A Philosophical Look Into Law (Possibly Offensive)

Submit your creative works to Flashes >>HERE<< .

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: A Philosophical Look Into Law (Possibly Offensive)

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Somewhere. At a place.
    Posts
    73
    Blog Entries
    1

    A Philosophical Look Into Law (Possibly Offensive)

    A footnote, before I begin, I do not have any professional degree in any field that deals with law, crime, or punishment. Along with that, my views
    have been called "depressing", or perhaps "blasphemous" by my former students. (The latter, of course, being expressed by a very funny evangelical christian)
    I write this a notice, a warning that these are my own opinions and views, and they may clash with your own. This was not made to offend anyone.

    Law: The rule of our lands, the moral code that must be accepted by all members of society - Though, it is sometime indoctrinated into the minds of the young -
    for the world to continue to turn. The philosophical idea of law is, to me, almost synonymous with morals.

    Where do morals come from? The god fearing christian would have you believe that god gives us morals, and without god morals would not exits.
    The god fearing christian's little brother, who doesn't go to church every Sunday and doesn't pray daily, would have us believe that morals come the soul. The soul being a gift from god. The agnostic would have us believe that morals are a human creation, a product of our intelligence.
    The atheist, a good friend of the agnostic, would have us believe that morals do not exist, and are forced upon us by the ruling faction.

    What side do I fall upon? None of them, for each of them have their flaws. The god fearing christian has committed philosophical suicide by giving his life to a mystical sky daddy. The same can apply to all members of most religions. The god fearing christian's little brother's view is better, but still flawed. Flawed like hos older brother's view. The agnostic, the best of the 4, is relatively correct, and his philosophy is far from a warm bath and straight razor. His one major flaw is that most agnostics (Generalization!) do not identify themselves with any other philosophical beliefs, and this turns his once open mind, into a tunnel not big enough for more than 1 car. The atheist is just as bad as the god fearing christian, as not only has he pulled the metaphorical trigger, he reveres his government as a god, and fears it as much as his double. I do not fall on any of these groups for my resolutions, but instead I remain within the citadel that is my mind.

    These are the fundamentals of my Nihilism, my own form of this age old set if views. The only value to this realm, are the values we give it, some of those values being morals.

    Here's the catch will all of these views: Morals, are synonymous with normality. Normality differs across this planet, and it is because of this
    it is not fact. If it is not fact, especially in this instance, it is likely opinion. So, normality doesn't exist, witch means true morals don't actually exist as they can be argued as well. That only leaves the binding of intelligence to keep law together.

    Sadly, everything that is considered fact - known fact is intelligence - can also be argued, by idiots or scientists. Because of this, true intelligence doesn't exist either. Law is not able to stay together, by this logic.

    As such, all these ideas fall apart, and become a set of imaginary numbers scribbled on a burning piece of paper.
    Last edited by Plasticweld; December 31st, 2014 at 12:22 AM.
    "The smartest man, is the one who calls himself an idiot at least once a month." - Fyodor Dostoevsky

  2. #2
    Member OccultAngel16's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    17
    I'm Christian, but not the type that basically whines about petty things like what others write, but otherwise, very interesting look into religion and law.

  3. #3
    Maybe you should consider more aspects. To me morals, or the lack thereof, are a combination to reactions to experiences and "trickle down" cultural inculcation. In both cases they are predisposed to subjectivity, as per example we condemn genocides where there is someone else to blame as with WW II, but don't acknowledge, or at best give only lip service to, genocides we're party to as with Native Americans.

    Law is in part cultural morals, but more so rules in our game of societal pyramid. They are created and enforced by governments, and we all know who has the greatest influence on government. In short, there is no great institution of man that has not been corrupted by the hand of man. Ideals in the subjective mind are by their very nature self-serving.

    Perhaps evolution is moving towards greater consciousness, but considering our proclivities we're an abortive first step.

    Site:
    Hidden Content

    The simplest truths are written on the wall,
    where we see imaginary greatness in our fall.

  4. #4
    Member dither's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    on the fence
    Posts
    3,289
    Blog Entries
    125
    Interesting.
    If i post a comment on a "WIP", LOOK! I'm a reader that's all, and i can only tell how i feel, as a READER, giving/offering feedback. Hoping to learn and grow here. So please, tell me where i'm going wrong.

    Me? I'm just a fly on the wall.

    Look! I'm trying, okay?

    One can but dream, if only i had dared.

    "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong" Mahatma Gandhi.
    Alas, i am weak.

    I must find a way to Eastbourne and i so wish that i could dance.

  5. #5
    If this is interesting to you, Ian Shapiro's Open Yale lecture series, The Moral Foundations of Politics (found at the Open Yale site or Youtube) contains a considerably more sophisticated analysis. This piece would itself seem more sophisticated, were its text not centered, a technique probably best reserved for the epigram.
    A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. Steven Wright

  6. #6
    A man chooses, a slave obeys. The law was created so that man could live freely, but we are educated to believe that we are already free men. The law exists, so that the poor majority of man does not cause an uproar for the powerful richer minority. We are colourfully distracted, blind even. The law is there to ensure, neigh remind us that we are only as free as they would like us to believe.

