Law above all laws

[4gold]

During the Nuremberg Trials, the German generals' lawyers belabored the point that their clients never broke any law at the time they were committing the atrocities. In fact, the lawyers were correct. The laws that the generals were eventually convicted of weren't even created until the London charter of August 1945.

Frustrated by the lawyers' correct point that the generals broke no laws, Justice Jackson responded, "The refuge of the defendants can only be their hope that International Law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law. Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance...."

It seems to me that if an atheist were logically consistent, he or she would defend the German generals, but that is not what I see in the real world. Many atheists are morally horrified by the atrocities of these generals and feel that justice was properly executed against them.

I understand how a theist could support Justice Jackson's worldview -- theists believe there is a moral law that supercedes all human laws. However, I would welcome any theist's response that may help me understand better.

How does an atheistic worldview explain this? What is this law that supercedes human laws? Should the generals have been convicted for their atrocities despite breaking no laws at the time they were committed?

[arayhay]

During the Nuremberg Trials, the German generals' lawyers belabored the point that their clients never broke any law at the time they were committing the atrocities. In fact, the lawyers were correct. The laws that the generals were eventually convicted of weren't even created until the London charter of August 1945.

Frustrated by the lawyers' correct point that the generals broke no laws, Justice Jackson responded, "The refuge of the defendants can only be their hope that International Law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law. Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance...."

It seems to me that if an atheist were logically consistent, he or she would defend the German generals, but that is not what I see in the real world. Many atheists are morally horrified by the atrocities of these generals and feel that justice was properly executed against them.

I understand how a theist could support Justice Jackson's worldview -- theists believe there is a moral law that supercedes all human laws. However, I would welcome any theist's response that may help me understand better.

How does an atheistic worldview explain this? What is this law that supercedes human laws? Should the generals have been convicted for their atrocities despite breaking no laws at the time they were committed?

The problem I have with Nuremberg is that Russia wasn't charged with invading and massacring the service men of Poland

[r~]

Justice gives authority to Law; not the other way around.

Ah...but what is "justice"?

Justice is the balance of liberty for one and all.

Justice does not prohibit liberty. Justice regulates liberty. Justice protects the liberty of one and all.

ItS
Peace
r~

[r~]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Have you ever tried to translate from spirit to Word?

Unfortunately, it seems that many 'theists' (rhymes with "beists') have even taken the Words 'endowed by their creator' to justify their idolatry.

They cannot see that it is the spirit that gives authority to Words.
They cannot accept that it is the spirit that gives authority to Words.
They cannot see that their image of 'God' is but an image.
They cannot accept that their image of 'God' is but an image.

Yet their mark is so easy for me to see.
They tend to believe that their image of 'God' gives them just authority to judge and condemn other 'sinners' in their name of 'God' or 'Law' or 'Morals' or 'Jihad' or some other Word.

And that is how even an angel of light becomes a beast of darkness.

The followers of the beast deny, they do not accept, the spirit of forgiveness. Even now, they persecute other 'sinners' in the name of 'God'. And thus they distance themselves from god; even as they create hell for themselves and their hostages.

Please tell me, how do your Words say we must deal with sinners and idolaters?

Please tell me how I should judge and persecute your sins?

I am
ItS
Peace
r~

[Furrowed Brow]

Justice gives authority to Law; not the other way around.

Ah...but what is "justice"?

Justice is the balance of liberty for one and all.

Justice does not prohibit liberty. Justice regulates liberty. Justice protects the liberty of one and all.

ItS
Peace
r~

So by what criteria do we gauge what is the just balance of liberty? How do we make sure your scales of justice are calibrated like mine, and everyone else’s?

[r~]

So by what criteria do we gauge what is the just balance of liberty? How do we make sure your scales of justice are calibrated like mine, and everyone else’s?

Like yours? Like everybody else's? Looking at the tyranny imbedded in current American and English Law; it seems better to ask:
How do we make sure everyone understands what is meant by liberty and justice for all?

Most seem to think justice means whatever the Law says it means. That particular 'calibration' only skews liberty out of balance.

Scales can never be calibrated exactly. There is always a margin of error in balance. Each of our scales of justice will read somewhat differently. The consensus of twelve different calibrations will usually result in a fair verdict. If that balance still seems skewed; a panel of learned Justices might correct the skew.

Judge: One that interprets law.
Justice: One that weighs law against justice.
tyranny: The denial of liberty.

So please tell me, how do we make sure you and everyone else understands what is meant by liberty and justice for all?

ItS
Peace
r~

[Beto]

Please show me which of my words you find as conjecture. Please let us take it one sentence at a time.

Not unless you give me your definition of "conjecture".

[Vladd44]

I thought I had responded to this already, I must have not actually posted it.

During the trials, the lawyers belabored the point that no laws had been broken.

Already shown to be a moot point.....

The Allied Control Council's authority was legitimately given to them by the unconditional surrender of the Germans. Under that authority, the Allied Control Council set up a legal system specifically for the purpose of trying the defendants.
The Allied Control Council gave themselves no laws prohibiting expo facto laws. So the fact that the laws were post crime is meaningless in this situation.

YES, the laws used to try and convict the defendants were created after the fact. But there was no legal framework to prohibit the Allied Control Council from creating their retroactive laws. Their decisions were not subject to ANY review. The Allied Control Council was the sole arbitrator of law over Germany.

What would your response be to them as to why their clients still should die?

If my preferred method had been used, people lined up against walls don't typically have legal counsel.

But as my previously quoted comments have shown, the trials were held in accordance to the rule of law.

Is your reason more important than human laws?

In the situation of Nuremberg I had no reason or importance, I was not born.

[QED]

As a theist, I think all laws that are superior to humans point toward something greater than ourselves.

I want to know where atheists think these laws come from.

First I'd like to point out that there were no "Nuremberg's" going on in Attila's day. Looking at the bloody history being written a thousand years or so ago, I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on. The thing that seems to impress you is that any one of us today has an intrinsic sense of "right" and "wrong". Furthermore, by and large, we share this across cultural divides. But here's the explanation that I can understand:

We are not all a "blank slates" at birth. We don't learn not to poke a fork in our sister's eye when we're 18 months old. We are predisposed towards and away from certain kinds of behaviour in the same way that Cats are curious, and Beavers build dams etc. This has a sound evolutionary underpinning. Culture also plays a role -- memes as well as genes. But the kind of moral and ethical "laws" which you refer to run much deeper in the human genome according to evolutionary psychology.

I would say that the reason we all possess a similar set of values is because our lives are played out in similar ways -- we all play the same sort of game in our different societies -- and the game has an optimum strategy for winning. Those who fail to play by the rules (no matter what the reason for the failure of the rules to hold sway) will be edged out of the game. The rules then, are made up as we go -- but not in any one generation -- more like over tens or hundreds of thousands of generations. Rules that deep and with that much inertia may seem like God-given rules that transcend man, because they do transcend the individual.

[r~]

Please show me which of my words you find as conjecture. Please let us take it one sentence at a time.

Not unless you give me your definition of "conjecture".

Excellent response. It is indeed my spirit that gives authority to my Words.

ItS
Peace
r~

[Furrowed Brow]

I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on.

Are we more moral than in Atilla's day?

I think I'd like to avoid that implication if only because evolution is blind and has no direction. If we replaced the word "moral" with say "pro social". I suspect there have been environmental pressures that favour the groups that have been able to pull together and get along the better. However there is no a priori reason why this might be the case. I think the implication of the OP is that there is some a priori morality that we all somehow tap into or intuit.

I think evolution would explain why we demonise outsiders and foreigners. Racism is a good way of bonding one social group by making another an enemy. That some of us can come to see the lack of merit in racism, in turn bonds anti racists into another group. One that thinks it s better than the other. What evolutionary arguments can't do is demonstrate why anti-racism is a better evolutionary strategy in all circumstances than racism.