How do you know murder is wrong?


moralist

Recommended Posts

Ba’al wrote: Justice for one is justice for all. One cannot have justice unless the rights of all are upheld. end quote

It is a thorny issue. I would start by saying *justice* is a valid concept only when two or more people are involved. It does not exist between a human and nature, (or the universe.) And consider the fact that even in the United States, land of the free and home of the brave, some people were once considered unequal. All citizens were not entitled to the justice expected and demanded by others through our laws and courts, so I heartily agree with Ba’al: the rights of all ‘must be’ upheld for justice to exist within society.

It is not completely relevant but an argument could also be made that justice is not equal if one litigant can pay for a better lawyer, or to go back to colonial times, some people were “indentured servants” and others slaves, and that was legal even under our Constitution.

I don’t think the concept of *indentured* is the same as a *contractual agreement,* though I may be wrong. What if millionaire and visionary, Elan Mush starts a viable colony on Mars but to go there you must sign a contract stating that you will work as directed on Mars for ten years? That does not sound unfair or “rights breaking” to me.

Peter  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 822
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, anthony said:

See, you make the same error. This is "justice" in the personal arena.

Add: Justice is an Objectivist virtue, btw.

what the fuck does that mean? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

None of these difficult questions can be answered a priori.  Any "answers"  are the result of people doing what they think or feel

Well, no. It's solvable with the Square of Opposition.

Quote

The purposes and limitations of a first principle are: (1) to establish the context and scope of discussion; (2) to affirm the existence of a fundamental truth pertaining to the topic generally; and (3) to define that truth, employing the least ambiguous and most cognitively fruitful concepts that are logically germane to the definition. Men and women have reasoned about law for centuries. Familiar terms, the relations of which are obvious in the structure of a predicate, compel any adversary to concede or to contradict squarely, because a first principle necessarily addresses a fundamental question. The most fundamental issue in law is justice -- not electoral processes or delegated powers, but the right to public justice. [Laissez Faire Law, p.166]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Peter said:

. How did Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini fail to govern their own morality?

They had no morality to govern.

Those secular dictators were a natural consequence of secularist populations who were just as evil as they were because they failed to govern their own morality. It's a perfect match of evil people getting exactly the evil leaders they deserve.

Dictators could only scream from inside a padded cell wearing a jacket with the sleeves tied in back, if it wasn't for millions and millions of evil people eager to do their bidding.

 

Greg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

what the fuck does that mean? 

You did a superficial scan and think you know what Rand's explanation of "justice" is. Go back and read it, if you're interested. Clue: not anything near your comprehension, entailing law or individual rights..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Justice for one is justice for all.  One cannot have justice unless the rights of all are upheld. 

This is a merry go-round one cannot get on to ride. One exception wipes out "justice"?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Rand saw the world an as ethical landscape, no interest in philosophy of law or adversarial due process.

A bit broader, the landscape, Wolf. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, rights, Capitalism, government.

Maybe she tired - ran out of time, maybe she left something for law scholars to do? Or right, perhaps she had no interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

A bit broader, the landscape, Wolf. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, rights, Capitalism, government.

Maybe she tired - ran out of time, maybe she left something for law scholars to do? Or right, perhaps she had no interest.

Nothing wrong with Rand's work, always inspiring. That's not the problem.

Quote

Sadly, a moral principle never reaches beyond itself. Its ethical arms are too short, extending no farther than one man's soul, one man's purpose and lifespan. We have to look elsewhere for political guidance, because the thing at issue is "a nation of laws and not of men."

[Laissez Faire Law, p.42]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Nothing wrong with Rand's work, always inspiring. That's not the problem.

 

The excerpt from LFL is strong. And why "look elsewhere"? You only need to press the connection further, from "a nation of laws and not of men" -- to man, and individual man. The law is for him, while not "of" him nor by him. No? A level playing field, as it's put, is to the rational citizen's objective good, and his own ethical reach, "soul" and "purpose" remains his to do alone. (Concede - I'm out of my depth with law, only suggesting).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, anthony said:

The excerpt from LFL is strong. And why "look elsewhere"? You only need to press the connection further, from "a nation of laws and not of men" -- to man, and individual man. The law is for him, while not "of" him. No? A level playing field, as it's put, is to the rational citizen's objective good, and it is up to him to sort out his own ethical reach, "soul" and "purpose". (Concede - I'm out of my depth with law, only suggesting).

Explained elsewhere, perhaps a little clearer

Quote

The philosophy of law is a separate branch of science, independent of ethics. Moral inquiry pertains specifically to the interests, powers, and dilemmas of an individual, epitomized by the question: "What shall I do?" Legal philosophy addresses impersonal administration of public justice, litigation among parties in dispute, the combined might of a community, and custodial guardianship of certain individuals who are unable or legally prohibited to conduct their own affairs. [LFL, p.166]

I know it sounds peculiar, but murder is unlawful because it is a misuse of the police power (right of self defense) and wrongly denies the murder victim due process of law. The topic is addressed specifically in The Freeman's Constitution. But the wider question is more interesting and important. Why must there be philosophy of law, independent of morality?

Quote

It is a first principle of justice that no man should judge his own cause. [LFL, p.69]

Some of my critics have asserted that the best law is no law, pleading a bald contradiction in terms, as if acquittal was their birthright, a perfect haven of immunity, guarded by an impassable moat. Men are incapable of confessing openly that they want to escape justice. Friend or enemy of due process, we declare with one voice that our conduct is fair and honorable, with malice toward none. The claim is usually false. In simple, 18th century language: Men are not angels. Our protestations of innocence and truth are frequently exaggerated and unwarranted. That's why we need courts of justice, with compulsory production of evidence, cross examination, and felony penalties for perjury. Men lie. We also remember wrongly, forget, etc. Evildoers should not be allowed to judge their own innocence. Nor is it sane or wise to treat accusation as proof, condemning someone without fair trial of fact. [LFL, pp.160-161]

Laissez faire constitutional law flows from a single proposition, which is that no one may legally judge his own cause of action or act to penalize another without fair public trial and impartial due process of law. Laissez faire law is discovered and demonstrated in the process of litigation and trial. It cannot be legislated, codified, or imposed by a "lawgiver." [Opinion of Counsel, addressed to Laissez Faire City Clerk, Jan. 2000]

There is no personal right to exact vengeance or to obstruct justice and due process of law. [Art. IV, Freeman's Constitution]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 So chimpanzees and bonobos...

Bob looks up to monkeys as ideals for his own behavior.

This is the disease of amoral liberal secularism.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

The topic is addressed specifically in The Freeman's Constitution.

The Freeman's Constitution will always be an unattainable intellectual fantasy to those who fail to govern their own behavior...

...just as those who fail to govern their own behavior will always create a bureaucracy to govern them.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tears in my eyes this morning, new book review of The Tar Pit:

"This is a tough novel about a world with real evil in it that requires tough choices by ordinary individuals with lives and loves to lose. Without a commitment from citizens like these, every day, the fabric of our civilized cooperative effort at community would quickly disintegrate."

As important as the rule of law is to restrain the state, private action is far more important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Well, no. It's solvable with the Square of Opposition.

 

The "square of opposition"  is an inference diagram  applicable to the constipated Aristotelian logic of categorical syllogism.  This diagram does NOT supply true propositions   categorical  or otherwise.  Valid inference rules do not tell anyone which premises  are true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

.....Justice....

 

Justice.  Justice?   What is Justice?  On alternate Tuesdays  of months  containing the letter "R",    Justice is Revenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

This is a merry go-round one cannot get on to ride. One exception wipes out "justice"?

--Brant

That is why we see so little "justice" in reality. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Justice.  Justice?   What is Justice?  On alternate Tuesdays  of months  containing the letter "R",    Justice is Revenge. 

Justice is mostly as defined by law as in the mind's eye, which may or may not obtain and the law itself may perpetrate injustice.

Justice, however, has a huge moral component which informs the legal.

Natural justice is what you do to yourself when you cause an injustice and the bad that you do comes back to you

--Brant

legal and/or moral, the conversation goes on--interminably, especially on this forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2017 at 3:58 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

None of these difficult questions  can be answered  a priori.   Any "answers"   are there result of people doing what they think or feel is fair.   Primates (which include us)  seem to have an "intuition" about such things and an impulse  toward rectitude.  So chimpanzees and bonobos work out ways of establishing dominance and resolving conflicts.  Not a single answer or resolution is  graven upon tablets of stone. Answers from Above seem to be a story that humans like to  tell themselves. 

So do wolves.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

So do wolves.

--Brant

How so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

 

Natural justice is what you do to yourself when you cause an injustice and the bad that you do comes back to you

That is, in essence, consequentialism.   Which is an empirical approach.  We learn about consequences  the hard way for someone.  Sometimes ourselves, sometimes others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Justice.  Justice?   What is Justice?  On alternate Tuesdays  of months  containing the letter "R",    Justice is Revenge. 

This is a question only a secular amoralist who hasn't the slightest idea of why murder is wrong could ever ask..

 

Greg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is why we see so little "justice" in reality. 

There is no "we" except in the amoral secular liberal collective. Only the unjust "see so little justice in reality", because they have chosen to be blind to the connection between what they do and what happens to them as the result of what they do.

This requires an abysmal lack of self awareness.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg wrote: The Freeman's Constitution will always be an unattainable intellectual fantasy to those who fail to govern their own behavior . . . just as those who fail to govern their own behavior will always create a bureaucracy to govern them. end quote

Ba’al responded to the idea of individuals who are laws unto themselves: Justice. Justice? What is Justice?  On alternate Tuesdays of months containing the letter "R", Justice is Revenge. end quote

Greg, some bureaucracy is not necessarily a bad thing, as with the U.S. Constitution, and it is necessary to protect individual rights. I want objective laws. I want the police and courts because without them, it would be revenge and not justice, depending on your point of view. But periodically we need a mini revolution as with Trump . . . but only to a degree, because I don’t think we need shed the blood of tyrants if we are talking about previous Presidents. I suppose the most tyrannical President was the guy in the wheel chair, FDR. Since then it has been governmental power creep.

Watch to see if President Trump lowers the budget and decreases the deficit, and keeps us out of wars with “superior tactics.” He is definitely doing away with regulations at a fast pace. So, at the end of the year will we be able to say, we are freer now than when past Presidents were in residence at the White House? Will 2018 be a good and prosperous year?

Life is like spinning the wheel on The Price is Right. A bit of finesse can work, and you have two spins to get a dollar. And then you get a bonus spin. Trump is our bonus spin.

Peter   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now