  7. #7
    Member Greyson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Some Dark Hollow
    Posts
    113
    Blog Entries
    22
    To I Am Roman: Law can only exist so far as we allow ourselves to be subject to it, this is a basic understanding of the 'social contract theory' that is typically used when looking into political philosophy. Laws and power only exist where people are willing give them up to allow society to live peacefully. If you at any point feel as though you are 'slave' to this system, as you put it, you are more than able to leave. Society is a choice, not a necessary part of being.


    In regards to what is written here, I think that you do not give enough credence to the atheistic viewpoint, especially when you later go on to refer to your own views on many of the matters as nihilistic, which the atheistic definition of laws and morals you gave is far more alike. And what of the irrational nature of nature and mankind? Surely, in understanding subjectivity and existentialism you would have to have considered this fact. Morality, and by your definition, Law or Justice would then have to be unique in every culture, which is far closer to the atheistic view you provide. Your wording, I fear, was not charitable to this. You make it seem as though he revolts and takes revulsion in the idea of morality, when perhaps he sees that it is not a truth that applies to every man and society equally. This would seem a far closer interpretation of "morals do not exist, and are forced upon us by the ruling faction." As I mentioned in my response to Roman, if you are truly against the moral constraints that a society adheres to, you are more than able to leave them for one more closely aligned to your own. As such, the idea of being forced into these is more of a resigned way of being, when in fact, an existentialist (and I assume here for argument's sake our atheist friend is one) would claim that the strict code of law and ethics established by societies and philosophers falls short and misses the point that we are all irrational, and irrationality cannot be fixed or combated through reason. This feels half-baked at best honestly, and I can't truthfully tell where you stand since you seem to contradict yourself.

    I find some of what is here interesting, but I think you give in too much to the whimsical nature of hyperbole to make your own point rather than addressing the topic. Granted, I'm also and ass, so that could just be that aspect of myself.
    "Finish your work, accomplish what you set your hand to, and the people will call you a natural."
    -Lao Tzu

    My Blog:
    Hidden Content

  8. #8
    Haaa... Well I understand the disclaimer. Generalizing entire systems of belief into your own narrow understanding is sure to get backs up.


    This is my view, as an atheist:



    Evolution
    has ingrained inherent moral values into us. Ones that were beneficial to our ancestors survival.
    For example, those who shared their excess food with the less fortunate in the tribe may have had more chance of survival thanks to the long-term stability of the group.

    Law: I think the power of nurture is greater than nature; social conditioning can override these ingrained morals without great resistance, and social conditioning is determined in part by the law.
    For example, your parents tell you not to hurt animals because there are laws against it; they don't want the RSPCA and PETA on their backs.

    The law isn't Godly, it's an attempt by man to impose social order and shared values on our societies. Some of those values align with what we've evolved to believe and come easily. Others don't, and need to be taught.
    Many laws may be plain wrong. If history tells us anything, it's that mankind always thinks it's right, but rarely is.

    Religion is one of the most powerful forms of social conditioning. They teach many morals which I believe have a founding in our inherent, evolved morals as well.
    For example, the sanctity of life: the caveman who valued and protected the lives of his wife, child and friends, was more likely to survive and have his offspring survive to pass down his 'sacred life' moral.


    But just because we have inherent moral values (whether given by God, evolved, or conditioned) doesn't mean they're correct.


    Many of the things we believe to be right may lead us to disastrous mistakes as a species.
    For example, the idea that life is sacred and must be preserved;
    has led to countless thousands of malnourished, HIV infected families in 3rd world countries because religion discourages the idea of contraception.
    has led to children born into disadvantaged families, and children born with horrific genetic defects because their parents fear that abortion will be looked down on, whether by God or their neighbors.
    has led to the preservation of society's most useless individuals; people who contribute nothing, perhaps don't even have the brain function to wipe their own bottoms, are kept alive simply because they're 'human'.

    Many of the things we believe to be wrong may bring great benefit to our species;
    For example, maybe breeding batches of humans like lab rats for experimentation, or stuffing puppies full of lipstick for product testing, would propel our civilization to new heights. But as many's morals make it seem abhorrent, we miss that opportunity to progress.


    The law is one way we can overcome our animal-brain's natural evolved morals.
    The problem is that Law is created by society whose individuals are influenced by both natural morality and the conditioned morality of the environment we're born to.
    We also can't leave the creation of law up to capitalist systems, who care only for immediate profit and will joyfully consume and pollute so that our grandchildren suffocating in our filth.

    In the end, I don't think humans are a very good species. Sadly, we're the best in the known universe, and will probably go extinct soon without a serious change of direction.
    Last edited by Penless; May 29th, 2017 at 10:52 PM.

  9. #9
    Dang. Suckered into another dead turkey! When will I ever learn to check the OP date?!
    A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking. Steven Wright

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ppsage View Post
    Dang. Suckered into another dead turkey! When will I ever learn to check the OP date?!
    Nothing wrong with raising the dead, PP, especially if you can contribute something to the discussion or add some critique to the OP. I would, but I'm stuck in the back rooms, trying to improve the lot of the fontsize impaired.
    "I don't know ... I'm making it up as I go ..." - Dr I Jones

    Nature abhors perfection - cats abhor a vacuum!

    "Faith can move mountains - she's a big girl!" (unknown/graffiti)

    If I act like I own the place, it's because I did.





Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.