Agamben and Justice Introduction Agamben’s argument features a double-standard because the moral rights of the government and the citizenry. Specifically, the government is granted the right to decide which citizens are worthy of remaining alive and which are not. In extreme cases, the government has the right to declare a state of emergency where habeas corpus is suspended and citizens can be killed without due process of the law. Under normal circumstances, the government does not exercise carte blanche in determining whose lives are worthy of preservation, but it nonetheless has the right to kill citizens under circumstances when civilians cannot: the death penalty is the case in point. Agamben defines such a right as the state of exception and forewarns that when the state of exception is normalized, a camp will emerge where no citizen has an inalienable right to life. Agamben’s argument One of the foundational concepts of Agamben’s theoretical framework is the concept of bare life. For millennia, life was regarded as sacred and because of that, the rulers did not have the prerogative to take it away from their subjects. Nonetheless, exceptions existed and among the most notable of them is Rome. Therein, a phenomenon of Homo Sacer emerged which politicized death. By …show more content…
As examples regarding the death penalty and police brutality show, the state of exception is common in modern life. Agamben has foreseen a situation where this state of affairs is not only common, but ubiquitous. “The camp is the space that is opened when the state of exception begins to become the rule.” (Agamben, 1998, P.68). He refers to this phenomenon as the “camp” or a society where the government routinely exercises the prerogative to kill citizens in ways civilians cannot. Therein, the citizens accept the government’s exemption from the laws of morality and this state of affairs becomes
Who wouldn’t have agreed? Yes, torture is cruel but it is less cruel than the substitute in many positions. Killing Hitler wouldn’t have revived his millions of victims nor would it have ended war. But torture in this predicament is planned to bring no one back but to keep faultless people from being sent off. Of course mass murdering is far more barbaric than torture. The most influential argument against using torture as a penalty or to get an acknowledgment is that such practices ignore the rights of the particulars. Michael Levin’s “The Case for Torture” discusses both sides of being with and being against torture. This essay gets readers thinking a lot about the scenarios Levin mentioned that torture is justified. Though using pathos, he doesn’t achieve the argument as well as he should because of the absence of good judgment and reasoning. In addition to emotional appeal, the author tries to make you think twice about your take on
Randa, Laura E. “Society’s Final Solution: A History and Discussion of the Death Penalty.” (1997). Rpt.in History of the Death Penalty. Ed. Michael H. Reggio. University Press of America, Inc., 1997. 1-6 Print.
As previously stated, nations often base themselves and thusly their common laws off the chosen philosophy of the country. For instance, in the United States of America, police officers carry guns. In Great Britain, however, officers are banned from carrying extremely harmful weapons such as firearms and instead carry the classic truncheon. To the average citizen of each of these countries, the policy that their law enforcement adheres to makes perfect and logical sense, while the opposite country’s policy seems to be either dangerous and overly violent or as overly merciful. However, the reason as to why these two sibling nations differ so greatly comes down to one simple thing: the gun policy imposed on American officers are different from those used in Britain because of conflicting common philosophic beliefs found in both of the countries, where America takes on a naturalistic, believing that humans are inherently evil, viewpoint and Britain sports a rather rationalistic, where in which hum...
At no time, in this natural state, is injustice even possible. As Hobbes so concisely states, "Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice." (Hobbes 188) Essentially, since every man is entitled to everything, he is also at liberty to exert any means possible -- including violence -- in order to satisfy all of his wants and needs. In this State of War, each individu...
Several philosophers have provided individual theories on different forms of government as well as how societies prefer to live. Researching the observations different philosophers created is quite interesting. Recognizing that many of the views philosophers had has now shown to be true regarding contemporary issues. The contemporary issue this paper will examine will be the violent acts law enforcement displayed towards their citizens during the G20. This paper will also discuss how John Mills in On Liberty and Rousseau in Discourse would have viewed this issue as well as personal opinions to both Rousseau and Mills ideologies. Through this paper insight on these philosophers views as well as the violence during the G20 will be displayed.
