Foundation for law
 

Hello. I was thinking this morning as I rode the bus on Western jurisprudence and in specific the contradiction with illegal marijuana and legal alcohol. That is NOT what I wish to discuss. Imagine, if you will, you and 1000 people are stranded on a deserted planet and must form a society. How would you decide what is and isn't legal, or what should and shouldn't be legal. Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong". Think less along the lines or your social conditioning and more along the lines of what is the purpose behind your legal system.

I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

Re: Foundation for law
 

You have to start with the definition of "rights". Then design laws to protect those rights.

Re: Foundation for law
 

I think we can stop with your one fundamental rule.

Melch

Re: Foundation for law
 

So law's primary purpose should be the defense of rights?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong".
...
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "hurt".

I think the purpose of the laws should be to maximize the happiness of the society. Hopefully the people on the island are nice, and like other people to be happy -- that will allow the rules to be minimal, and the happiness maximized. Otherwise, there will be a lot of rules, and everyone will suffer for it.

The minimal rule for me would be: act compassionately.

Re: Foundation for law
 

Should we kill people who are unhappy?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
Should we kill people who are unhappy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if they want us to. And even then, not always.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should those who punish others be punished for hurting the people they punished?

Re: Foundation for law
 

Unless this hypothetical planet has food, water and shelter in relative abundance, intiially at least, all law should be ad hoc. I'd say the 1000 people have more to worry about than a system of jurisprudence.

Re: Foundation for law
 

The foundation for laws in a society are Natural law and Ethics.

Re: Foundation for law
 

i know, chez et al have warned me of the futility of my habits of mind, but, i must try. could you tighten this up a lot? describe the nature of the people and the nature of the island, in some detail. you don't even say that they have a written language, a sense of guilt or shame as we know it. are they all what we would call 'sociopaths'? oh boy..............b

Re: Foundation for law
 

Should who they are change their legal system? Why?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
How would you decide what is and isn't legal, or what should and shouldn't be legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't kill.
Don't steal.

That's all you need.

Re: Foundation for law
 

A rapist heaven.

Re: Foundation for law
 

Avoid legalism at all costs. Law should come only after people show they cannot act virtuously by their own admission.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?

Re: Foundation for law
 

Define hurt others.

If you are a buggy whip manufacturer, and I invent the car, I hurt you pretty badly. Should there be a law against this sort of thing?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
Define hurt others.

If you are a buggy whip manufacturer, and I invent the car, I hurt you pretty badly. Should there be a law against this sort of thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point. (And no :P)

Re: Foundation for law
 

You're missing the essence of law, which is the answer to the question: why punish those who hurt others?

Re: Foundation for law
 

oh good grief....do you need to be spoon fed?.............b

Re: Foundation for law
 

Alas, I was not born knowing all the answers to all the questions of the world. I guess I'm happy for that on second thought.

Re: Foundation for law
 

ok, despite your fatuous remark, let's make a start. do you understand the concept of "possible worlds"? this is, in critical thinking, what models are to those in the engineering and related fields. make a "possible world" out of your planet and maybe we might get a hint of what you are on about. also , the parrying, a question for a question etc. might be a good device for litigators. in spculative thought it is mainly an evasion. i gave you something besides a question, what have you for us..............b

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better fundamental rule would be that laws should minimize the harm done.

ex. There are 3 people left on the island, you, B, and C. B and you are close and get along famously. B hates C and kills C. punish B? why?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Please, if you can, avoid mindless thinking like "x is bad because it's wrong".
...
I will go first. One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "hurt".

I think the purpose of the laws should be to maximize the happiness of the society. Hopefully the people on the island are nice, and like other people to be happy -- that will allow the rules to be minimal, and the happiness maximized. Otherwise, there will be a lot of rules, and everyone will suffer for it.

The minimal rule for me would be: act compassionately.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. So essentially:

Don't Steal.

That's all you need. Which just makes it bleedingly obvious that all rights are property rights.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. So essentially:

Don't Steal.

That's all you need. Which just makes it bleedingly obvious that all rights are property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an idealist. Like I said, that would maximize happiness, if people liked other people to be happy. But, there are some jerks out there that get their kicks by hurting other people. So, more rules... and more suffering.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One fundamental rule should be that laws should be designed to punish those who hurt others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a better fundamental rule would be that laws should minimize the harm done.

ex. There are 3 people left on the island, you, B, and C. B and you are close and get along famously. B hates C and kills C. punish B? why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes much more sense than my initial suggestion.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A rapist heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Is not rape the "theft" of someone else's autonomy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't killing the theft of someone's life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I thought it would sound more credible if I had two.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're required by law to act compassionately? This sounds like the worst basis for a legal system of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm an idealist. Like I said, that would maximize happiness, if people liked other people to be happy. But, there are some jerks out there that get their kicks by hurting other people. So, more rules... and more suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

Once you find the optimal distribution of happiness points, how will you determine which comrades get which happiness rations?

What happens to those who end up less happy because of your engineering than they would have been without it? Too bad for them?

