I'm sorry, it's not that simple. Sometimes people are able to be peacefully persuaded. Often they are not. I explained my exceptions. I believe they are consistent. I've presented very compelling evidence that people sometimes allow themselves to be peacefully persuaded, and sometimes they require raw force to conform them.
If his judgement is that I must die, then I gaurantee you my judgement that I should live means a heck of lot more to me than his judgement.
Of course you do, and I'm glad to hear it. But your opinion in that instance really means no more than your attackers unless you can call on a higher law to claim that his acts are wrong.
Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent.
When a case to trial and a judge renders a judgement, he does so (hopefully) in accordance with a law. He does not offer his "observations" disconnected from a higher law - he follows the law and renders justice accordingly. The judge must call upon the law for his judgments to have any moral meaning at all. Otherwise he is just exercising raw force without any moral judgment to back him up. And that is inconsistent.
It is precisely that simple. It doesn't matter how many exceptions you find, FACT#3 holds. Rights do not apply to those exceptions, it only applies to things with the said properties. The exceptions are irrelevent to rights and they certainly do not contradict the statement of FACT#3.
But your opinion in that instance really means no more than your attackers unless you can call on a higher law
No, my opinion in that instance really means MUCH more to me than my attackers, regardless of any law of any elevation.
ME: Maybe you can show me the syllogism that proves that a moral judgement "without a law higher" than the judger is necessarily inconsistent.
YOU: When a case to trial and a judge renders a judgement, he does so (hopefully) in accordance with a law. He does not offer his "observations" disconnected from a higher law - he follows the law and renders justice accordingly. The judge must call upon the law for his judgments to have any moral meaning at all. Otherwise he is just exercising raw force without any moral judgment to back him up. And that is inconsistent.
It would be better if you would lay this out clearly as a syllogism, because I don't follow you. Your proof of necessity somehow refers to a judge on the bench during a trial? You think that somehow legality sets the standard for morality? Judgement that opposes a law is the same as raw force? And what specifically is the inconsistency?