or do you believe in Freewill?

— LOL… only when it breathes through a filtered black mask…
O- Or he is the Leaders of nations we don’t like or who don’t like us or Israelis…of course there are reports that Ahmadinejad was going through e-bay looking to buy a light saber.

— a case made after the fact…
O- So?

— that depends on who you ask.
O- I asked you all along…everyone else that matters are dead.

— I did. it does.
O- Might makes right. So what happened to the native american tribes was, in your own opinion, “right”. You keep dancing around the absurd conclusion but it is the necessary conclusion from the sophisticated premises.

— that is not what I would claim at all… the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on who you ask… the us army had the might on their side so they made the right…
O- You keep going back to points already settled…it depends on who you ask- yes…it depends on who had might, who won- yes…but who I was asking is you and you say that might makes right, which is the policy of the winners and so you would deny that what was done with the american indian was wrong, because since the europeans had the might they were also right…unless you’re going to create a division as Plato did.

— both right and wrong? it is a question of perspective…
O- Of course it is…until it is you who is touched. Was the decimation of the american indian population right or wrong from your perspective? You say that might makes right…the europeans had the might so what they did was right…am I missing anything here in your theory of justice?

— it might appear to be the case…
O- Your perspective so far is that might makes right and therefore the annihilation of indians, jews, negroes, whatever may have you, is right…power is already implied in the ability to annihilate.

— a third party can only settle the matter if it has the might to do so…
O- Not at all. All the third party needs is the bestowed confidence from the parties…hence the UN…in theory…

— yes, you are wrong.
O- So genocide is wrong, even if you have the might to do it?

— in my eyes? no.
O- But Imp the perpetrators had the might so what they did had to be right, right?

— but as seen as right in the eyes of those who did it? yes.
O- I already granted that from their perspective they had justified motives. I am asking from your perspective and you say might makes right and therefore whatever they did was right since they were the ones with the might and all that comes from might is right…from your perspective.

— that’s exactly how it is. they are right in the eyes of history because they have the might to be right…
O- “In the eyes of history”? ??? Well, “History” is not posting about this subject on this forum and apparently is schizophrenic, from what I have heard, so we are back to you Imp: Were they (the soldiers of Manifest Destiny) RIGHT, IN YOUR EYES, because they HAD THE MIGHT TO BE RIGHT?

— and when something mightier comes along and pronounces them wrong, they will be wrong…
O- Are you mightier than Andrew Jackson? Not that I agree with your point. Suppose that I live under a totalitarian regime. Maybe I am just a regular citizen, own no guns, know no martial arts…in short I have no power in me to prevent the State to kick my ass or kill me. Does that mean that I have to agree with them? No. From my perspective they have no reason, no right etc even if they have all the power and might to do as they please what they do and pleases them is not right in my mind. You are different. You posit perspectives for no reason, since you quite clearly need no perspectivism for what is clear cut objective: might makes right…not in the eyes of X or of Y, but in spite of all these, the only perspective that matters and which is right perspective is the perspective of those who have the might and create what is right and wrong.

30

there is no “right” perspective. the perspective with the might makes the right or popularly accepted perspective.

-Imp

31

Hello Imp:

— I have always preferred to believe in freewill even though I don’t even believe in a self from one moment to the next…
O- Having freewill seems inconsequential then.

— it wasn’t made by the actor…
O- Of course not. So?

— in my own opinion it was right in the eyes of those who did the deed.
O- In your opinion Might makes Right therefore what matters here is not how it was seen by a particular group but whether that group had the might, and in the case of the european invaders, since they had the might, they and what they did, by your theory, in your opinion, was right regardless of any complains possible for the victims. If you had been a victim and I think that as a decendant you are partially elegible to claim victimization, then you still could not but bless what they did to your people as RIGHT-- NOT because they THOUGHT IT WAS RIGHT, BUT BECAUSE YOU SAY THAT MIGHT IS RIGHT.

— my perspective is limited to me…
O- Yes it is. So?

— O- So genocide is wrong, even if you have the might to do it?
— that’s not what I said at all
O- So the opposite is true? Genocide is right just as long as you have the might to do it?

— in their eyes, yes
O- No. IN FACT. Perspective has nothing to do with it. Might makes right. Not just in the eyes of the killer. If your maxim is true then also in the eyes of the victim and every other possible perspective. You’re not Plato remember?

— yes.
O- So what was done to the american indian was right, in your opinion. Thank you for clearing that up.

— they were right in their own eyes and they wrote the history.
O- It was not that they were right solely in their own eyes. They had might and therefore they were right… according to your sophisticated theory.

— and in your mind it isn’t. but the perspective of your mind isn’t objective or universal.
O- But, in your opinion, MIGHT IS, right? It has nothing to do with what I think…or what is on my mind…it isn’t universal or objective…but MIGHT is universal and objective isn’t it?

— the perspective of your mind doesn’t color the meaning of the popular use of the language…
O- That is worthy of a post Imp. Try saddling the fence.

— there is no “right” perspective.
O- Even if they who have this perspective also have the might? Be consistent…

— the perspective with the might makes the right or popularly accepted perspective.
O- Oh, I am sure it does but who ever said that the “populary accepted perspective” is right? I asked if you, not the people, and you say that might, whatever it makes, in this case popular agreement (I guess), is right. In a sense you are a friend of the people Imp.

32

me? of the people? nope…

-Imp

33

If there were a rule of law, it is America’s leaders who would be tried for many of the same crimes that hanged the nazis.

34

Hello Imp:

— it wasn’t true motivation
O- Only the actor could even guess at a motivation. When you say it wasn’t “true”, how do you arrive at what is “true” and what is not “true motivation”?

— they thought it was right.
O- Do you think it was righyt?

— their might made that right.
O- Their might made what they did possible. “Right” is an independent judgment, in my opinion. But if might makes right then it is not a matter of judgment but of power. If my opinion is true then they thought and we should differentiate between what they thought and what they did. But you are not going that route. You should not speak of what they “thought”, one because you are no mind reader and secondly because it makes no difference if might is right. Even if they thought it was wrong and cruel, in your theory, since might makes right, thought “wrong”, possibly, in their opinion, it was “right” in yours, simply because might was on their side…doesn’t matter what they thought or what you or I think or what the american indians thought then or think now.

— you are trying to make a universal out of a particular…
O- How so? Every time I have agreed with you with the partticularity of each opinion. I have universalized nothing. You on the other hand…

— my perspective is limited to me…
O- Yes it is. So?
— so you are trying to make a universal out of a particular
O- I am not. If I say that what you decide is right or wrong is universaly and without exception what actually is right and wrong then that accusation would stick. But I am not and never said that. The only universal that I see here so far is your unqualified declaration that MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. There is no dependance of perspective but all dependance on might which is not limited to me. If the gun is in my hand it is pretty universal that I am right…according to you.

— in the eyes of those committing genocide, yes. history never repeats…
O- Suppose there was a person who was tortured. The torturer says that what he did was right. The torturee that what was done to him was wrong. Who do you agree with? If consistent with your theory then you automatically and without reserve should agree with the torturer. What he did he thinks and you think was right. That makes what seems particular pretty universal…

— no, perspective has everything to do with it… there is no form of right
O- No. Apparently there is a form: might. Might, universally right. If perspective is allowed the what is done by the might is not right but is right only in their opinion. They have the might to carry their opinion to fruition but not to make what they do right and the perspective of the victim has as much weight as the perspective of the mighty irrespective of their status as mighty. Therefore what they do is not right nor wrong. Their might does not make anything right or wrong either. Their judgment, “they” being both victim or killer, is where right or wrong reside, not in power, not in might, nor in weakness but in judgment. It is then as true to say that might makes right as to say that weakness makes right… if “perspective has everything to do with it”…

35

no, weakness allows right (or whatever else) be made in its stead…

-Imp

36

Repetez vous en Englais.

37

Hello Imp:

— if the actor didn’t choose to be motivated it wasn’t truly his…
O- How do you or the “actor” know which is the case, or tell the difference? Since it is subjective, everything or nothing seems to be chosen.

— irrelevant
O- On the contrary.

— objectively sensed and measurable?
O- If right is not an opinion but tied to might then yes, “Right”, according to YOUR theory, should be predictable and measurable as strenght and might are predictable and measurable.

— that differential is impossible unless you can read minds
O- You believe in “minds” Imp?

— you said it… opinions of right don’t matter. the power to make right is all. might makes right.
O- YOU said it. Opinions…perspectives…what they thought…what american indians thought…the mighty were right in what they did. You’ve blessed the Trail of Tears as the right thing…

— one man’s right is not another…
O- Not if might makes right and not opinion

— you expect a form of right where none exists…
O- None exist? So might makes nothing?

— both
O- Is that what you tell your tribe? Besides “both” could only apply if “right” is not might, which is objective, but judgment, which is subjective.

— they do whatever they have the power to do. period. if they believe it right or wrong, it is
O- Might makes right, YOU say. Thus whether they believe it right or wrong, what they do, as mighty, is right.

— for them, it most certainly does.
O- Then perspectives make right…opinion, not might…

Their judgment, “they” being both victim or killer, is where right or wrong reside, not in power, not in might, nor in weakness but in judgment.
— and the power to make the judgment precedes the judgment… “the world is the will to power and nothing besides…”
O- The will to power is not the priviledge of the strong or the mighty and it is as easily found in the tortured, the victim, the slave…even weakness makes right…

38

Non se capisce lo che hai deto, quizas me lo puede decir en otro idioma?

39

even the weakest has the power to internalize his view of right? perhaps… but even then, his might (as weak as it is) makes right…

-Imp

40

Well I got about half of that and don’t know whether to grab my french, spanish or latin dictionary. Congratulations.