Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

I think it is easy to handle situations when everything is clearly written down.

Yes, of course it is. Think about it. Long division is much easier if we always divide by two, and make sure that the number we're dividing is even, to avoid any pesky fractions. But this is just wishful thinking. You think life would be easier if ... life was easier.

But, given your position (above), answer this, please: how can any law anticipate all the situations in which it will be applied in the (as-yet unknown and unknowable) future, and ensure that these future matters are handled as the law-makers anticipated at the time of writing?

[Sushan]

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-facts/is-ther ... in-the-uk/


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -in-the-uk

Please correct me if I am wrong. I understand that you are unhappy about the limitations for striking and protesting. But I think these things should have some limits for the betterment of the general public. What do you say?

I say that not having a formal right to strike is not the same as being denied or having that right restricted.
The right exists in the absence of any law to restrict.
Since the absence of a law does not imply a lack of natural right.
You objection is pedantic and not relevant.

Having no law to restrict something does not imply that we have the right to do that.

Have you not heard of natural rights?
If you want to claim that a person does not have a natural right to strike you are effectively claiming that an authority has to right to enforced labour.

I am not a law expert. But I think that there is no law restricting going nude to public places.

Actually there is.

But that does not give anyone the right to do so.

Whether they have a natural right to do so has nothing to do with the law.

And if you do so, the law enforcing authorities will take away you under laws like disturbing the public. And the same applies to striking and protests as well. Even though there were no laws restricting especially the strikes and protests, the law enforcing authorities will have abundant ways and means to interrupt such things using other rules and laws in the law books.

I think you might want to stand back and think more carefully about the differences between law and right.

This is the definition for natural rights which I found in the internet.

Natural rights are basic rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every citizen is entitled to these rights and they are to be protected from encroachment by the government or society. It is both illegal and morally wrong for a person to be denied natural rights.

And I do not see the right to strike or protest being mentioned. But if striking and protesting blocks someone else from having their liberty and pursuing their happiness, then according to the natural rights it is wrong. But for the law enforcement authorities to act upon such a situation, written down laws are necessary.


And regarding the differences between laws and rights,

These are ideals that relate to the general, everyday affordances for a person. They can be as simple as the right to speak, travel, or practice traditions that don't harm anybody else. A law is an enforceable direction that can be met with punishment if not followed.

So laws are necessary to protect the rights of the human beings and to punish those who violate them.

[Sushan]

I am not very sure about that. Maybe that was the practice in the ancient era in which the kings and the land owners ruled the majority. But nowadays I think the rules are made for the betterment of the society. And in the occasions in which the rules are in favor of the rulers instead of the society, people go on and change them. I am not stating that this is a perfect world. But the society and the less privileged ones have a value for their voice nowadays more than what it had in the past.

You are laughably wrong here and you are assuming that democracy is effective.

Democracy may not effective as it could have been. But to compare the era with democracy with the era without democracy, we should have lived in that previous era, which I assume that neither you nor me have done. But from the history lessons that I have learned (I know that you are an expert in history compared to me, and I think you may have heard these too), I know that there was far less democracy under the autocratic leaders. So I think we should understand and appreciate what we are having in our hands before demanding for more and changes.

You might want to look at some anthropology. The era without democracy; customary beliefs did more to protect the group, that the powerful individuals within it.
For the vast majority of human history we have lived without democracy, but with custom and tradition, where "law" was about praxis and not threat of violence, which we "enjoy" today.

I am not sure about what praxis you are talking about. But the history books that I have read have mentioned about the caste of the people determining the rights that they get, the jobs that they do, and how the kings and the land owners could make rules as they wished. And I do not see those as very much democratic. Either there could have been something wrong with the history books that I read or there is something wrong about my view on democracy.

[Sushan]

Let's take an incident in which a beggar is being killed by someone. The beggar had no family and no one else was harmed by the action. Whether the action was just or unjust remains as a question. But the state will file a case and look for the murderer since the action is taken as an act against the government.

The beggar was harmed! This would seem to make the killing unjust, wouldn't it?

Yes, the beggar was harmed. But he is already dead and there is no more a victim of that unjust. So whether it is just or unjust, there is no post event affect.

Are you really saying that murder is not — cannot be — a crime, because the victim cannot stand up in a court to accuse their killer? Or because the injustice somehow fades away with the victim's death?

