Instigator / Pro
0
1476
rating
336
debates
40.77%
won
Topic
#3841
No justice for the dead.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
RationalMadman
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 22,220
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
For those of you not oblivious to news feed, not lazy or dishonest as if you can't see it for yourself, we have what we call murder trials and convictions.
The convicted individual is sentenced to the penalty of the law for their crime.
Often times people feel or say it's just for the murdered victim.
It is not.
There is to be no justice for the dead .
I can expound further in the debate rounds.
Questions on clarity for any detail stated here, leave a comment, send a message.
Round 1
Pro
#1
So what is no justice for the dead?
How do the dead get justice?
They're dead and gone. They have no way of receiving justice. I can receive it. I'm still here in mistreatment.
I have a chance to be treated properly which is what justice is. At least what I mean when I use the term.
I or a person receives a fair trial in the name of justice. In a court of law, the evidence is presented, testimonies are given for the sake of those not guilty or found innocent not to be dealt with improperly.
Those who have fought for the rights and laws to help serve better treatment, those individuals were looking for justice.
Something to be made right that would make a change, improve a situation.
You can't impact the life of a dead person. There is no life to impact, change, make better, treat better.
A person that is alive, that can be vilified, spit upon, experience authoritative brutality, profiled, discriminated, targeted in effort to weaken the livelihood of such is in position to receive better treatment or justice.
That person has not reached a rubicon where it is too late to change anything, improve anything upon their life.
A person already dead without life has no position for these improvements. The point of these improvements is to better livable circumstances.
Obviously the livelihood is extinguished, no life left to weaken. It was already weakened, gone into diminishment where anything more does nothing to enhance or extinguish.
Con
#2
Definition of justice1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishmentsc: the administration of law especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity2a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fairb(1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action(2): conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESSc: the quality of conforming to law
Definition of for1a—used as a function word to indicate purposea grant for studying medicineb—used as a function word to indicate an intended goalleft for homeacted for the bestc—used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity
==
The baked cake
I want you to imagine that you bake a cake intended for somebody named Bumbalu. When the cake is baked and you go about delivering it, you discover that Bumbalu is dead.
I now want you to answer two questions:
- Did you make the cake for Bumbalu?
- Is the cake still to be identified as having been made for Bumbalu despite his death?
As Con, I answer yes to both and see no reason why it wouldn't be the case.
==
Past vs Future
That scenario had a slight nuance to it; while making the cake, you believed Bumbalu was alive.
Now, I wish to explore an even more intriguing scenario.
You believe Bumbalu is dead. You bake a cake and eat most of it but save some just for him, be it a grave or special place or even breaking it and throwing it to the ground of a certain spot he liked.
Are you able to have justifiably made the cake for Bumbalu? What even is Bumbalu?
What you are this moment is dead by the time you finish reading this sentence. That body right there is only relevant for you, looking out of the inside of the eyes or hearing out the inside of the ears etc. Your functioning brain and live body are only experienced by you (please give me the courtesy of excluding siamese twins from this, I do understand the anomaly is real and relevant).
To everybody you have ever met, what you are is the idea of you, the memory of you. If someone buys you a nice thing to enjoy, they bought it for the outsider in their brain, not the body you're in this second.
Your brain is a part of your body, I am not denying that but that isn't who you are, not to anybody who knows you. It is your brain, you aren't the brain and belonging to the body.
We must realise that justice can be gotten for the dead because we have laws and can enforce them on behalf of the dead as we remember them and knew them.
Round 2
Pro
#3
I can barely understand anything you are stating as pertaining to the topic.
Your illustration about something that's for somebody, I don't believe I'm dealing with that at all.
Let's look at this illustration that has a commonplace with my previous statements.
I'm head spokesman for my place of work. I rally up my fellow coworkers to petition for wages appropriate for our work time. Our time is equivalent to others that work at the same place that receive higher wages based on time.
My position is to get proper treatment in terms of wages which would be receiving justice for myself and all those affected.
Now those that were affected are no longer with the company, the place where I work. Therefore there is no longer an effect of mistreatment. There is no getting justice at this workplace for them. It's no longer applicable.
Deal with this illustration that lines up with my position. Somebody that is oppressing someone, brutalizing them towards the point of death but only so much to make their lives full of suffering, they're yet to have applicable change or improvement.
That oppressed person that has actually been slaughtered cannot obtain that justice any longer.
They already gone prior to experience, embrace and or showcase the effect of justice on their lives. Their lives are no more.
I want you to focus on the effect on people's lives.
The difference in an improved living circumstance versus a downtrodden one.
People that are suffering that ask themselves "Why go on living life like this or why go on living?"
They believe they can change things. They believe work can be done politically, in some sort of movement, activism approach in order to accomplish justice.
That is justice for the living. So saying that this is the same justice for the dead , it doesn't fit.
Like a victim on a 911 call seeking someone to come to her aid from an attacker.
As an attack was prevented or stop to preserve life, the victim received justice. How did this affect life?
For one the person is still alive. That's more than what can be said about a person's attacker that was successful to destroy them.
Con
#4
Mall what you are doing is giving us examoles where the wrongdoing is dine to living recipients experiencing it and saying that once they die, they do not experience it.
That is obvious.
However, even the mistreated workers, even any example you can give, can have justice done for them by the living.
Justice is not aboyt alleviating suffering, it is about enforcing law, both legal and moral and can be retributive, deterrent, rehabilitative or compensatory/reparative.
The compensatory/reparative justice can of course not be done for the dead, only their living relatives and/or others affected by the similar or identical wrongdoing that was done to them.
If someone is murdered after being raped we cannot undo that but even if they were alive, we could not undo any crime committed against them.
Do you see?
All rape victims cannot be unraped, all murder victims cannot be unmurdered.
The dead are dead and that does nit impact that on their behalf, justice can be done.
The justice can go beyond punishing the wrongdoer, a dead victim can become a martyr to drive forward protests and justice for other victims in a similar situation being respected and proeteted far more than before.
I can do something for you even if you are dead because you were Mall to me, not the consciousness inside your body but the outward persona I interacted with here and experienced myself and will remember.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"Justice is not aboyt alleviating suffering,"
Hold it right there. So you mean to tell me, civil rights activists weren't seeking justice in getting the relief in the brutality, dogs and hoses on folks.
Anytime a person that wants mistreatment to stop to get the right treatment, they want to be done right by. They're looking for things to be just in accordance with their situation.
", it is about enforcing law"
About it but not only about it . Don't look at this one sided. Even if your position if arguing from oneside, that's what makes it have a lack of integrity for the truth .
Although it was legal by law to enslave folks, treat them as property, being permitted to beat them within an inch of life, those slaves wanted justice, a relief from suffering, brutality and rape.
This is true presumably that they all weren't house slaves I guess .
By what you are saying with this statement, it's justice served by enforcing the law to deny rights, entitlements that would disadvantage those trying to thrive in society.
A lot of laws have been dismantled because of a lack of justice. Get it right. The law or a law by itself is not justice.
In some cases, to produce justice, the law of the land has to be broken.
Amen.
"If someone is murdered after being raped we cannot undo that but even if they were alive, we could not undo any crime committed against them.
Do you see?"
I see what you're saying here about undoing a crime. That isn't my position.
My position is that when someone is already dead, there is no room to treat them better to affect their life while they live it.
What you just stated can fit into what I say about a person that can't be undead to receive justice .
"The dead are dead and that does nit impact that on their behalf, justice can be done."
Justice can be done. But for whom?
That's the question . I understand we can get justice for a live victim. A victim that's in a current crisis. Somebody that's already dead, it's too late for them.
People say they've gotten justice for a dead person making themselves feel better. The dead person, that dead body feels nothing.
"The justice can go beyond punishing the wrongdoer, a dead victim can become a martyr to drive forward protests and justice for other victims in a similar situation being respected and proeteted far more than before."
Right, justice for other victims. That's"other victims" and that makes sense because those others are the live ones yet to receive it.
A dead person can be a basis for something like Mr. Emmett Till.
"
I can do something for you even if you are dead because you were Mall to me, not the consciousness inside your body but the outward persona I interacted with here and experienced myself and will remember."
You can do something for my dead body but can you provide it justice as I described?
Con
#6
It seems my opponent has misunderstood the definition of what justice is and confused it for something else regarding either morality or alleviation of suffering.
In Round 1, Pro never defines 'justice' so I did:
Definition of justice1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishmentsc: the administration of law especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity2a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fairb(1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action(2): conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESSc: the quality of conforming to law
It is possible to mete out justice on behalf of dead individuals that were victim of crimes by punishing the wrongdoer.
It is also possible to to justice to the dead by helping living victims in a very similar situation to the martyr, which Pro misconstrued as me saying the living being helped is the justice. Instead, the justice is the focus on fairness and laws.
What Pro is arguing is that when you do justice on behalf of the dead, that if we assume the atheistic outlook that there is no afterlife as well as no soul within us is true, the dead cannot receive the justice with sentience. I agree to that, the dead individual will not consciously within themselves receive the justice if we assume there is no afterlife or soul.
What I disagree to is that they are only their experience and consciousness. A person is not simply their sentience, they are an object with variables. You can do justice on behalf of person X even if X is not there to consciously receive it. It is the same way that you can do justice for those in a coma or for children and infants that are so young they can barely consciously comprehend the justice you have done for them.
Pro tries to say that if we enforce the law and fairness of consequence on wrongdoers to the dead that no justice has been done on their behalf.
Let me reiterate what justice is:
1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishmentc: the administration of law especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
This can be done without the dead being there to consciously get their suffering alleviated. In fact, murder laws are not the only ones that literally could not function under a system of justice if we couldn't get justice done on behalf of the dead; all crimes that have permanent damage couldn't. Rape's mental and potentially physical trauma, if permanent, couldn't be done justice if we followed Pro's wrong definition of it.
Justice is not about undoing the suffering nor is alleviating the suffering the turning point of justice having been done. Justice is done when a due punishment and 'righting a wrong' is done whether there is enough compensation to somehow theoretically 'undo' the suffering or not, it's unrealistic and unfeasible to run a system of justice like this.
If I assault person Y, what could you offer person Y to undo the psychological and potentially physical trauma that will be there haunting them? Everything you could do would have nothing to do with justice other than perhaps making me pay for their medical bills if we are in a country that has privatised healthcare. Even then, that is not about the alleviation of their suffering as much as it is about making me 'pay' (quite literally) for my illegal sin.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
The forfeited round posted in the comments will not be considered. I will read it after my RFD.
The entire debate seems to rest on a major disagreement on the definition of "justice" between Pro and Con.
Pro insists that justice is the alleviation of suffering for parties affected by an unjust act, whether it be theft, assault, etc. Their main argument is that in the case of murder the wronged party, being dead, cannot receive justice because their suffering can no longer be alleviated.
Con never argues that the murder victim can have their suffering alleviated, instead setting up the conventional definitions of justice in his favor. Justice isn't just about correcting or ameliorating a wrong, but about punishing the wrongdoer. As a comparison to the death argument put forth by Pro, Con brings up the case of rape. The rape, like murder, cannot be undone, but justice can be served to the victim by punishing the assaulter. As such, justice isn't predicated on correcting the act, but punishing it.
Con's definitions are not directly contested by Pro, thought they do contend the assertion that justice isn't about alleviating suffering. He states "So you mean to tell me, civil rights activists weren't seeking justice in getting the relief in the brutality, dogs and hoses on folks." Although Con doesn't address this specific argument, it is covered by his other arguments comparing general violence to murder. When a protester is bit by a police dog or sprayed with a fire hose, their legal case seeking justice isn't about undoing those actions, but about holding the wrongdoers accountable for their actions and punishing them as appropriate.
Although Conduct isn't its own point here, Pro did forfeit a round.
Points to Con.
You folks still don't understand what I'm talking about like usual anyhow.
This scenario presented about an assault is different from somebody that is dead.
Of course you can still get justice alive. You're a live person. The topic was concerning the dead. Don't present a scenario about you going to court to get justice. It's the dead person that's not going, they're in the grave or wherever else .
Ok , peace and bid you great fortune on your pursuit of truth.
The U.S. justice system doesn't deal in justice almost at all, by your definition.
If I was punched in the face and broke my nose, then took the offender to court, it would take probably at least two months in my experience before I got an actual court date. By then, my nose has already healed. So any action from then on isn't about alleviating the suffering caused by my broken nose, but about punishment and culpability. I might be able to be awarded damages in a civil suit, but the expense of a lawyer would most likely make it not worth my time. Regardless if I take them to court, however, they could still be tried in a criminal case for battery, most likely in a state court. In this case, it wouldn't be Mr. Puncher vs. Mr. Punched, but Mr. Puncher vs. the State.
"It seems my opponent has misunderstood the definition of what justice is and confused it for something else regarding either morality or alleviation of suffering."
It seems you're disregarding how I'm defining it. It's how I'm defining it, how I'm defining, how I'm defining.
Many of you do this. You disregard what the other is saying instead of communicating with the other person.
"In Round 1, Pro never defines 'justice' so I did:"
You can have your own definition. It doesn't do much good because you're interested in going into my position.
My position on justice was illustrated through real life examples. Examples explains a lot about what something means.
For example of a firefighter. The fireman put out the building fire. At least we have information of what a fireman can do or does just based from a specific scenario.
So in round one . Did you disregard the examples on purpose?
"I have a chance to be treated properly which is what justice is. At least what I mean when I use the term."
So here I clearly say what I mean when I say justice.
Do you want to argue semantics because you have no refutation otherwise?
"I or a person receives a fair trial in the name of justice. In a court of law, the evidence is presented, testimonies are given for the sake of those not guilty or found innocent not to be dealt with improperly.
Those who have fought for the rights and laws to help serve better treatment, those individuals were looking for justice.
Something to be made right that would make a change, improve a situation."
I explained what I'm talking about when it comes to justice. Did you just gloss over this?
You missed this somehow I guess .
I went into real life examples that specify the meaning of justice.
Are you going to deny those , tell them they weren't out to seek justice?
Another common problem I notice are those that think they can dictate the experience of others.
If a person wants justice and it would mean that they're no longer disadvantaged, oppressed, mistreated, etc., then that's what it would mean for them.
I don't know where people get off thinking they can argue with somebody's subjective circumstances and the answers to deal with their, their,their victimhood.
So in that regard, that applies to the living, not the dead. I don't think you have refutation for that so what other move you take on the chess board, well pick at the usage of a term.
Justice, victory, fair treatment, whatever, it is that which that is only applicable TO THE LIVING.
If I say my car is fast, you may say " No it's not " or " no because it's not a car."
You say it's a vehicle. Whether you call it a vehicle or I a car, it's still it that is which is it.
That it for example does what it does which it goes fast .
The reality is still the same, valid and true. You guys fight over what you want to call something, names and labels are just the fabric of a language.
My dinero is in the bank. Another person says, no your money. I say yes, my dinero. I won't argue, we're talking about the same thing .
So believe you understand what mistreatment is. I believe you are aware of history of laws in place to sabotage or undervalue certain individuals.
Those individuals fought to change things to disrupt the mistreatment.
The dead individuals cannot fight anything. They may have died trying.
They may have put up a good fight .
Now it's left to the individuals alive left to fight.
"It is possible to mete out justice on behalf of dead individuals that were victim of crimes by punishing the wrongdoer. "
Do you concede based on how I use the term justice, there is none for the dead?
"It is also possible to to justice to the dead by helping living victims in a very similar situation to the martyr, which Pro misconstrued as me saying the living being helped is the justice. Instead, the justice is the focus on fairness and laws."
Focus on fairness and laws for who?
Are the laws to obey for dead people or living folks ?
"What Pro is arguing is that when you do justice on behalf of the dead"
This is misrepresentation. I say there is no justice for the dead .
"I agree to that, the dead individual will not consciously within themselves receive the justice if we assume there is no afterlife or soul."
Thank you for finally coming around.
Ran out of time to post this.
I would be interested to see wills and testaments brought up somehow.
The case of power of attorney for brain dead would also be interesting.
Your arguments are definitely improving. I suggest focusing a little on presentation and structure.