Here's some stuff I've written previously:

You cannot decide what's best for the community, and even if you could, you SHOULD NOT implement it, unless everyone voluntarily agrees. You can determine what YOU think is best for the community. Your DESIRE to do what's best for the community doesn't mean that you actually will make the best decsion. Also, what's best for the community will often be detrimental (sometimes catastropically so) for individuals in that community. Utilitarianism is just another form of oppression.

***


There are some people in the hospital. Two that each need a kidney, two that each need a lung, one that needs a heart, one that needs a liver, and one guy that has a broken leg.

Let's make it more interesting. The people in need of organs are nobel-winning scientists and they all have families, and the guy with a broken leg is a drunkard bum with no family, but has never hurt a fly.

The people that need organs are going to die within the hour if they don't get transplants. A miracle doctor can perform all the transplants in time, but the only prospective donor is the guy with the broken leg.

Should the doctor kill the one broken leg patient to save six others?

***

The funny thing is, we can show that utilitarianism can lead to bad outcomes, but we really don't need to go to so much effort - just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

chez

Re: Foundation for law
 

ok, since the op is unwilling to clarify, let's try this: the planet is deserted hence it has no stores (it wouldn't be deserted if it did) no food or water supply, no shelter, and the ad hoc prediction of a life-expectancy of 2-3 days. now, what is a good legal system for our little 'society'?................b

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

chez

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
The foundation for laws in a society are Natural law and Ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true High School Social Studies teacher.

Re: Foundation for law
 

Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.

Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.

Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What definition of happiness are you going to use when you try to maximize it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Happiness" means not just pleasure, but joy, peace, contentment, and well-being. Suffering is the opposite of that.

[ QUOTE ]
just showing that utilitarianism assumes centralized decision making (someone picks the "best" utility-distribution scheme) is enough to discredit it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think utilitarianism is a good thought for personal morality. And, if everyone used it, I think the world would be a much better place. The biggest problem is trying to weigh everyone's "happiness" level. So, really, it's just a way to remind you to be considerate & compassionate of all the people your actions affect.

I don't think a centralized government would be able to control this very well in a large society -- much like they couldn't control the economy very well either. In a small society, such as the island, it may be possible, though. There would be no need for a republic, a pure democracy could work just fine. So, the decision making would be distributed -- to all the inhabitants of the island.

Again, it would only maximize happiness, if others wanted everyone to be happy. This is key -- and unfortunately, I'm quite jaded by my experiences, but try to maintain my idealism -- I'm not sure why.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been letting this go for a bit, but I think your ideas of maximising personal happiness (which is slighly misleading but we agree on) is inconsistent with the idea of wanting to maximise everyone's happiness.

They could be consistent if it would maximise your happiness if everyone else was as happy as possible but there doesn't seem any reason to believe that's true. In fact, the happiness of a few people is so important to your happiness that the happiness of the rest quickly becomes of small (not necessarily zero) importance.

I also claim (counter-intuitively) that the best way for everybody to be happy is to not try to maximise everyone's happiness when making decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think it's a huge prisoner's dilemma. If people try to do what will maximize their personal happiness, then everyone will be less happy than if they would have cooperated (by being considerate & compassionate). That being said, most of the time, your immediate happiness is more realizable than your affect on others, and the closer someone is to your family/friend circle, the more their happiness affects yours. But, often, people don't think about how some minor thing they do, that may not really bring them much happiness if any, will make other people vastly less happy. Should you even care that they are now less happy? Yes, cooperation & reciprocity increase happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if you're right, then we could say to anyone who makes others suffer that they will be paid back in suffering to themselves (or at least probably paid back). It seems highly implausible and the sort of thing that's only tempting to believe because it would be nice if it were true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's true, but there are so many people, and so many variables, that it would be nearly impossible to show. But, if we were on a 1000 person island, then we might could see it. The show "Lost" has a bit of this throughout -- where you see how everyone's lives are connected.

One way, is that I know, personally, I am happier when I am being considerate and compassionate toward other people. From my discussions with others, they are too. Sociopaths do exist, and some people get their kicks by making others unhappy.

That's where reciprocity kicks in. People will treat you how they see you treating other people (and how you treat them).

Also, we are all interconnected. So, even if the person you treat badly never has a chance to reciprocate, they may end up not being nice to someone else, who ends up not being nice to someone else... etc... all the way back to you. Some call it Karma. It's just that one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. I think the movie "Pay It Forward" showed some truth too... that when you do good deeds, others will be more apt to also... and what goes around, comes around.

This isn't wishful thinking... this is experience and observation. YMMV, but I think it's true.

(PS: I like quoting this entire chain of discussion... it makes it seem important that way. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

Re: Foundation for law
 

[ QUOTE ]
Re: 6 transplants needed 1 donor.

Actually this [killing our broken legged friend] seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's pretty much how our society works. We fúck over the few in order that the majority benefit.

Welcome to capitalism, it's better than everyone being miserable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What in the hell kind of insane thing is that to say? Capitalism hinges on enforcing property rights. Pillaging someone for their organs against their will to achieve what is(in your mind) a much more benficial and equitable distribution of organs sounds a lot more like socialism to me.