Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Bruno, I mean GE Morton, You have answered well, and you wrote a compelling and convincing essay. That is, a compelling and convincing essay if and only if you ignore the definition you yourself provided that defines what justice is.
I have not ignored the definition, and have not altered it. I've explained the purpose of "motives" in that definition --- to allow for praise or even rewards for efforts that were not successful but were well-motivated. To allow for "consolation prizes," so to speak. The interpretation you wish to place on it leads to absurdities, as I've shown with the examples of the sprinters and the princess, which you do not address. Not only does it lead to absurdities, your interpretation contradicts other clauses in the definition: "requital of deserts," "merited rewards or punishments." Rewards and punishments are not meted out for motives; they're meted out for actions. At most, the motive driving an action may affect the magnitude of the reward or the severity of the punishment. Laudable motives are NOT substitutes for meritorious actions.

You do not address that absurdity. Nor do you address the motive/desire distinction --- that a desire only becomes a motive when action follows. Nor do you answer the questions regarding what is due someone who has acted meritoriously, and from whom is it due. Nor do you answer my question, "On what basis, per what criteria, are they [' . . . those who do not have the means . . .] deserving?" Surely you have some criteria in mind; surely you're not making a baseless, arbitrary claim, or merely expressing a sentiment.
In particular, in your entire essay you made special cases . . . "
If you're speaking of the sprinter example, or the princess example, or the worker example, in what sense are they "special cases"? They are perfectly typical cases --- the sort of garden-variety cases in which questions of justice arise every day, and often end up in court. Here are some others: a person injured by a drunk driver is due damages; a bank that has made a loan is due repayment; a landlord who lets an apartment is due rent; a person who has been libeled is due an apology, and perhaps damages; a customer who has paid for a product or service is due delivery of the product or service. If the injured person, the bank, the landlord, the person libeled, the customer fails to receive what they are due, an injustice is done.

Are those "special cases" also? If so, what counts as a non-special case, in your view? Note also, that in all of those perfectly typical cases, what is due is due from some specific person --- the bank, for example, is not due payment from a passerby on the street; it is only due payment from its borrower.
You also have some unclear issues with regard to what motivation is. Motivation is a desire to fulfill unfulfilled needs.
No, it is not. Motives and desires are not identical. A desire becomes a motive only when action follows. A person may desire, say, a pizza. If his wife surprises him by walking through the door with a pizza, he would be delighted and happily consume it. But unless it drives him out the door to the pizza shop, that desire is not a motive.

-- Updated August 21st, 2017, 10:49 am to add the following --
Hereandnow wrote: No, not just "lefties." Look, you seem to be entertaining a fiction set up in the minds of those who would like to see a change in language to reflect a hard reality, one which liberals are missing in their mistaken equation of fairness and justice.
Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm following that sentence. Are you suggesting that I am seeking a change in the language? I'm doing no such thing. The definitions of "justice" I gave are from standard dictionaries.
Here you want to bend 'justice' to create a new paradigm of what is right by law by explicit leaving out fairness.And in doing this, you change the discourse on matters of right and wrong, which is part and parcel of what our justice system is supposed to be. A system of justice that ignores fairness? But then, you could be suggesting that fairness is an ancillary consideration, one that can be invoked in certain cases where one must judge like cases in like ways.
Er, no. I'm not "bending 'justice' to create a new paradigm." I'm using the term as defined in standard dictionaries; I'm using the "old paradigm." Modern lefties are bending "fairness" by adding equality as an element of the definition, then assessing justice per that spurious standard.

A just action, decision, or policy --- one per which all parties involved receive what they are due --- is always fair, per the classical conception of fairness. But if it results in inequalities it will be deemed unfair by lefties.

As I said before, "fairness" is heavily context-dependent. Classically it means, in various contexts,

1. Playing by the rules (in games);

2. Evenly matched (in structured competitions, such as boxing or wrestling);

3. Impartiality (in weighing competing claims or judging guilt or innocence in a courtroom);

4. Just --- i.e., securing to each person what he is due (when apportioning praise or blame, rewards or punishments).

"Fairness," classically, does not entail or demand equality either, except in cases where performance is equal or claims have equal merit.