Not at all. I am saying that murder is universally considered as a crime, and in the legislation system it is a crime against the state. So the state anyway brings the murderer to the courts. And this will happen to a person who kills while defending him/herself, and also a police officer who kills a victim while trying to apprehend an accused. The act itself is a crime, only the circumstances and the consequences differ.

[Sushan]

Yes, rules should be guidelines. But the danger of that is, we humans easily break the existing rules. So there will not be any need to even think about what might happen to guidelines. A clever lawyer can reduce the punishment of his client who is a known serial killer, while we have a set of rules which are written in books. Imagine what will happen if all those were guidelines.

Yes, let's imagine. The clever lawyer will have no loopholes to use to find his guilty client innocent. Such lawyers wrestle with the law, as it is written — sometimes even down to the interpretation of a single word — to find a way for their guilty clients to avoid justice. If these laws were simply guidelines in the administration of justice, the killer in your example would surely be removed from circulation, to a place where they can harm no more innocents.

So yes, let's imagine.

That is what my point exactly is. The lawyers are cunning enough to do such things even with the written down laws. So I am afraid of thinking what they might do if there were just guidelines. Then we would have to depend solely on the thoughts of either the judge or the jury. And if I was the judge, I would have sentenced the accused with much harsher punishments as I am the law maker based on the guidelines, which could have been unjust.

[GE Morton]

This is the definition for natural rights which I found in the internet.

Natural rights are basic rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every citizen is entitled to these rights and they are to be protected from encroachment by the government or society. It is both illegal and morally wrong for a person to be denied natural rights.

That is not a definition of "natural rights." It is just a list of some of them. First you have to define a "right": A "right" is a pseudo-property we apply to certain relations between persons and particular things, to denote that the person has a rightful claim to the thing, or acquired it righteously. He will have acquired it "righteously" if he acquired it without inflicting losses or injuries on any other persons. Typically, one acquires things righteously by discovering them, or producing them. But one brings some things with one into the world, such as one's life, one's body, one's natural talents, abilities and capacities. Since those were also acquired without inflicting losses or injuries on anyone, they were also acquired righteously, and thus one has rights to them. Those rights to one's natural possessions are the natural rights.

And I do not see the right to strike or protest being mentioned.

Those are embraced by the natural right to liberty --- the right to control one's body, including the right to decide what work one will do, and the right to speak (protest). One has a natural liberty right to do anything one is capable of doing, as long as it inflicts no losses or injuries on other persons.

[Sushan]

I think it is easy to handle situations when everything is clearly written down.

Yes, of course it is. Think about it. Long division is much easier if we always divide by two, and make sure that the number we're dividing is even, to avoid any pesky fractions. But this is just wishful thinking. You think life would be easier if ... life was easier.

But, given your position (above), answer this, please: how can any law anticipate all the situations in which it will be applied in the (as-yet unknown and unknowable) future, and ensure that these future matters are handled as the law-makers anticipated at the time of writing?

I agree. The law cannot do that. And those are the loopholes that the lawyers find and use to twist the cases. That is why the law books should be updated, if possible, on a daily basis. The accused will get away the first time, but he/she wwould have supported to either create a new law or to update an existing law that will prevent the next one from escaping through the same loophole. Yes, life will not be easy. But we should try and make it easy as much as possible.

[Sushan]

This is the definition for natural rights which I found in the internet.

Natural rights are basic rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every citizen is entitled to these rights and they are to be protected from encroachment by the government or society. It is both illegal and morally wrong for a person to be denied natural rights.

That is not a definition of "natural rights." It is just a list of some of them. First you have to define a "right": A "right" is a pseudo-property we apply to certain relations between persons and particular things, to denote that the person has a rightful claim to the thing, or acquired it righteously. He will have acquired it "righteously" if he acquired it without inflicting losses or injuries on any other persons. Typically, one acquires things righteously by discovering them, or producing them. But one brings some things with one into the world, such as one's life, one's body, one's natural talents, abilities and capacities. Since those were also acquired without inflicting losses or injuries on anyone, they were also acquired righteously, and thus one has rights to them. Those rights to one's natural possessions are the natural rights.

And I do not see the right to strike or protest being mentioned.

Those are embraced by the natural right to liberty --- the right to control one's body, including the right to decide what work one will do, and the right to speak (protest). One has a natural liberty right to do anything one is capable of doing,

as long as it inflicts no losses or injuries on other persons

.

Thank you for the explanation. And I see an important inclusion in this, "without causing injuries or harm to others". When doctors strike, it is a presentation of their natural rights since they acquired the ability to be a doctor without harming anyone else. But the strike harms the patients. The patients will miss their treatments, their time will be wasted, etc. In short, the natural rights of the patients will be violated, the right to be disease-free and happy. So, when we look at the situation retrospectively, the striking of the doctors is wrong. And I think this is applicable to any situation.

I think this concept limits the ability to experience the natural rights although they are there.

[Sculptor1]

I say that not having a formal right to strike is not the same as being denied or having that right restricted.
The right exists in the absence of any law to restrict.
Since the absence of a law does not imply a lack of natural right.
You objection is pedantic and not relevant.

Having no law to restrict something does not imply that we have the right to do that.

Have you not heard of natural rights?
If you want to claim that a person does not have a natural right to strike you are effectively claiming that an authority has to right to enforced labour.

I am not a law expert. But I think that there is no law restricting going nude to public places.

Actually there is.

But that does not give anyone the right to do so.

Whether they have a natural right to do so has nothing to do with the law.

And if you do so, the law enforcing authorities will take away you under laws like disturbing the public. And the same applies to striking and protests as well. Even though there were no laws restricting especially the strikes and protests, the law enforcing authorities will have abundant ways and means to interrupt such things using other rules and laws in the law books.

I think you might want to stand back and think more carefully about the differences between law and right.

This is the definition for natural rights which I found in the internet.

Natural rights are basic rights that include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every citizen is entitled to these rights and they are to be protected from encroachment by the government or society. It is both illegal and morally wrong for a person to be denied natural rights.

And I do not see the right to strike or protest being mentioned. But if striking and protesting blocks someone else from having their liberty and pursuing their happiness, then according to the natural rights it is wrong. But for the law enforcement authorities to act upon such a situation, written down laws are necessary.

DO you think that the concept of natural rights begin and ends with the founding fathers??

It's pointless continuing with you.

And regarding the differences between laws and rights,

These are ideals that relate to the general, everyday affordances for a person. They can be as simple as the right to speak, travel, or practice traditions that don't harm anybody else. A law is an enforceable direction that can be met with punishment if not followed.

So laws are necessary to protect the rights of the human beings and to punish those who violate them.

nope.

[Sculptor1]

You are laughably wrong here and you are assuming that democracy is effective.

Democracy may not effective as it could have been. But to compare the era with democracy with the era without democracy, we should have lived in that previous era, which I assume that neither you nor me have done. But from the history lessons that I have learned (I know that you are an expert in history compared to me, and I think you may have heard these too), I know that there was far less democracy under the autocratic leaders. So I think we should understand and appreciate what we are having in our hands before demanding for more and changes.

You might want to look at some anthropology. The era without democracy; customary beliefs did more to protect the group, that the powerful individuals within it.
For the vast majority of human history we have lived without democracy, but with custom and tradition, where "law" was about praxis and not threat of violence, which we "enjoy" today.

I am not sure about what praxis you are talking about. But the history books that I have read have mentioned about the caste of the people determining the rights that they get, the jobs that they do, and how the kings and the land owners could make rules as they wished. And I do not see those as very much democratic. Either there could have been something wrong with the history books that I read or there is something wrong about my view on democracy.

probably both.
As a historian I could tell you about how history books get written and published.

[GE Morton]

Thank you for the explanation. And I see an important inclusion in this, "without causing injuries or harm to others". When doctors strike, it is a presentation of their natural rights since they acquired the ability to be a doctor without harming anyone else. But the strike harms the patients.

Well, no, it doesn't. The disease is what is harming the patient. Refusing to prevent or lessen a harm is not the same as causing the harm. Absent some sort of contractual obligation moral agents have no duties to prevent harms to others (though there is a conditional duty to aid).

In short, the natural rights of the patients will be violated, the right to be disease-free and happy.

Er, no. There is no natural right to be "disease free and happy." Natural events do not violate rights; only moral agents can violate rights, and "Mother Nature" is not a moral agent. Your natural rights bar other moral agents from killing you, but don't require them to provide you the means to sustain your life. That is up to you (others do have duties not to interfere with your efforts to do so). No one has "rights" to the services of other people, or to the products of their talents and labor. They are not your slaves.

[Ecurb]

Well, no, it doesn't. The disease is what is harming the patient. Refusing to prevent or lessen a harm is not the same as causing the harm. Absent some sort of contractual obligation moral agents have no duties to prevent harms to others (though there is a conditional duty to aid)....



