The discussion centers on the relationship between laws and beliefs, exploring how laws shape societal beliefs and whether they reflect the majority's views. Participants examine the implications of laws in various contexts, including governance, justice, and social behavior, without reaching a consensus on the nature or justification of laws.
Participants express a range of views on the nature of laws and their relationship to societal beliefs, with no clear consensus on whether laws are justified or reflective of the majority's beliefs. Disagreements persist regarding the effectiveness and fairness of the legal system.
Participants highlight various assumptions about the role of government, the nature of justice, and the influence of societal beliefs on lawmaking, which remain unresolved throughout the discussion.
laws are what holds beliefs together. without laws there would be no rememberance of our beliefs.
I think that a stable government, even a dictatorship, is a reflection of the way the people think.But do you think they are trully justified to the majority of the peoples beliefs or do you think they justified to what the government thinks.
But to other people, who think differently, this is just, and the laws won't change until they agree with you. It may be right or wrong to you, but to the universe, there is not much of an entity of Justice to regard or disregard. IMHO...some nations laws maybe just, but others the UK included are there to put money into its coffers with little reguard to "justice". why should i pay to keep a child murderer in luxury in prison? when a bullet that costs a few pence could rid the comunity of this scum
Originally posted by FZ+
I think that a stable government, even a dictatorship, is a reflection of the way the people think.
But is there a true reflection of every perspective of what makes up the government? or is it a closed minded perspective of just one view.
If this was true of the government, the root cause of this is to be true of the society as well. If the state of the system is such that close mindedness is encouraged, and the people allow it to occur, then this cannot fail to happen. If the people were truly outraged and active, and prepared to sweep into an open government, this change cannot be stopped.But is there a true reflection of every perspective of what makes up the government? or is it a closed minded perspective of just one view.
I am saying that governments cannot fail to listen to their people - their stability and existence ultimately rests on what the mood of society is. Without the militaristic pride of the german people, Hitler cannot have come to power, cannot have stayed in power. The figures of history are ultimately mere actors (perhaps some who take a bigger role in forcing changes, in a feedback system) - society writes the script. Even deception cannot work until the people want the lie.the problem is FZ that it is goverments that make laws not the general public, if the government had to listen to and action the majority oppinion, then it would be the likes of you and me to see that the laws of the land were funded and carried out to our satisfaction, not some octogenarian that can hardly stay awake yet alone make sensible judgments.
A government doesn't really have a "purpose". Let's try an analogy.I have always thought the root of laws are a structure set up for a purpose. If were saying that laws stem from the government Then I ask what's are governments purpose? Is it control? Is it money? Is there a purpose?
Originally posted by FZ+
A government doesn't really have a "purpose". Let's try an analogy.
A society is a brain. Each individual is a cell in that brain, sending those signals, talking to each other. Law is the harmony with which they send those signals, and provide the structure in which the cells live and function. Law is unity. What is the government in this? That is a far more abstract idea - the government is the unifying signal of the cells. It is what would be in this case be the self - the one that is created by the many.
Yes, but that's pretty much on the scale of the function of each brain cell. Just because each cell is an ion channel doesn't mean the brain as a whole is an ion channel. The individual purposes do not directly scale up to the whole brain, let alone the mind. The cerebellum of society has its subconscious as well...Doesn't an average joe have a purpose. Doesn't he work for his money, for a reason. Say to feed his family or feed himself or pay his bills. We need the money to live. The rest of the population needs money to live as well.
I don't think this is true at all. What marks nature, and humanity is that they are permanently out of balance. As "nature" evolves, the mind/brain of society changes as well, often in unpredictable ways. Maybe the laws help keep it so that the individual cells keep closer relative to each other, but it is certainly one crazy path they all are following. But that's a side effect - the whole thing I visualise as an inevitable mode of behaviour arising out of so many adaptive systems (people) interacting with each other. Our laws are as their most fundamental, a qualitative description of these interactions.To balance are energy in a way where we allow us to live life. this same definition applies to nature as well.
Our laws are as their most fundamental, a qualitative description of these interactions.
Heh... yes, my concept is rather counter-intuitive, at first sight. But consider this: how did the law get made in the first place? Before the thing really got strengthened into a law, it must have existed as a natural tendency of the population, which is promoted into legal status by a suitable authority. If there was no law against murder, would you run around killing everyone? Nope, millennia of educational imprinting, and maybe genetics have already created an aversion toward killing, except in certain circumstances, and the strength of this aversion is such that in most places it is formalised as a law. In many ways, this law then has a feedback effect in enhancing the aversion further to the state of taboo etc, but I think the primary role of laws are as formal descriptors, or indicators of general modes of action, evolved over time.Description? Laws don't seem like a description. They are normative, mostly in a negative way.
Not everybody realizes this. Whether it becomes law is a matter of the effectiveness of this sort of thinking. If it works out, it spreads amongst the population, and eventually becomes law.We realize there is a sense of balancing our laws and rules to our neighbors laws and rules, to make our relationship grow.
Well, that's your opinion. Though I live in the UK as well, I tend to lean to the opposite position.FZ, tou must live in utopia, i think that laws in the UK are more like guide lines and are open to abuse, for a law to be efective it must be fixed, for example an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, "not my choise".