In general, when assessing the truth of a given proposition one appeals to other propositions considered more certain or less controversial than the proposition in question. What consitutes fairness, however, is even less certain and more controversial than justice. Until there is agreement as to the meaning and implications of "fairness," it can't be invoked to assess justice.
All laws should be just (not, all lawful decisions are just . . .
I agree.
Let's call this an analytic truth, a tautology. To be legal and unjust is a contradiction . . .
Oh, no. No proposition asserting a "should" or "ought" is analytic.
The assumption of guilt, this is interesting as it is an essential feature of justice, regardless of how absurd the laws are: your sentence is just because you're guilty. To me, this also is analytic, and any judge worth her gavel's thunder will tell you.
Oh, surely not. Alfie is (unquestionably) guilty of shoplifting a melon from a sidewalk vendor. He is sentenced to amputation of both hands, or sentenced to death, per the law in that jurisdiction. Is this sentence just?
An unjust law is not fair in that all justice requires a fairness in the moral dynamic between individual: . . .
Er, what does that mean? And have you noticed the statement is circular ("fair requires fairness")?
. . . there must be equality between, on the one side, a free and knowing agent of action, and on the other the world of just laws.
You're comparing apples and oranges. In what sense can there be an equality between someone's action and a law? You're losing me.
This is why we have degrees if criminal behavior, whether it was a freedom compromising passion that was in play, whether a bad childhood figures in, or if one is a child or mentally ill: these matter because any application of the law is only just if there is equal balance between knowing-in-freedom (an odd locution, but so what? That is why things are) and doing. This is why a failings in justice are called unfair.
In law those are called "mitigating factors." While I agree they should be taken into account in imposing sentences, I have no idea what you mean by "an equal balance between knowing-in-freedom and doing."
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by -1- »

I have no idea what you mean by "an equal balance between knowing-in-freedom and doing."
A balance between the criminal act, and the ability (but not fact) of perfectly clear understanding by the criminal of his or her own line of reasoning and decision or decision-tree which led him or her to perform the criminal act.

The basis for pardonable inaccurate interpretation of consequences is madness/retardation, or else uncontrollable impulsivity, or else insurmountable immaturity.

Many criminals in jail suffer from antisocial personality disorder, which ought to get them off the hook by reason of insanity. Others are in jail because they were drunk or under the influence and their judgment was severely impaired. They should be freed, too. In fact, the only people who are in jail and should continue to stay there are the Warden and the guards. They are there on their own accord, so no harm done if we lock them up and throw away the key. (-;
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

-1- wrote:Many criminals in jail suffer from antisocial personality disorder, which ought to get them off the hook by reason of insanity. Others are in jail because they were drunk or under the influence and their judgment was severely impaired. They should be freed, too. In fact, the only people who are in jail and should continue to stay there are the Warden and the guards. They are there on their own accord, so no harm done if we lock them up and throw away the key. (-;
Ah. So then what do you propose to do with these freed drunk drivers, robbers, rapists, wife-beaters, murderers, etc. --- stand by while they rob, rape, assault, murder someone else?

I agree with your (apparent) belief that criminal justice systems in most countries (actually, all that I know of) do not deliver justice --- but for the victims, not the criminals. They pay lip service only --- if that --- to securing restitution to the victim for his injuries and losses at the hand of the criminal, which is what justice requires ("secure to each person what he or she is due").

Those victims, BTW, not being responsible for their attacker's mental health, emotional stability, poor upbringing, low intelligence, or addictions, have no duty whatsoever to forgive the criminal for his crimes against them, on those or any other grounds, and absorb their losses and suffer their injuries in silence. The criminal's mental, emotional, educational, and social handicaps are his problems to solve, no one else's.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by -1- »

Look, GE Morton,I did not make up the rules... I just interpreted a rule because you asked what it meant. I told you what it meant, and I continued into some consequences of it.

And that is not even a rule, but a tenet in justice theory. Justice in practice and justice in theory don't often coincide. They do, but not always.

It does not matter what I think should happen to criminals who are insane, under the influence or too young. Do you think that my own opinion will be sought by a new generation of Founding Fathers, who will redraw the Constitution, and will take my instructions and apply them rigorously?

You asked a question, I replied by giving you a straight and direct answer to your question, and gave you what the logical consequences would be if people followed logic. But people DONT follow logic. That is the main backbone of the justice system. Law is not written by logic or by reason, it is written on experience.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Before I commit to any words in this topic, let me take a moment to convey a great respect to the company of thinkers in this thread: Hereandnow, GE Morton, and -1-, only because Lawskeptic is new. Although I believe that I only had the privilege of directly conversing with -1-.

The human most advanced brain among the Animalia kingdom (only kingdom in possession of such anatomical structure) is capable of collecting information through autonomic and somatic nervous system to “learn” from the past experiences. All of such experiences within the lifetime are in the framework of individual perception that stems from genetics (phenotypic expression of genes) and the environmental factors that cause the individual to react to the external environment, which collectively amounts to what can be called as the human mind.

Humans have the awareness of the consciousness as a result of that human mind, which allows for our ability to hold beliefs as a value and quality of the mind. All of our thoughts, words spoken, and actions are the result of individual mind in the context of consciousness. Everything we do is an outcome of free will in condition of the mind (ego) and the consciousness (super ego). We may not be able to express in words all of the essence of our being but all of us are driven by both forces.

About five years ago I began to write a “book”. Indicated by quotation marks because most likely it will never be published since it was mostly intended to crystallize for my own benefit the reasons for all my thoughts and what makes me who, why, and what I am. From here, I would propose that consciousness is mind’s maturity in comprehension of that which is more than the physical body and free will in strive or rejection of the higher achievement of the mind, which is not the same as consciousness described as a state of awareness in the sense of being awake. Instead, it implies more than the awareness of the physical reality. Words, concepts, only have a meaning in relation to the mind. For this, different people express a diverse understanding of the same words, regardless of the definition. This is directly related to the fact that each mind is different in variety of perception, in spite of the similarity of any given experience or event.

With this in mind, we should define our “words” that have a given meaning from our subjective perspective. We all are individuals that also give rise to a community of minds that is governed by similarities but also all the individual differences. Law; Justice; Fairness; are all concepts derived from the reality of the community (society). This could become a lengthy biological explanation of “what” we are, however, it should suffice to say at this juncture that we are both predators and social creatures, evident by our omnivorous nature. I have devised a simplified classification of human psychology of “motives”, based both on the genetic natural predispositions and the environmental factors that influence human behavior. From this perspective I attempt to understand the differences in perception of such concept as “law”; “crime”; “property”; “morality”; or even “love”.

The society of individuals can only be “adequately” characterized in context of the collective “mind” of the community. This is what Sociology is all about but it must be in the context of Psychology of individuals. The inadequacy of most social structures stems from an inherent antagonistic relationship of give and take from the Society vs Individual point of view, which is greatly exacerbated as the social community increases in size.
I also indicated in another post that I began to formulate a framework for a new type of social structure in an attempt to align the needs of an individual with the desires of the society. However, such undertaking proves to be quite difficult in the context of politics, economy, historical precedence, or the benefits of diversity vs balance. Nonetheless, I shell continue in my attempts in hope that the Natural Law is not a dead end.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Ranvier wrote:The inadequacy of most social structures stems from an inherent antagonistic relationship of give and take from the Society vs Individual point of view, which is greatly exacerbated as the social community increases in size.
I also indicated in another post that I began to formulate a framework for a new type of social structure in an attempt to align the needs of an individual with the desires of the society. However, such undertaking proves to be quite difficult in the context of politics, economy, historical precedence, or the benefits of diversity vs balance. Nonetheless, I shell continue in my attempts in hope that the Natural Law is not a dead end.
You might find that at least some of those difficulties vanish if you cease thinking of "society" as a moral agent.