In order for me to achieve this goal, I have organized this paper into three main sections. In the first section, I will explain how everyone has killed in their lifetime for their own personal needs. In the second section, I will give examples of when killing is needed and required for the safety of one and one’s loved ones. Lastly, I will discuss when killing serves justice to others. I will follow this by citing my work and my resources.
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
This paper will focus on Capital Punishment, which we will define as execution through means of lethal injection administered by an executioner to someone convicted of murder, and for the purpose of this paper murder will be established as killing an innocent person in cold blood. It will concern the dehumanization of the condemned and the inappropriateness of employing the same morality and ethicality to someone who in the eyes of the public have lost all humaneness. Dehumanization will be, for the sake of my argument, classified as depriving someone from his humanity, and by depriving them of humanness, which is essential to ethics; we fracture the foundation of morality and ethics because without humans there is no morality or ethicality. I will argue that Capital Punishment undermines ethical and moral foundations in particular Kant’s theories by dehumanizing the condemned, therefore, opposing ethical arguments supporting Capital Punishment by making morality and ethicality inapplicable to someone who has had his humanity denied to him. I will first outline the various reasons in how the condemned is stripped of their humanity by demonstrating how it violates the value of life and how using it as revenge and as a deterrent of other crimes goes against Kant’s “Practical Imperative” which states that no human being should be seen as a means to an end because this essentially strips him of the right to live for himself. I will also show how Kant’s ethical theory regarding Capital Punishment, in which he indicates that taking a human life should always be punished by taking the offenders life, has contradictions especially in respect to the head of state where the same rules do not apply to them (Avaliani). The authorities are ...
Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect
In the pursuit of safety, acceptance, and the public good, many atrocities have been committed in places such as Abu Ghraib and My Lai, where simple, generally harmless people became the wiling torturers and murderers of innocent people. Many claim to have just been following orders, which illustrates a disturbing trend in both the modern military and modern societies as a whole; when forced into an obedient mindset, many normal and everyday people can become tools of destruction and sorrow, uncaringly inflicting pain and death upon the innocent.
The representative population of a community is not comfortable when confronted by an individual who defies the laws that bind them. Whether or not the laws or the powers behind them are just, the populace must deal with any challenge to their authority. In some cases, the community, fearful of a powerful regime, will side with that power and avoid the risks associated with rebellion. Others find the tyranny too unjust to stand idly by and, risking their lives, join with other defiant individuals against it.
"I shall show you what happens to people who defy the laws of the land! In the tribunal everybody is equal, here there is no regard for rank or position. The great torture shall be applied to you!" (194)
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
When you think of an extreme crime you think of murder. When you think of an extreme punishment you think of the death penalty. Crimes of such severity sometimes deserve an equal punishment and we as a society accept this. However, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan argues that society seriously questions the appropriateness of the death penalty. It is true that over the years since the death penalty was first implemented it has undergone some changes but this does not suggest that we believe that the death penalty is unacceptable.
Within democracies there is great dilemma between security (keeping the country and citizens safe) and liberty (honoring individual rights and freedoms). Many would attest that having both is vital to having a democracy. However, during specific periods, the government may value security above liberty or vice versa. In the particular scenario where a country goes to war, the true significance of the debate between security and liberty unveils. More specifically in a situation where a country orders a draft and enacts laws ordering those who protest against the war to be thrown in jail. In this situation, the government is placing the value of security above the value of liberty. Security is necessary, especially in times of war, but ignoring liberties jeopardizes the principles in which democracy was built. In addition, a lack of liberty can cause a country to be divided and citizens to become disloyal. All of which is a recipe for disaster during wartimes. While at the same time, it is important to respect people’s liberties, giving to many liberties threatens the security of the country by allowing citizens to protest and rebel against the government. Thus, a society must decide the right amount of both. People in a society with restricted liberties might begin to feel fear, anger, and resentment. This leads to protest, revolts, and mutinies such as it did in the scenario. Therefore, while security is imperative, undermining citizen’s liberties threatens the structure of democracy by restricting freedom, creating chaos and generating disloyalty in citizens.