Societal Rules and Laws Vs Education
  • John d baptist
    3
    What is best for a society, laws, education; or a combination of both?

    The following questions aren't meant as rhetorical, nor am I wishing to examine each and every law ever passed. This isn't an argument about individual or societal freedoms or rights.

    Fact is some laws appear to encourage misdoings, while others frustrate the best of us. It doesn't seem to matter which country a person lives in, the same situation repeats. Have current laws ever worked in any society or is it individual ethics that work best?

    Does anyone do, or not do, anything because there are laws or do we follow our own ethical and moral believes which just happen to abide by the current laws? If so, what should we consider to be just punishment for not following laws as prescribed? What would be 'fair'?

    For example: when a judge passes a sentence of life imprisonment or death for the offence of murder, is it a 'just' sentence or an attempt at vengeance on behalf of the victim and their family? Is the sentence a fair and just punishment for the crime or is it being used as a deterrent for others who might think the same and does it work?

    Are we deluding ourselves?

    When new laws are written do they create an environment that is more peaceful or do they encourage offenders to be more extreme?

    I have never been a believer in crime and punishment. I don't believe offenders are 'rehabilitated' in a prison atmosphere. They change because of self-belief that they can do better. The system puts them with other prisoners who may or may not share their belief. It doesn't matter how many programs are introduced within the system, each program may only last for an hour once a week, the rest of the time they spend with other prisoners. However what would be a better way?

    Something that is obvious to me is that when a law is passed, even when it's based on common ethics and morals, if there isn't 100% commitment from the whole of society it is doomed to fail (any adventure away from the law is a failure of the law).
    John d baptist Options
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    I like laws. I like for examples that you have to pass exams before you can call yourself a doctor, that if you sell food, you have to list the ingredients, and submit to hygiene inspections, that you are not allowed to print your own money, that you have to drive on the one side of the road and pass a test and have insurance. These are laws that make life better, even if not everyone likes them and not everyone always obeys them.

    One of the neat things about putting people in prison is that it takes them out of circulation for a while, if they are rapists or violent or fraudsters, this is quite nice for the rest of us.

    So while law requires general consent, it does not require 100% commitment to be beneficial; while sometimes laws can be counter-productive, and sometimes they can be oppressive, it is the exception rather than the rule.
    unenlightened Options
  • John d baptist
    3
    Interesting.
    A basic way at looking at law.
    I also don't have an issue with tests and exams, however what happens many times, and more frequently in some cases than others, is that the very rules that a person has to show obedience to in order to obtain the certification are soon enough put aside. In some instances the certification is used as justification for the wrong doing.
    Also an interesting concept, putting people in prison takes them out of circulation. Is that all that prison is? Is that the fundamental of society? Not looking at rehabilitation or reentry into society's norm, just take them out of circulation for a while - the longer the better?
    Again are we being delusional? Are we really satisfied that when a law is enacted there are going to be a percentage of society that will reject the law because it doesn't suit their purpose? That may even bypass other societal laws in order to bypass this law? All laws have a 100% commitment requirement by the very nature that they are defined as laws. By labeling some laws as 'counter-productive' and others 'oppressive' we are stating that those laws are counter to our morals and ethics which then makes such laws unworkable. Society becomes divided.
    Of course there are some laws that have been introduced in order to justify retrospectively actions already taken.
    John d baptist Options
  • unenlightened
    8.7k
    I think society is divided because people are divided within themselves; it is a matter of psychology rather than law. If society was not divided, there would be no law, merely custom. It is because we are greedy, careless of others, and selfish that we have to restrain ourselves. In that sense it is always unsatisfactory.

    Normally there is a threefold justification of punishments: retribution, reform, and deterrence. These are additional to the immediate benefit of prevention already mentioned. We know that we are greedy, and want to take stuff without paying, and we know that the distribution system of shops cannot work on that basis, so we seek to deter with the threat of punishment, and reform with the act of punishment.

    Retribution is, to my mind a concession to, and substitute for, revenge, and thus a way of avoiding feuds. This gives rise to the notion of proportionality. The best deterrence and reform is execution or a life sentence; there is no recidivism. But execution for dropping litter, while effective, would be disproportional to the offence.

    But you are wrong about this:
    All laws have a 100% commitment requirement by the very nature that they are defined as laws. — John d baptist

    Most laws incorporate exceptions, from speed limits excepted for the emergency services to killing another excepted for self defence.

    By labeling some laws as 'counter-productive' and others 'oppressive' we are stating that those laws are counter to our morals and ethics which then makes such laws unworkable. — John d baptist

    Well the laws of slavery in the US and elsewhere were perfectly workable, but morally repugnant to me, but not, presumably to those who enacted them. The law is merely another human construction, and is prey to all the human failings that it seeks to ameliorate.

    You seem to be starting from an anarchist perspective. I have some sympathy for that, but I fear we already live in an anarchy; there is no law against forming governments, making laws and imposing punishments. And given that folks just insist on doing it, there is nothing for it but to try and make the best laws we can. If we don't impose our hopefully liberal, proportionate law, the Mafia will impose their rather harsher and more arbitrary law on us.
    unenlightened Options
  • John d baptist
    3
    I'm becoming more concerned with what I see rather than being an anarchist.
    Most laws incorporate exceptions, from speed limits excepted for the emergency services to killing another excepted for self defence. — unenlightened
    I don't see the exception of ambulances as being a failure of the law rather an allowance within the law however self defense is an admission of a failure with the law. That failure is fueled by community moral and ethical standing against how the law was written in the first place.
    As far as slavery laws, a number of countries had allowed it. The reasoning being there was a moral and ethical belief dating to prior to the Romans and Greeks. From my limited understanding, even in the US there was the same belief. The change away from this belief is still in flux today with a few countries holding on to the belief and laws.
    I think society is divided because people are divided within themselves; it is a matter of psychology rather than law. If society was not divided, there would be no law, merely custom. It is because we are greedy, careless of others, and selfish that we have to restrain ourselves. In that sense it is always unsatisfactory. — unenlightened
    It is unfortunate that this is so, not just in the US but to some extent in most countries in the world however I believe psychology is powered by morals and ethics which form the basis of all laws. There was a time when most laws where not written and people did live according to 'custom'. Socially accepted behavior is the norm and no one questions it. Hence my questioning.
    Greedy, careless of others, selfish - it would be interesting to look at what has made so many take this road. Certainly I don't think everyone thinks this way. The majority of people I have met haven't held this viewpoint. In fact, most people want nothing more than to live life according to their family morals and ethics and they live within the society of their choosing because they see a fit with their beliefs.
    John d baptist Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment