Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
J
Joe35 Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
This is my first thread in this forum.

I have prepared an argument in skeletal form that I hope you will find interesting enough to play the devil's advocate for me.

The events leading to the creation of our laws on murder ---

Locke was right, all knowledge begins with sensation.

Long, long ago, our ancestors could sense right from wrong.
When an innocent member of the tribe was killed, the tribe felt moral outrage.
When the killing was in self-defense, they felt it justified.

Rational minds learned to classify and label these acts.
"Killings" was one class.
"Killing in self-defense" was a sub-class.

From the sensations felt, rational minds could create rules:
Killings of innocent people are wrong.
Killings in self-defense are okay.
Soon after writing was invented, laws were written -- the laws on killings were written down.

Over the centuries, our laws on killings have undergone countless revisions.
All acts are as unique as snowflakes, impossible to classify. Moral acts are not an exception. Sometimes, the law conflicted with the feelings people had about a killing, so the law was revised so that similar cases in the future would conform to the feelings people had about it.

Even after centuries of revision, our laws on killing are still flawed.
We know that because there is no consensus. The laws are different in every jurisdiction. In the USA, for example, a killing might qualify as self-defense in one state, but not in another.

Just as our ancient ancestors did, we still have the ability to sense right and wrong when given the facts in a specific case -- and sometimes it's in conflict with the law.
So, let's assume a conflict between the laws of a state and the collective conscience of a jury:
A killing does not qualify as justifiable self-defense under the laws of the state written by men who had no knowledge of the case at hand. An impartial jury, with full knowledge of the facts, senses that the killing was justifiable as self-defense. So, how should this conflict be resolved? Would justice best be served by conforming to the law, or should we trust the instincts of the jury on this case?

Reviewing:

-- we humans first learned to make laws from the sensations we felt
-- we have revised the laws countless times when the laws offended our sense of justice
-- the men who wrote the laws had no knowledge of the case
-- we still have that ability to sense right from wrong

The choice seems clear to me.

In the cause of justice, if there is a conflict, the collective conscience of the jury should triumph over the law.
Having reached that conclusion, the laws on killings can't offer superior guidance. They have only the potential to conflict. They are just the foolish attempt of rational minds to micromanage what ought to be instinctive judgments. Justice would be better served if we had professional juries guided only by mission statements.

The laws on killing are the rational mind's Great Work, its best effort at moral guidance. If they have no value, how can we expect any of our rational, moral constructions to have real value?

-- the moral instruction of religion?
-- moral philosophy?
-- self-made moral rules, values, opinions on moral issues?

Conclusion: In making moral judgments, we have nothing better than the same sensations felt by those ancient people to be applied case-by-case (not recommended for use in making rules and laws).

Last edited by Joe35; 08/07/09 09:29 PM.
.
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
J
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 20
All I know is that in todays system it doesn't matter who's right or wrong in the doing, it's who has the most money to talk for them.(most of the time)


Im here to get some thoughts out and to hear others.I guess you could say im just a curious person!
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Morality driven from the limited concept of the universe and its reflections of humanity are constantly evolving with the changing thoughts of reality.
That is a perfect law already in effect. That, is Karmic law, and that is what creates the universe as we experience it.


I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Joe 35 wrote:
"..... In making moral judgments, we have nothing better than the same sensations felt by those ancient people to be applied case-by-case (not recommended for use in making rules and laws).

Of course those sensations will be similar, they are the sensations of our species-- as we have developed. As a cat will play with its prey by instinct not cruelty so our instincts and behaviours have evolved as cooperative pack creatures. After all we humans are animals too, so of course our moral judgements will be coloured by our ancestry.

Laws are formulated by humans. In Taliban Afghanistan I would not have learned to read, my word in a court of law would be worth half that of a man and I would be required to cover myself in a cloak with eye holes if my husband allowed me outside the house. Naturally I think this is oppressive and wrong, but many women are prepared to argue that these laws are based on the word - not of man- but of god, and obey them willingly.

I think you have an interesting point to make and discuss. Personally I think that the law can only exist if the society for which it is designed allows it to exist. Governments which forget this will often become very unstuck!


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5