• quintillus
    64
    Correctional institutions are overpopulated due to the incorrect juristic notion that persons determine themselves to act, or not, by law.

    Worldwide overcrowded penitentiaries clearly show that people do not determine their conduct by law, for, in fact, ontologically, persons cannot determine themselves to act by given states of affairs, and, law is a given.

    Human ontological originative determination to act, or not act, is negation, l.e., “determinatio negatio est”’, Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), letter to Jareg Jelles, (1674); restated by G.W. Hegel ( 1770-1731 ) as “”Omnis determinatio est negatio,” i.e., “‘All determination is negation.” ; further reiterated by J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), thus: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, cannot get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (“Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology.” J.P. Sartre, Part Four. 1943.)

    Characterizable as merely pre-reflectively free, extant jurisprudentially oriented persons are neither cognizant of the purely nihilational ontological structure of the origin of their own acts, nor of the wholly doubly nihilative mode of upsurge of all human action/inaction. Being pre-reflectively free regarding the purely negative originative structure of a human act, jurisprudent’s currently hold to the incorrect notion that given language of man made law is efficient to determine/originate both human action, and, human restraint.

    The mistaken notion that given published language of law is determinative of human conduct, constitutes a radically profound error, concerning the very ontological structure of the rise of human action.

    Language of prohibitive law is not correctly human; as an unintentionally dishonest con, law is both failure to correctly comprehend human action, and, an absolute failure as a means constitutive of genuine human civilization.

    Current pre-reflectively free jurisprudentially-oriented legislators and magistrates, mistakenly, destructively, require all persons to determine themselves to act, or not, on the basis of given language of prohibitive law, - whereby said language of law it is, in fact, ontologically impossible to originate either human action or, inaction.
  • Paine
    2k
    The law, as practiced in the United States, sharply differentiates the criminal from civic disputes. So, the attempts to prevent criminal behavior, whether rightly or wrongly, conceived, is separated from the issue of rights of claims made by competing parities.

    Against Oliver Wendell Holmes, your argument sounds like an AI generated device.
  • jgill
    3.6k
    your argument sounds like an AI generated devicePaine

    :up:
  • quintillus
    64

    No, I, a person wrote the position.
  • Paine
    2k

    I apologize for my comparison. I should have left it as what I disagreed with.
  • quintillus
    64

    Thank you.
    Why do you disagree?
  • Cheshire
    1k
    It seems like people will go out of there way to be legally compliant. I have to get the vehicle I drive inspected knowing there's nothing wrong with it once a year. I have decided to ignore it and found the alternative more of a hassle.

    Or not.
  • Paine
    2k

    People do not act, especially if badly, on the basis of what is permitted by law. So the following proposes a factor not observed in criminal behavior:

    Current pre-reflectively free jurisprudentially-oriented legislators and magistrates, mistakenly, destructively, require all persons to determine themselves to act, or not, on the basis of given language of prohibitive law, - whereby said language of law it is, in fact, ontologically impossible to originate either human action or, inaction.quintillus

    You have placed the law before actions where it is always behind. People do bad things and other people try to stop it from dissolving whatever arrangement made in order to minimize the damage.
  • quintillus
    64

    The law is a primary determinant of human conduct according to our legalistic society, NOT according to me and my understanding of how a human act originates. It is not actually possible for given law to be determinative of a human act.
  • quintillus
    64

    Your honesty is totally commendable.
  • Benj96
    2.2k


    Law is a tool. A guide. And an imperfect one at that. Law is only a rough blueprint, constantly revised and ammended as needed. But it is not permanent.

    Much of what was legal 400 years ago is not legal today. And much of what is legal today likely will not be legal in 400 years. Other things which are illegal may become legal also. The paradigm if law is in flux, as it tries to keep up with knowledge, technology and social conscience /culture.

    What is more fundamental than law are basic principles on which it relies. Do the minimum harm, while endeavouring to bring around the maximum benevolence. This is the basics of morality or ethics.

    The law is also generalised - a sweeping statement. It must apply to all subjects to be considered "fair" and equal". The irony being that the needs and situation of different subjects is not equal at all. There is always a marginalised group that has not been addressed and is thus vulnerable and blindsided.

    The law doesn't pick up on specific exceptions or sets of circumstances it has not considered yet. There are always untied "loose ends". These loose ends are both the source of denying rights/causing injustice under the current law - ie being moral but considered unlawful, as well as those exploiting and abusing blindspots/loopholes or "being immoral" without being treated as unlawful.

    This is the frontier of ammendment and revision of the current law to include those possibilities within it's framework. This is an endless game of catch up.

    Laws do not forsee. They only work in hindsight. Retrospection.
  • Wayfarer
    20.8k
    Correctional institutions are overpopulated due to the incorrect juristic notion that persons determine themselves to act, or not, by law.quintillus

    I think the juristic expection is simply that persons will observe the law. That doesn't constitute the sole determinative factor, only one of many.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    If everyone had "pure common sense" - in the sense that they could consider all possible outcomes of an action (foresight) , as well as how this would impact or affect others and their well being as well as the environment (rational empathy) and could then elect to take the least harmful path (benevolence) in light of the 2 former conditions, then we would not need Law nor a legal system at all. It would not exist as there would be no need for it to correct people who are already acting in the most prudent/appropriate manner.

    But people do not think so meticulously, often not even wanting to, acting off impulse, and everyone has a subjective sense of right and wrong, personal bias, delusions and prejudices, often acting irrationally to the common/"greater good" but "rationally" to the "individual good."

    The law tries to protect an ideal - "the hypothetical perfect citizen" and the ideals of such a person. Someone truly harmless, without fault, considerate, empathetic and wise or purely rationale and reasonable in action.

    Of course, failing to identify such a person, the closest stand in is the innocent - infants, children.

    Those adults who reflect or are close to this ideal in belief and behaviour are likely to never break the law, even without having a degree in law/ studying it, and if they do, the court is likely to review the case and rule in their favour. Ammending the law in such a case.
    But because everyone is flawed to some degree, even the supreme policy and law makers, the ideal good-doer is always at risk of being wrongly punished.
  • quintillus
    64

    A beautifully insightful and encouraging series of observations regarding the law Benj96.
  • quintillus
    64

    Again, Benj96, an exceeding uplifting and pleasing series of rich reflections.
  • quintillus
    64

    Yes
    The central fact which disconcerts me is how so many police persons are so totally taken with themselves and their position, that they condescend to mistreat others, who are free beings, as subjugate slaves.
  • Benj96
    2.2k
    Thank you for the kind words Quintillus. I'm glad I can add something of interest :)
  • Paine
    2k
    This is confusing:

    The law is a primary determinant of human conduct according to our legalistic society, NOT according to me and my understanding of how a human act originates. It is not actually possible for given law to be determinative of a human act.quintillus

    If we can agree that compliance with the law is not, or at least is more complicated, than various legal systems that have emerged to respond to crime, are you saying that enforcement of the law cancels the obligation of responsibility upon which it is based?
  • quintillus
    64

    I do not at all comprehend your question.
  • Paine
    2k

    I get that a lot.

    Let me try this from a different direction. Your OP asserts that people are incarcerated because the system has a faulty idea of why people do things. What change would help ameliorate that mistake?
  • quintillus
    64

    The change which I suggest is that our big shot doctors of jurisprudence, who currently act so high and mighty toward everyone else via their "law", seriously study the concept "determinatio est negatio",as it is highly developed in Part Four of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" entitled
    "Freedom", where an existential ontological description of how human action upsurges is given.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    In my opinion we don't have an explanation for human volitional action and how thoughts can lead to behaviour.

    But we know that language can cause or inhibit behaviour and considering the law is just language I don't see why it can't cause and inhibit action

    For example your post has caused me to respond and someone saying "come here" will make me respond and a sign saying "do not enter" will cause me not to enter.

    Whether I agree with the letter of the law, being aware of legislation will influence my behaviour.