Societies are not moral agents, or even sentient beings. They are merely groups of individuals so situated as to be able to interact. Societies have no interests, no desires, no beliefs, no values that are not reducible to the interests, desires, beliefs, and values of the individuals who constitute them, which, in any large society, will be infinitely diverse. Indeed, they have no properties, other than statistical ones, not reducible to properties of their members. Likewise, there are no conflicts between individuals and "society." All conflicts and antagonisms present in any society are conflicts between individuals, some of whom may join with others to pursue some common interest, or to thwart an interest of some other individuals which they perceive to be antagonistic to their own.

It is a commonplace assumption that governments "speak for," or represent, or even embody, the society in which they hold power. And of course they do no such thing. Governments are also groups of individuals, and they never speak for or represent more than some fraction of the individuals constituting the the society, often a very small fraction, and, too often, for no one but themselves. The only thing that distinguishes government from any other interest group in a society is that it holds the power to impose its values and beliefs upon others by force, and to force others to pursue its interests --- i.e., the interests of the individuals who constitute it and their clients, patrons, and dependents.

Modern, civilized societies are not collectives, not tribes, not "teams" or "big happy families." They are not "organic unities." They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They are "societies of strangers."* Their members have no common interests, no shared personal histories or experience, no overriding concern for the welfare of most of the other members, and no a priori obligations to one another.

* Term borrowed from Jared Diamond.

-- Updated August 23rd, 2017, 12:02 am to add the following --
Ranvier wrote:The inadequacy of most social structures stems from an inherent antagonistic relationship of give and take from the Society vs Individual point of view, which is greatly exacerbated as the social community increases in size.
I also indicated in another post that I began to formulate a framework for a new type of social structure in an attempt to align the needs of an individual with the desires of the society. However, such undertaking proves to be quite difficult in the context of politics, economy, historical precedence, or the benefits of diversity vs balance. Nonetheless, I shell continue in my attempts in hope that the Natural Law is not a dead end.
You might find that at least some of those difficulties vanish if you cease thinking of "society" as a moral agent.

Societies are not moral agents, or even sentient beings. They are merely groups of individuals so situated as to be able to interact. Societies have no interests, no desires, no beliefs, no values that are not reducible to the interests, desires, beliefs, and values of the individuals who constitute them, which, in any large society, will be infinitely diverse. Indeed, they have no properties, other than statistical ones, not reducible to properties of their members. Likewise, there are no conflicts between individuals and "society." All conflicts and antagonisms present in any society are conflicts between individuals, some of whom may join with others to pursue some common interest, or to thwart an interest of some other individuals which they perceive to be antagonistic to their own.

It is a commonplace assumption that governments "speak for," or represent, or even embody, the society in which they hold power. And of course they do no such thing. Governments are also groups of individuals, and they never speak for or represent more than some fraction of the individuals constituting the the society, often a very small fraction, and, too often, for no one but themselves. The only thing that distinguishes government from any other interest group in a society is that it holds the power to impose its values and beliefs upon others by force, and to force others to pursue its interests --- i.e., the interests of the individuals who constitute it and their clients, patrons, and dependents.

Modern, civilized societies are not collectives, not tribes, not "teams" or "big happy families." They are not "organic unities." They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They are "societies of strangers."* Their members have no common interests, no shared personal histories or experience, no overriding concern for the welfare of most of the other members, and no a priori obligations to one another.

* Term borrowed from Jared Diamond.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

GE Morton wrote:Societies are not moral agents, or even sentient beings.
We are in agreement on this point, it was never my intention to make such a claim.
They are merely groups of individuals so situated as to be able to interact. Societies have no interests, no desires, no beliefs, no values that are not reducible to the interests, desires, beliefs, and values of the individuals who constitute them, which, in any large society, will be infinitely diverse.
I would be inclined to agree in principle, somewhat. In practice that is not as clear since we refer to "civilization" of Western culture or Ancient Greece with understanding of certain "properties" of given culture. As an individual I find death penalty to be reprehensible but it may be practiced in my state as acceptable social norm. Indeed, they have no properties, other than statistical ones, not reducible to properties of their members. Again, I respect your perspective but it may not be that simple especially since the Supreme Court deemed reasonable to grant "person-hood" allowing companies to lobby the Congress as an "individual". Likewise, there are no conflicts between individuals and "society." It should be understood that I respect your opinion without repeating myself but we do have a term of "Antisocial personality" that in theory conflicts with the social norm. All conflicts and antagonisms present in any society are conflicts between individuals, some of whom may join with others to pursue some common interest, or to thwart an interest of some other individuals which they perceive to be antagonistic to their own.

It is a commonplace assumption that governments "speak for," or represent, or even embody, the society in which they hold power. Of course you are correct, although in theory they should appeal to their voter base if they wish to be elected. And of course they do no such thing. Governments are also groups of individuals, and they never speak for or represent more than some fraction of the individuals constituting the the society, often a very small fraction, and, too often, for no one but themselves. The only thing that distinguishes government from any other interest group in a society is that it holds the power to impose its values and beliefs upon others by force, and to force others to pursue its interests --- i.e., the interests of the individuals who constitute it and their clients, patrons, and dependents.

Modern, civilized societies are not collectives, not tribes, not "teams" or "big happy families." They are not "organic unities." They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They are "societies of strangers."* Their members have no common interests, no shared personal histories or experience, no overriding concern for the welfare of most of the other members, and no a priori obligations to one another. Not entirely true, for there is a reason for social subgroups that act in concord. This is why we learn about the history of our country. We share a common "official" language that we can identify with, especially abroad in a foreign environment, and identifies us by words we use or our accent. There are also non profit social movements that express concern not only for the environment but other humans or even animals.
In resolve to defend my argument of antagonistic relationship between society and the individual in "give and take dynamic", I will offer an example of security within the society at the expense of individual right to privacy or freedom of speech... There are plenty of posts in this regard, claiming limits to individual right in "hate speech" or "political correctness" that isn't aimed at an individual but is mandated by the concern for "social health" of particular social group. This is also a fundamental deliberation on Anarchism viewing the human collective from the point of view of an individual versus Socialism or even Communism granting rights to the collective at the expanse of the rights of an individual. "The rights of many outweigh the rights of few" vs "the rights of individual are paramount to many". Since there are no viable functioning Anarchist collectives, it is fair to presume that most human collectives are at the expense of an individual (ex. taxes, licenses, permits ect.). Following this logic, the greater the number of people within the "collective of strangers" the greater the chance for an individual to become "diluted" in the sea of strangers, with less voice and individual rights.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Ranvier wrote:In practice that is not as clear since we refer to "civilization" of Western culture or Ancient Greece with understanding of certain "properties" of given culture.
By "civilized society" I mean a society characterized by cities (the term derives from the Latin civitat, "city"), with a city being a community so large that most of its members do not know most of the others. I.e., civilized societies are "societies of strangers." Yes, different civilized societies have different properties, but those properties, other than statistical ones, are actually properties of their members.
. . . I respect your perspective but it may not be that simple especially since the Supreme Court deemed reasonable to grant "person-hood" allowing companies to lobby the Congress as an "individual".
Actually that is incorrect. The legal convention of regarding corporations as persons for certain legal purposes long predates --- by about 200 years --- the Citizens United decision. It is a matter of legal convenience --- to allow a group of persons who have agreed among themselves to act as one (via a corporate charter) to be treated as one with respect to property law, contract law and liability law. E.g., it would be impossibly cumbersome if a person injured by a defective Ford vehicle must sue all of Ford Motor Company's stockholders individually.

Moreover, the Citizen's United decision did not rest on the "legal fiction" of corporate personhood (of which the CU decision makes no mention). It --- and many precedent decisions --- rests on the actual personhood of a company's owners. Corporations are nothing but people, and those people --- the owners of the corporation --- do not lose their rights of free speech by joining together to express their views collectively, through a spokesman.
It should be understood that I respect your opinion without repeating myself but we do have a term of "Antisocial personality" that in theory conflicts with the social norm.
A "social norm" is a norm accepted by some significant fraction of the members of the society. It is not a norm of the society per se.
Not entirely true, for there is a reason for social subgroups that act in concord. This is why we learn about the history of our country. We share a common "official" language that we can identify with, especially abroad in a foreign environment, and identifies us by words we use or our accent.
There thousands of subgroups who act in concert for certain purposes. They never constitute society as a whole.
There are also non profit social movements that express concern not only for the environment but other humans or even animals.
All persons in a society have regard for some other persons (or other creatures). They do not have regard --- sufficiently strong to motivate them to act --- for most of the other members of their societies. With respect to most of them they are oblivious and indifferent.
Following this logic, the greater the number of people within the "collective of strangers" the greater the chance for an individual to become "diluted" in the sea of strangers, with less voice and individual rights.
Yes. That is a predictable result of a government with no effective constitutional limits on its powers combined with populist democracy.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by -1- »

Aha, GE Morton. You don't believe the power of statistics.

You don't believe that a certain number of people who share a statistic are similar to each other.

You don't believe that people who are similar may have the same motives, same goals, and they may cooperate to achieve these goals.

It is very hard for you to conceptualize that likeness is more than a statistical equality.

It is not possible to imagine society for you, because to you people of the same purpose never congeal into a coherent mass of people.

----------------

I can see that with your outlook, you are right in your opinion. You are basically arguing from a point of view that likeness in numbers is a statistical aberration, and it means nothing. After all, we are all individuals, you reason, and as such, coinciding expression of humanity are a mere coincidence, not a matter of social glue.

This is what dawned on me reading the above post of yours.

This is a futile argument you wage against others here on the board. I am not blaming you. You are not misguided, you are logical, and you are certainly intelligent. You have this difference in view, however, that similarities are coincidental statistics, while the rest of mankind attaches some significance to similarities between humans.

Philosophically you are right. But philosophically we, your opponents in this debate, are also right. This is not something that we can convince each other of: You can't convince us that societal similarities do not build communities that are based on more than convenience, mutual benefit and parallel wishes. We can't convince you of the opposite. Nobody has tried, to this point, because nobody here realized the huge significance in your outlook of the lack of possibility of cohesion based on similarity; to you it's only statistic, and though you keep repeating that, it never occurred to anyone of us, your opponents, that you deeply believe that we, humans, are disparate elements of society, with no connections other than statistical similarities.

I respect and understand now where you are coming from. It does not alter my stance on social cohesion, but at least I can see why you so vehemently make points that everyone opposes; because the points you make are perfectly logical once one accepts your stance on similarities being mere statistics.

You don't have to accept our view of seeing a bunch of similar people as a society, attracted together for some common goals. I don't want to convince you of it, I just want you to see that that is an alternative way, and a very valid alternative way, of looking at similarly minded people, and sensing that there is more cohesion between them than mere statistical similarities.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

Thank you GE Morton for your remarks. I must admit that I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable in the corporate law, although I was under the impression that lobbying of Congress was only allowed on behalf of the people. It appears to be a legal semantic window that opened this new possibility of lobbyist's representation of the corporate interests, who clearly do not represent the interests of the people working for the company. Unless we say that the interests of the company are the same as the interests of the people but not those who work there, as in what's good for the company is good for the people (share holders). Regardless, I think that both of us could agree that it became a "travesty" of Democracy in effective rule of oligarchy.

In regards to the society, I agree in principle with most of what you say. However, it doesn't seem to correlate with the reality. In drawing upon your earlier remarks:

"They are "societies of strangers."* Their members have no common interests, no shared personal histories or experience, no overriding concern for the welfare of most of the other members, and no a priori obligations to one another".



We are born into priori obligation revealed in taxation to accommodate for Social Security fond, Disability Act, Welfare system, Education with "no child left behind", Affirmative Action... any countless other social programs. The "society" effectively becomes an entity similar to a corporation, as in "people" vs an individual defendant in court cases. What you seem to describe is a "collection of strangers" more as in Anarchistic type of free society, that in principle may be preferable to which we are born into. Nonetheless, I'm actually involved in another thread debating the theory of "Universal Morality" framework, this is something that one must contend with in the "society" as an individual.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

-1- wrote:You don't believe that a certain number of people who share a statistic are similar to each other.

You don't believe that people who are similar may have the same motives, same goals, and they may cooperate to achieve these goals.

It is very hard for you to conceptualize that likeness is more than a statistical equality.

It is not possible to imagine society for you, because to you people of the same purpose never congeal into a coherent mass of people.
I have no idea from whence you've drawn those conclusions. I've said nothing of the sort.

Of course people who share a goal may cooperate to pursue it. For any given goal or interest a person may have, in any large society he will be able to find others who share that interest, and he may join with them to pursue that common interest. That interest, however, will not be shared by everyone in that society; it will not be a goal or interest of "society." It will never be more than an interest of that subgroup.
I can see that with your outlook, you are right in your opinion. You are basically arguing from a point of view that likeness in numbers is a statistical aberration, and it means nothing. After all, we are all individuals, you reason, and as such, coinciding expression of humanity are a mere coincidence, not a matter of social glue.
I don't know what you mean there. "Likeness in numbers"?

A shared interest can be a "glue" (so to speak) that can hold those who share it together. But there are no interests universally shared by everyone in any large society, and hence no "glue" binding all of them together --- in the sense of enlisting them all in pursuit of a common goal. If you disagree, please cite an example or two of a "social goal" which all members of a given society willingly pursue (being forced to pursue it at the point of government guns doesn't count).
We can't convince you of the opposite. Nobody has tried, to this point, because nobody here realized the huge significance in your outlook of the lack of possibility of cohesion based on similarity; to you it's only statistic, and though you keep repeating that, it never occurred to anyone of us, your opponents, that you deeply believe that we, humans, are disparate elements of society, with no connections other than statistical similarities.
Every person has connections with certain other persons. For every interest a person has, there will be others who share it. But there are no interests or goals shared by everyone in large societies (if you disagree, please cite some examples). Hence that interest will be merely that of some subgroup, not of "society" (as a whole). No is there ever "cohesion" among all the members of any large society on any issue or policy. Any proposal or policy declared (by the government or by some advocacy group) to be in "the national interest" or "the public interest" will never be more than the interest of certain people only. Not even in WWII, perhaps the closest approach to national unity seen in modern times, at least in the US and UK, was there truly unity -- there were Nazi sympathizers and opponents of the war in both countries.
You don't have to accept our view of seeing a bunch of similar people as a society, attracted together for some common goals.
I would be happy to see it that way, if you could cite some such goals. But I'm quite sure you can't. Those beliefs in "national unity," "social cohesion," and "social goals" are myths, easily refuted by casual observation of the structure and dynamics of any actual society.
User avatar
Ranvier
Posts: 772
Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
Location: USA

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by Ranvier »

This is precisely the reason I began to write a "book" because this world doesn't make sense to me. I hold a belief that I'm a rational person and as such there is a purpose to every action I take. Going outside to break a random car's window for no reason would be illogical and irrational. With this sentiment, I often ask people "where are we going as species?", to receive cliche answers... "to live"; "life sucks and then you die"; "to live to enjoy life"...
The most cohesive answer I receive is: "to make this world a better place"...