Er, no. There is no natural right to be "disease free and happy." Natural events do not violate rights; only moral agents can violate rights, and "Mother Nature" is not a moral agent. Your natural rights bar other moral agents from killing you, but don't require them to provide you the means to sustain your life. That is up to you (others do have duties not to interfere with your efforts to do so). No one has "rights" to the services of other people, or to the products of their talents and labor. They are not your slaves.

Once again, GE, you blather on seemingly assuming that the postulates you accept are acceptable to all. Obviously, if someone accepts different moral imperatives (like "Do unto others") then moral agents may very well have a duty to prevent harm to others.

Everyone knows what you think, GE. Repeating it is unpersuasive.

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes, rules should be guidelines. But the danger of that is, we humans easily break the existing rules. So there will not be any need to even think about what might happen to guidelines. A clever lawyer can reduce the punishment of his client who is a known serial killer, while we have a set of rules which are written in books. Imagine what will happen if all those were guidelines.

Yes, let's imagine. The clever lawyer will have no loopholes to use to find his guilty client innocent. Such lawyers wrestle with the law, as it is written — sometimes even down to the interpretation of a single word — to find a way for their guilty clients to avoid justice. If these laws were simply guidelines in the administration of justice, the killer in your example would surely be removed from circulation, to a place where they can harm no more innocents.

So yes, let's imagine.

That is what my point exactly is. The lawyers are cunning enough to do such things even with the written down laws. So I am afraid of thinking what they might do if there were just guidelines. Then we would have to depend solely on the thoughts of either the judge or the jury. And if I was the judge, I would have sentenced the accused with much harsher punishments as I am the law maker based on the guidelines, which could have been unjust.

-------- * --------

I think it is easy to handle situations when everything is clearly written down.

Yes, of course it is. Think about it. Long division is much easier if we always divide by two, and make sure that the number we're dividing is even, to avoid any pesky fractions. But this is just wishful thinking. You think life would be easier if ... life was easier.

But, given your position (above), answer this, please: how can any law anticipate all the situations in which it will be applied in the (as-yet unknown and unknowable) future, and ensure that these future matters are handled as the law-makers anticipated at the time of writing?

I agree. The law cannot do that. And those are the loopholes that the lawyers find and use to twist the cases. That is why the law books should be updated, if possible, on a daily basis. The accused will get away the first time, but he/she would have supported to either create a new law or to update an existing law that will prevent the next one from escaping through the same loophole. Yes, life will not be easy. But we should try and make it easy as much as possible.

-------- * --------

The first and most obvious response is that we have to trust a judge and jury to deliver justice, or else come up with an arrangement that we trust more. I think trusting the judge and jury is our best available option, but I'm open to alternatives...?

Second, as a judge, or member of the jury, you are not a "law maker", and you are not Judge Dredd — "I am the law!" — either; you (and your fellows) are dispensers of justice, in accord with the guidelines, but (most of all!) appropriate to the particular case in question.

You say you are "afraid of thinking what [lawyers] might do if [laws] were just guidelines", but I don't see why. You seem concerned that the laws would be reduced or diluted in some way by being converted into guidelines. Not so. The conversion allows one, very specific, thing. It allows that a court can justly apply the social expectations of the guidelines, adapted to suit the particular case. Sometimes, a murderer does not deserve a sentence as severe as the guideline might indicate; in other cases, the murderer deserves (and receives!) a more severe sentence. Justice.

The laws-as-guidelines are still made by society's law-makers, and they still reflect the general expectations of society when the laws are broken. In making laws into guidelines, we must protect against inconsistencies, like getting more severe sentences in one city, and less severe ones elsewhere. That's why I do not suggest that we abandon laws. Far from it! Laws-as-guidelines are adaptable to a specific case, and it is this adaptability that allows our courts to dispense justice in every case.

In practice, there will be cock-ups — miscarriages of justice — but our legal systems already make allowance for this, normally in the form of appeals, or retrials if new evidence comes to light. This could and should remain unchanged, IMO.


You suggest that laws could be regularly updated, maybe even daily. This would not work. The law would be forever being updated, with no real benefit obtained: the future would still present cases to which the law, as written, does not justly apply. If the laws simply describe the general expectations of society in the case of murder, theft, or assault (etc), the courts know what is expected of them. But they are able to apply these expectations justly.



You also keep on about loopholes, when the conversion of laws into guidelines removes these loopholes — all of them — at a stroke.

[Amy Luman]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

[LuckyR]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

Is "committing a crime" equivalent to "breaking a law" in your posting?

And since problems can only be solved legally "usually", what's your plan when they can't?