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.

[ 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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[ 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.

[RevAgain]

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 ]
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?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But the only reason is common sense as it relates to a value equation. I think people are reluctant to answer hypotheticals like these because of some underlying assumption that it commits to a more generalized policy.

This reminds me of the old Philosophy 101 dilemna - you're held captive and given the choice between shooting 1 person in a group in front of you, or having your captor shoot them all. I could never understand how anyone could even hesitate over this - you pick someone and shoot. I suppose the only reason is a lack of flexibility, a need to define good ethical behaviour as having an inherent quality within an act, or maybe just cowardice - but the key point is that there is no such thing as inaction, inaction is action and it's choice. You're culpable if you fail to make a choice just as much (if not more) than if you seek one out.

[ 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?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

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.

[Peter666]

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

[peritonlogon]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Spoken like a true High School Social Studies teacher.