Is due process a human right? (from a moral perspective)

[OrphanSlug]

No...a fact, like a the temperature at which water freezes, is objective. All agreeing on a right to free speech is subjectively deciding the value of that.

You guys are getting awkwardly close to blurring lines on what is objective or subjective. The only truth which is fact is one free from personal beliefs or opinions, everything else is a political or personal truth because they are subjective.

Water freezing at a particular temperature is a fact because it is measurable, repeatable, verifiable.

Agreeing on a right to speech is a political truth but it remains objective as we can argue there is no absolute unrestricted right, in practical and observed application there are limits to what one can say even if we politically or personally suggest there is no limit.

The opposite of fact is not opinion, the opposite of fact is untrue (or fiction.) Opinions, no matter how formed or on what set of basis, are personal and/or political.

 

[noonereal]

Compassion is a trait unique to our species.

No it is not.

Good God. This is a bit too basic to not know.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Because they're recognized and codified. You provided the proof.

Except, that human rights as defined by the UN (or anyone else for that matter) are not exactly uniformly enforced. Meaning, they are political truths not objective facts.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Then how else can the word objective be defined?

The principle is enshrined in Matthew 25:40 "For s much as you do unto the least of them, you do unto me."

 

[What if...?]

From a moral perspective, do you believe that all human beings deserve "due process"? That's all I'm asking. How it would be guaranteed or enforced doesn't matter for the purposes of this poll.

One could make the argument that if one side ignores due process, the acceptable way of doing things, then everything else becomes acceptable by default.

Going both ways.

The only societies that have avoided takeovers by dictators screamed “NO!” immediately and violently.

 

[aociswundumho]

Rights are a man-made concept to begin with. If they're not recognized by a society, they dont exist.

You mean not recognized by the state, correct?

 

[Lursa]

You guys are getting awkwardly close to blurring lines on what is objective or subjective. The only truth which is fact is one free from personal beliefs or opinions, everything else is a political or personal truth because they are subjective.

Water freezing at a particular temperature is a fact because it is measurable, repeatable, verifiable.

Agreeing on a right to speech is a political truth but it remains objective as we can argue there is no absolute unrestricted right, in practical and observed application there are limits to what one can say even if we politically or personally suggest there is no limit.

The opposite of fact is not opinion, the opposite of fact is untrue (or fiction.) Opinions, no matter how formed or on what set of basis, are personal and/or political.

We can recognize a right and then create a law protecting it...and that law is objective.

 

[Lursa]

Except, that human rights as defined by the UN (or anyone else for that matter) are not exactly uniformly enforced. Meaning, they are political truths not objective facts.

Correct. And altho those rights are recognized...there's nothing requiring any society to recognize or protect them. An authority recognizes them but other societies dont have to recognize that authority.

 

[Fletch]

Due process is basically adhering to universal principles of fairness. Of course it is a human right.

Due process is adhering to the principle of liberty. You are a free man whose life liberty or possession cannot be taken arbitrarily by the state. They must prove a case against you, allow you to defend yourself and be judged by your peers.

 

[Lursa]

You mean not recognized by the state, correct?

Any authority. And do they appear out of thin air?

 

[Ahlevah]

That question requires a more nuanced answer than a simple “yes” or “no.” From the perspective of the U.S. Constitution, “due process” is a legal construct used within civil society to ensure that natural rights are not denied “capriciously or arbitrarily.” Unlike life, liberty, or property, “due process” doesn’t exist in a state of nature. It’s a societal construct and legal process to ensure that other “human rights” are honored and protected. So I answered the question “no.”

 

[Lycanthrope]

Denying due process is certainly NOT a right of the state.

A POTUS admitting he did it and not correcting course is madness. And tyranny.

 

[What if...?]

"Human rights" in a universal sense don't exist. I'm not really sure what you're appealing to outside of the laws of a nation state to justify the seemingly universal claim of "human rights".

well, personally I feel a woman has a right not to be raped.

If I catch someone raping a woman I will definitely intercede. The state need not be involved.

So her “right” resides in my nature.