No purpose! We are cruising the ocean of life not knowing where we are going and why! Pure insanity, we might as well go outside to break car windows. So, yes, people invent their individual rationals of purpose and meaning to maintain sanity. At least religious folks have something to hold on to...
I won't indulge others in my conclusions about human purpose because it would be meaningless without understanding, where such insight comes from personal wisdom of life experience.
"...please cite an example or two of a "social goal" which all members of a given society willingly pursue (being forced to pursue it at the point of government guns doesn't count)"
.

- Pursuit of happiness
- Pursuit of good health
- Pursuit of not to starve or be homeless...lol
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

Ranvier wrote:No purpose! We are cruising the ocean of life not knowing where we are going and why!
Well, most people, I think, DO know where they're going, or at least, where they wish to go. And many of of them get there.
With this sentiment, I often ask people "where are we going as species?" . . .
Ah. You're asking the wrong question. Where we're going as a species is largely out of our hands, and impossible to predict in principle --- evolution being complex adaptive system. The relevant question, and one that is answerable, is, "Where am I going as an individual?" That one is largely up to you.
- Pursuit of happiness
- Pursuit of good health
- Pursuit of not to starve or be homeless...lol
Those are individual goals, not "social goals." And you can get near-universality if you make the goals general enough. But even those are not universal --- consider suicides, mendicant monks, the voluntary homeless, etc. "Pursuit of happiness" is an interesting one, in that it has no actual content. The "paradox of hedonism" has been remarked by many philosophers, from Aristotle to Mill to Sidgwick. It points out that happiness cannot be pursued directly; it only ensues with the successful pursuit of something else --- which varies enormously from person to person.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by -1- »

GE Morton wrote:
-1- wrote:You don't believe that a certain number of people who share a statistic are similar to each other.

You don't believe that people who are similar may have the same motives, same goals, and they may cooperate to achieve these goals.

It is very hard for you to conceptualize that likeness is more than a statistical equality.

It is not possible to imagine society for you, because to you people of the same purpose never congeal into a coherent mass of people.
I have no idea from whence you've drawn those conclusions. I've said nothing of the sort.
You said nothing of the sort. I am not merely regurgitating what you said. I am making inferences.

This is where I got it from. The following is a direct quote from you, and it speaks brilliantly how you don't believe that societies are more than mere individuals thrown together etc.
GE Morton wrote:Societies are not moral agents, or even sentient beings. They are merely groups of individuals so situated as to be able to interact. Societies have no interests, no desires, no beliefs, no values that are not reducible to the interests, desires, beliefs, and values of the individuals who constitute them, which, in any large society, will be infinitely diverse. Indeed, they have no properties, other than statistical ones, not reducible to properties of their members. Likewise, there are no conflicts between individuals and "society." All conflicts and antagonisms present in any society are conflicts between individuals, some of whom may join with others to pursue some common interest, or to thwart an interest of some other individuals which they perceive to be antagonistic to their own.

It is a commonplace assumption that governments "speak for," or represent, or even embody, the society in which they hold power. And of course they do no such thing. Governments are also groups of individuals, and they never speak for or represent more than some fraction of the individuals constituting the the society, often a very small fraction, and, too often, for no one but themselves. The only thing that distinguishes government from any other interest group in a society is that it holds the power to impose its values and beliefs upon others by force, and to force others to pursue its interests --- i.e., the interests of the individuals who constitute it and their clients, patrons, and dependents.

Modern, civilized societies are not collectives, not tribes, not "teams" or "big happy families." They are not "organic unities." They are randomly-assembled groups of unrelated, independent, autonomous individuals who happen, by accident of birth, to occupy a common territory. They are "societies of strangers."* Their members have no common interests, no shared personal histories or experience, no overriding concern for the welfare of most of the other members, and no a priori obligations to one another.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Does Natural Law Theory reach a dead end?

Post by GE Morton »

-1- wrote:You said nothing of the sort. I am not merely regurgitating what you said. I am making inferences.
Well, the inferences you're drawing do not follow from the text you quoted.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021