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.