Compassion is a trait only our species has. It’s genetic. Universal. (In non MAGA people. They are a product bought and paid for)

 

[aociswundumho]

Any authority. And do they appear out of thin air?

So if the state says you have no rights, then you have no rights.

Is that your position?

 

[uptower]

We can use some of the language in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution as a basis for what due process is here.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

MAGA thinks they’re not “people”

 

[Lursa]

So if the state says you have no rights, then you have no rights.

Is that your position?

If the authority under which I live doesnt recognize any rights for me, then I have no rights. Doesnt mean I cant act as I choose but others, including an authority, may dispute that and act accordingly. Do I need a right to free speech to speak freely?

 

[OrphanSlug]

We can recognize a right and then create a law protecting it...and that law is objective.

Which gets us close, I would agree with that. But not absolute, the protection of "human rights" has never been a true standard applied to all equally.

 

[Lursa]

Which gets us close, I would agree with that. But not absolute, the protection of "human rights" has never been a true standard applied to all equally.

I dont think I've ever made that claim.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Correct. And altho those rights are recognized...there's nothing requiring any society to recognize or protect them. An authority recognizes them but other societies dont have to recognize that authority.

Pretty good way to describe the UN in practice, not principle but the actual results. Is it not?

We even have people sitting on various UN councils and groups who come from nations not that great at protecting human rights like... due process.

 

[Questerr]

Due process is basically adhering to universal principles of fairness. Of course it is a human right.

Unless of course the rich landowner whose land you are on decides you should have no due process. Then his “property rights” are more important.

 

[aociswundumho]

If the authority under which I live doesnt recognize any rights for me, then I have no rights.

The Nazis denied that Jews had any rights at all. So according to you, they had no rights. Therefore the Nazis did not violate the rights of the Jews they tortured and murdered.

Is that your position?

 

[ataraxia]

We can use some of the language in the 5th amendment of the US Constitution as a basis for what due process is here.

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

If you have different ideas about what due process is, then answer appropriately and explain what you think is different. If you aren't satisfied with the poll options, then please explain your rationale below.

I think this is relevant now because it has become clear that some people think that this isn't a human right, but a privilege extended to certain classes of people e.g. citizens of the country where they are present. While there are legal questions about how rights are preserved and maintained in an international context but for this poll I just want to see how people feel from a moral perspective - it's not about specific legal mechanisms for enforcement.

I said no, because I don't think there are ANY inherent human rights- any rights we have in society are rights we afford each other, because that's just the kind of society we want to live in. If we ever decide as a society we want to live in a society which does not protect any rights by force of law and we want to leave everyone free in the freedom of the jungle, well then I don't think that's going against nature. That's just making a statement about what kind of society we want to live. Nature and the universe could care less one way or the other what we decide.

"Anywhere you go... there you are."

 

[Lursa]

The Nazis denied that Jews had any rights at all. So according to you, they had no rights. Therefore the Nazis did not violate the rights of the Jews they tortured and murdered.

Is that your position?

According to the Nazis the Jews had no rights. And the Nazis were "the authority", werent they? The Nazis factually murdered and tortured Jews, whether they had any rights recognized or not...right?

 

[ataraxia]

The Nazis denied that Jews had any rights at all. So according to you, they had no rights. Therefore the Nazis did not violate the rights of the Jews they tortured and murdered.

Is that your position?

So who do you want protecting those rights? Government?

Or you gonna tell grandma to buy herself an AR and wish her the best of luck protecting herself in a free society?

Libertarian freedom: no government and good luck protecting your rights, grandma- 'cuz here everyone's on their own!

 

[aociswundumho]

According to the Nazis the Jews had no rights.

And according to you. You wrote:

If the authority under which I live doesnt recognize any rights for me, then I have no rights.

You're saying that if the Nazis didn't recognize their rights, then the Jews did not have any rights.

And the Nazis were "the authority", werent they?

Yes.

The Nazis factually murdered and tortured Jews, whether they had any rights recognized or not...right?

Yes, but if the Nazis didn't violate their rights, then they didn't do anything wrong by murdering them. It would be like you killing an insect. Insects have no rights.

Again, your position is that the Nazis did not violate the rights of the Jews they tortured and murdered, correct?