    Also most people understand the motivation of the law and why it seeks to constrain their behaviour. Humans are sophisticated creatures rather than causally like Domino pieces and can weigh up the pros and cons of abiding by the law. I have the feeling the law itself is a tool to manipulate people in a way that is a complex causal nexus and peoples reasons for respond to it in various ways is also multifaceted complex and can involve self serving motives and power dynamics.
  • quintillus
    64

    Simple pure opinion has no meaning, no weight inside a debate. We do indeed have explanation of how behavior arises; I have provided specific reference thereto. None of us are or can be causally determined to act by what is; it is via what is not yet accomplished that we act. My post did not cause you to respond thereto; your personal freedom chose to provide us with your opinion. You are not a being who's intellect is in motion moved by something other than yourself; you are freedom and actually cannot be determined to act by what is. It is always by what is not that you act...Your consciousness felt a need to respond to my language; my language is not your mover, your being is.
  • unenlightened
    8.8k
    the concept "determinatio est negatio",as it is highly developed in Part Four of Sartre's "Being and Nothingness"quintillus

    It's been a long time since i read it, and it wasn't much fun as I remember it. But as I think - please correct if I am misremembering - Sartre was responding to the occupation of France by nazi Germany. It was from WW2 that certain principles evolved that set limits to the writ of law and scope of authority, such that, the concept of an 'illegal order' entered international law, along with crimes against humanity, and so on.

    That is to say that one has a choice — no choice but to make a choice, even under coercion, to obey or disobey. Law-makers are necessarily free to make moral or immoral laws, and folks are necessarily free to obey or disobey, and in this way personal responsibility always obtains.

    Thus @Cheshire chooses to waste time and money complying with a law, probably in order not to waste more time and money dealing with the consequences of refusal. Either way he is responsible for his own acts, and his obedience is not in itself a defence. Sartre basically invents a new sin of criminal obedience.
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    Making laws is something we do. Homo juridicus, or something like that. Maybe homo legistoris?

    Regardless, we won't stop making laws because they're "ontologically impossible." The law doesn't predict conduct, it assumes nothing. It's ascribed to, or it isn't. It's effective, or it's not.

    The existence of a law is one thing, its merits or demerits is are another thing. Whether a law be, is one inquiry; whether it ought to be or whether it agree with a given or assumed test, is another and a distinct inquiry. The existence of law is one thing; its merit or demerit is another. --John Austin
  • Cheshire
    1k
    Oddly enough the last two times I had to comply was to avoid the homeowners association community management company for towing it away from my own home. The administrator elected to interpret the by-laws of the community as stating any vehicle without a current state inspection to be effectively abandoned. So, in my case I was/am paying someone to threaten my possession of my legally owned vehicle with their arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes abandonment. Rules are funny things.
  • quintillus
    64

    It is, ultimately, not merely incorrect to deem law to be determinative of human conduct, it is delusional.
  • Ciceronianus
    3k
    It is, ultimately, not merely incorrect to deem law to be determinative of human conduct, it is delusional.quintillus

    Is the weather determinative of human conduct?
  • quintillus
    64
    [reply="Ciceronianus;808373"
    Only individual human beings are determinative of individual human conduct.

    At this point in human history most humans hold a scientistic view that their existence consists as matter causally in motion moved by external forces, e.g., that law causally moves persons to act and/or refrain from action. Which materialist scientistic view of action origination wholly fails to comprehend that human freedom is a constant self-movent thrust unto a not yet future.

    Weather is wholly concrete physical substance which exists as entirely equivalent to itself; whereas a human being never coincides with itself, being always elsewhere, projected out unto a not yet, intended, future. Persons freely choose responses to given weather, weather does not choose human responses.
  • Andrew4Handel
    2.5k
    Which materialist scientistic view of action origination wholly fails to comprehend that human freedom is a constant self-movement thrust into a not yet future.quintillus

    This seems to strip any relationship between a human and the external world.

    But as we know we are subject to physical and mental illness affecting our behaviour.

    It seems incoherent to posit no causal role for the physical world we seem to be in and our self. Language has a causal role and affects our emotions and appetites. All input can have an effect from profound to neutral.

    One thing I would agree on is that the law is arbitrary and non binding and should not be reified but is rather a tool to encourage certain behaviours and encourage temporary stability.

    We can lock people in prison for societies safety even without invoking a legal or moral framework just as a form of self defence. We agree to follow laws because some of them appear to benefit us.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment