I offer the following definition according to Merriam Webster’s English Dictionary: Ought—expressing obligation.
I value: Justice, defined as giving each his due. Note that by committing heinous acts such as terrorism, an individual revokes their claim to the same absolute rights as innocents. It should also be noted that, on the whole, a greater fulfillment of justice should be favored over a lesser one. So, if an action brought justice for thousands of individuals, that action would by its nature be just.
My value criterion is: maximizing life and wellbeing. We should favor the greatest prosperity of life and wellbeing for innocent individuals, noting that as a government, it …show more content…
Contention 1: By recognizing that non-citizens are not unconditionally deserving of due-process, justice is served.
Sub-point A: In the affirmative world, we would never be able to fight enemy combatants such as Osama Bin Laden. Nick Grief, an international lawyer at Kent University, rightfully called the attack on Osama Bin Laden an “extrajudicial killing without due process of law.” Green expands: “There was probably no lawful basis for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, but for many that does not really matter.
Sometimes, one can perhaps contend, there may be justice without a legal basis or in breach of due process.
And, in any case, even the sensitive souls concerned with any legalistic irregularities are unlikely to get too vexed over this particular