Law and Justice - is there ANY relationship?

[Deleted]

I shall begin this post with a quotation from St Augustine of HIppo, the celebrated Christian philosopher.

'For what are states but large bandit bands, and what are bandit bands but small states?'

Ultimately, I cannot disagree with Augustine. Some states, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, are more obviously large-scale criminal organisations, but even the laxest governments remain essentially conspiracies against the public welfare.

I should now like to introduced the theory first put forward by the Greek philosopher Thrasymachus. He said 'justice is simply the interest of the stronger." That principle is oftern formulated as 'might is right.'

Many eminent thinkers have subscribed to this viewpoint, particularly Hobbes, Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Gentile, Marx, Engels and at times Rousseau.

Many attempts have been made to answer Thrasymachus but few of them have been remotely credible. The most influential approaches have been either some kind of 'law' theory, which claims that there exists a kind of transcendental principle governing actions which we simply have no choice but to obey unquestioningly because it 'is' right.

Another influential move is the Utilitarian position, which is generally formulated as 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number.' If Kant is the most imoressive exponent of a 'law' theory of justice, John Stuart Mill is the most credible of the Utilitarian philosophers. Rawls is perhaps the leading modern Utilitarian.

Before Darwin, most philosophers debated the issue abstractly, After 'The Origin of Species,' sociologists, political theorists, advocates of jurisprudence and philosophers began to factor evolution into the equation. A school arose known as 'Social Darwinism,' which claimed to find support for Thrasymachus' position within the natural world. Its opponents, who formed no settled school but were often anarchists or libertarians, found evidence of co-operation within nature. Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid' is perhaps the best expression of their viewpoint, as Stephen's 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' is of the opposite position.

In essence, I believe:

1) Governments are a criminal conspiracy against the public good

2) Laws are, like prisons, police forces, and the military, simply methods of coercing, exploiting and oppressing the people

3) Justice lies, and can ONLY lie, outside the framework of law and government altogether and within the body of the citizenry.

I will defend my views in subsequent posts but would be interested to learn members' reactions.

[beth]

I read this with a powerful sense of deja vu floating around my head. We may not have been just right here before, but we've been close. I think, in fact, I got in over my head last time. ;D

So, let's say that in regard to government, might does lead to "right" - as in the power to skew things to make it so.

Means tough luck if one is at the bottom of the power totem pole and generally oppressed. Still, most of the population is hardly affected except by the rise and fall of tax rates and retail prices.

My point - unless we have enough interest to examine the power structure and political climate, and voice objections, that state of affairs hardly touches us at all.

IMO, currently, in this country, government - all 3 branches - is owned by big business, coerced by their lobbiest and manipulated by their whims. And, yet, life goes on. The media is a kind of fetid liaison between the people and the ruling factions because we allow it - even reward them for their machinations.

Wailing and moaning won't help.

What would you suggest?

[Wonder Woman]

I don't know why, but I'm envisioning us without laws, without punishment, without government.............

Which, naturally leads me to wonder (which, btw, is why I chose my screen-name ~ I'm not under the illusion I'm a superhero).

Would we be worse-off or better-off without big daddy's controls?

First, I think, wow ~ a world without laws? Are you mad? People amok, no wrongs righted.

Ah, but then I think you might just be onto something... Maybe ~ just only maybe ~ people given the right to live as they please, do as they please, will become more 'community' minded, more likely to embrace one another as equals. More likely to govern themselves.

Then, I think... are you mad?

Lotsa food for thought, Mike... as is expected of you by now!

[Greylek]

Apr 27, 2010 17:38:52 GMT -5 @mikemarshall said:

I shall begin this post with a quotation from St Augustine of HIppo, the celebrated Christian philosopher.

'For what are states but large bandit bands, and what are bandit bands but small states?'

Ultimately, I cannot disagree with Augustine. Some states, such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia under Pol Pot, are more obviously large-scale criminal organisations, but even the laxest governments remain essentially conspiracies against the public welfare.

I should now like to introduced the theory first put forward by the Greek philosopher Thrasymachus. He said 'justice is simply the interest of the stronger." That principle is oftern formulated as 'might is right.'

Many eminent thinkers have subscribed to this viewpoint, particularly Hobbes, Fichte, Hegel, Nietzsche, Gentile, Marx, Engels and at times Rousseau.

Many attempts have been made to answer Thrasymachus but few of them have been remotely credible. The most influential approaches have been either some kind of 'law' theory, which claims that there exists a kind of transcendental principle governing actions which we simply have no choice but to obey unquestioningly because it 'is' right.

Another influential move is the Utilitarian position, which is generally formulated as 'the greatest happiness of the greatest number.' If Kant is the most imoressive exponent of a 'law' theory of justice, John Stuart Mill is the most credible of the Utilitarian philosophers. Rawls is perhaps the leading modern Utilitarian.

Before Darwin, most philosophers debated the issue abstractly, After 'The Origin of Species,' sociologists, political theorists, advocates of jurisprudence and philosophers began to factor evolution into the equation. A school arose known as 'Social Darwinism,' which claimed to find support for Thrasymachus' position within the natural world. Its opponents, who formed no settled school but were often anarchists or libertarians, found evidence of co-operation within nature. Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid' is perhaps the best expression of their viewpoint, as Stephen's 'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity' is of the opposite position.

In essence, I believe:

1) Governments are a criminal conspiracy against the public good

2) Laws are, like prisons, police forces, and the military, simply methods of coercing, exploiting and oppressing the people

3) Justice lies, and can ONLY lie, outside the framework of law and government altogether and within the body of the citizenry.

I will defend my views in subsequent posts but would be interested to learn members' reactions.

I don't believe that law and justice are the same. You can have laws without justice.

The problem I have is with social Darwinism. (To get the "Dawrin award" is not a compliment). To bring in Dawrinism (for me anyway) brings in laws that enforce what Hitler did and breed superiority. That is not justice.

[Erasmus]

I can't really get into this right now. I agree about social Darwinism and I am not convinced that Darwin in any case got evolution right - hell, even he accepted sexual as well as random choice.

Law is whatever it says it is. Justice I think can be pushed back to a more general principle of Do not to others what you would not have them do to you (the 'silver rule')

One can claim for kinds of anarchism and Ayn Rand supporters do the most, but in reality they all depend on agreed belief in some meta-law that because everybody believes in it, will prevent anybody from abusing the situation to suit themself. Been there, done that, don't work. We have all the self-regulating finance that didn't regulate pussy[-cat to make it decent]. We developed governments because without them, the bloke with the biggest sword ruled the roost. Sorry - in this respect, the more government the better, and the reason Stalin and Hitler went amiss, because they were not what The People really wanted to protect their interests.

Working in and around the offshore finance industry prompted me towards Communism, although recognizing that had to be brought up to date, mainly by admitting that women and family relationships exist as the reason we do all this stuff. Reading Trotsky more recently, I am fully on his side against the Stalinists and Capital-feudalists.

Look at it and decide for yourself. I have done, and every time I check one of these 'names' that are instant lepers, I come out even more on their side than before. Ayn Rand is an exception: I honestly did try to read Atlas Shrugged and got about as far into it as I did Finnegan's Wake. It's another Pilgrim's Progress, all for those who believe in it already and want some 'literary' support, crackpot false situations to suit the agenda for those looking for a manifesto worth convincing them.

[iamjumbo]

neanderthal man didn't have government, or laws. as long as there is no interaction between any two people, it is obviously not necessary.
however, once there are two people in the same environment, rules have to be established. that,of course, necessitates a means of ensuring that the rules are followed, and a remedy when they are not.
EVERY relationship, marriage, village, city, or country, has rules that the participants agree to follow. unless you have no association whatsoever with another person, you agree to follow them

[gabriel]

Huh? Trotsky? Anti-capitalism? Thrasymachus? WTH was that?

For people to get along with each other, you have to have rules. Otherwise you just end up killing each other. For rules to work, they have to be policed. For the policing to be fair, you have to have justice. Which the majority has to agree on. Which means you have to have government.

The Magic Roundabout. Which, by the way, was a great kids' show.

Gabriel

[Wonder Woman]

In the end, don't we each decide for ourselves which rules to comply with and which are worth breaking? Don't we all follow our own code of ethics and morality?

[Deleted]

Thank you for the variety of comments, all of which have been intelligent and perceptive.

I am of course putting on my devil's advocate hat here because (although in theory I am an anarchist) in practice I recognise the difficulty, perhaps impossibility, of the realisation of such a vision.

Nevertheless I am a genuine libertarian. Almost the ONLY aspect of Cameron's idiotic posturings that resonates with me is his call for the community to act rather than simply rely upon the state to sort out all their problems.

I very much believe that we are neither intrinsically good nor bad. I also believe that, while specific cases may require us to examine complex moral dilemmas, at the heart of ANY system of morality MUST be the notion of kindness, compassion, call it what you will.

What are crimes but a violation of that spirit of kindness?

What are laws but a desire to impose revenge for a violation of that spirit (I will for the moment allow such obviously unjust laws as slavery or genocide to pass by because on the whole most countries have moved on from that position.)

I find that the desire to punish offends me because it too shows a lack of compassion.

Of course society needs protection from criminals - but who is the bigger criminal - a 15-year old boy who robs a liquor store or Bernie Madoff?

Who is a bigger murderer - Marianne Bachmeier who killed her daughter's rapist and murderer or Richard Ramirez?

Who is a bigger criminal - Dick Cheney or a street corner drug dealer?

[Erasmus]

Ursula le Guin imaged a truly anarchist society in The Dispossessed. Even names are computer-generated. Of course everybody has to believe in some very basic rules and some are are no alcohol or money and everyone entitled to very basic free food and 'sanctuary'. If somebody has better food (or anythng else) they don't want to give you, they have no requirement to do so. So making yourself unpopular can make life pretty drab an unpleasant.

Since there are no laws you can in theory do what you like to anybody - but knowing that, somebody else is likely to do it back, so anybody in fear because of anti-social acts is allowed to reside in the sanctuary, making it in effect a self-selecting prison. It's a poor society because in a mixture of exile and escape, the home world allowed believers to settle a habitable but bleak moon. 180 years later, one scientist Shevek is invited to lecture on the home world.

What makes it interesting is that Shevek has his doubts about his society and his contact with the old world has made him unpopular. Le Guin shows how even under anarchism, individuals can create their own little cliques and empires. However when he visits what are extreme versions of Capitalism (early Victorian attitudes with modern technology) Communism (rigid dictatorship in the name of anarchism) he realizes than no society can ever be perfect unless people continually keep it from going stale (a sort of continuous revolution approach) and returns with that in mind.

This much, I definitely agree with although with some reservations about ownership. She has forgotten sentimental value

Odo wrote:

'A child free from the guilt of ownership and the burden of economic competition will grow up with the will to do what needs doing and the capacity for joy in doing it. It is useless work that darkens the heart. The delight of the nursing mother, of the scholar, of the successful hunter, of the good cook, of the skilful maker, of anyone doing needed work and doing it well, - this durable joy is perhaps the deepest source of human affection and of sociality as a whole.

From Ursula Le Guin's The Dispossessed, Page 207.

www.takver.com/me/odonian.htm