Ideology, Religion, and Corruption of Law (Ethics)

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

In the infancy of humanity or human existence humans have est. rules/norms as they evolved from small groups of 2-4 to tribes/communities of more numbers. A basic set of norms seems to have emerged that is common among different civilizations of the world such as murder, betrayal and etc. These norms appear to be for the common good, but has government and religion corrupted the system of norms or laws? it appears that the power of ideology and the spread of such for various vain motivations has created a legalistic monster of confinement curbing free will.

If humanity were not ruled by the conflict of ideas and motives would there be any need for law other than those for the common good (i.e. against murder and etc)?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 650 • Replies: 11

No top replies

Re: Ideology, Religion, and Corruption of Law (Ethics)

yardsale wrote:

If humanity were not ruled by the conflict of ideas and motives would there be any need for law other than those for the common good (i.e. against murder and etc)?

??? Based on your wording here I'd have to say "of course not!". Of course if there weren't any conflict of ideas then there wouldn't be any need for laws to cover your "common good" items either.

IMO, your initial premise is wrong though. Government and religion didn't corrupt anything here. While ancient societies developed (often smiliar) laws/rules that hasn't changed much. The norms that murder was/is wrong is almost always applied where it is wrong to murder one of your of family/tribe/clan with lesser taboos on murdering someone from another family/tribe/clan. Killing people from competing tribes/clans was probably encouraged in many cases.

Religious and political entities just added another "cause" to kill for.

0 Replies

Interesting!

Not sure what killing being condoned between diff groups/tribes has to do with the subject. Ok, since it looks like we need a couple of examples to clear things up, here, what does say the law banning certain drugs vs others have to do with the common good. Alcohol is an excepted drug but say weed is not, why? It must have some connection to some ideology concerning the drugs which could be connected to religion or government in some manner. The latter is just an example!!!! Example, the whole abortion ordeal which is directly connected to religion not the common good. Of course one can argue that it is for the common good but is it in actuality. Just an example once again!!!!!!

Has government, religion, or associated ideologies corrupted the system of norms or laws? Has the power of ideology and the spread of such created a legalistic monster of confinement curbing free will?

Hopefully this clears things up!

0 Replies

yardsale wrote:

Not sure what killing being condoned between diff groups/tribes has to do with the subject.

If you aren't sure how it applies then why did you use it as an example? lol

The point is that before you or anyone else can claim something is or isn't "for the common good" you have to define who falls into the "common" category.

Quote:

Ok, since it looks like we need a couple of examples to clear things up, here, what does say the law banning certain drugs vs others have to do with the common good.

Ok... so who's common good are you looking at? The people that might use these controlled drugs or the people who's property and persons get wrecked by those that use them and can't control themselves afterwards? Those are two different groups of people and both see their viewpoint as the "common good". Who's "common good" prevails?

Quote:

It must have some connection to some ideology concerning the drugs which could be connected to religion or government in some manner.

Why must it? How do we know it didn't come from some ancient taboo developed by one of those early tribes prior to the existance of religions or government? You're making claims here you can't support.

Quote:

Example, the whole abortion ordeal which is directly connected to religion not the common good. Of course one can argue that it is for the common good but is it in actuality. Just an example once again!!!!!!

That is it in actuality according to whom? You? Again, you're basing these on your opinion - not fact. If the care of a fetus isn't in the common good then why do people see the need to support prenatal health care? Is that only based in religion too?

I would submit that there are a wide range of views on abortion and not all of those that oppose abortion do so for religious reasons.

Quote:

Has government, religion, or associated ideologies corrupted the system of norms or laws? Has the power of ideology and the spread of such created a legalistic monster of confinement curbing free will?

No and yes (the entire concept of norms and/or laws means that there is an inherent curbing of individual free will so it would be impossible to answer no on the 2nd question.)

Now I realize that these items you listed are supposed to just be examples but hopefully you can see that you are using your narrow view of the world as your basis of what is and what isn't. If you can come up with ideas of what is or isn't in "the common good" based on your misconceptions then what would you propose to prevent other's from doing the same? Keep in mind here that to remain true to your supposition that your solution can't create an imposition on their free will either. Wink

0 Replies

CONTEXT

Quote:

If you aren't sure how it applies then why did you use it as an example? lol

The point is that before you or anyone else can claim something is or isn't "for the common good" you have to define who falls into the "common" category.

1. Examples put a question up for discussion in context and do not necessarily reflect the belief of any particular person.
2. The question was posed in order to discuss such things as who falls in the common good (this is a discussion board).
3. The common good is humanity (humans) or Individuals in the world of different cultures, ethnic groups and governments

Quote:

No and yes (the entire concept of norms and/or laws means that there is an inherent curbing of individual free will so it would be impossible to answer no on the 2nd question.)

"Legalistic monster" emphasizes a certain degree of curbing free will not simply whether or not it curbs free will. Does it curb free will to a large extent?

Quote:

Not sure what killing being condoned between diff groups/tribes has to do with the subject.

If you aren't sure how it applies then why did you use it as an example? lol

Murder in general is the example; generally most people do not consider war to be murder.
We can discuss anything other than the subject if you desired!!!!
We can discuss murder if you wish!

Quote:

If humanity were not ruled by the conflict of ideas and motives would there be any need for law other than those for the common good (i.e. against murder and etc)?

Quote:

but hopefully you can see that you are using your narrow view of the world as your basis of what is and what isn't. If you can come up with ideas of what is or isn't in "the common good" based on your misconceptions then what would you propose to prevent other's from doing the same? Keep in mind here that to remain true to your supposition that your solution can't create an imposition on their free will either.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION POSED ABOUT FREE WILL, LAW, AND ETC????????????????????????????????????????

0 Replies

I'm confused as well. Caps and exclamation marks and bold characters make nothing clearer. Don't be too surprised if the thread doesn't get much of a head of steam up, people will just read it and - being confused - will leave without comment.

Try to make your point a bit clearer yardsale.

Are you arguing that free will has somehow been curbed by government/society? Is this another one of those threads inspired by Ayn Rand and her objectivism idea?

0 Replies

IT IS A QUESTION PRESENTING A SUBJECT NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THE SUBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

EXAMPLES ARE NOT ARGUMENTS EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A QUESTION AND AN ARGUMENT???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Alright, this subject has been ruined, good job!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Damn, do you have to post a tractus here in order to discuss a subject that you wish to gain fresh views on?

Can you delete a thread once it is created?

Yes I just posed 2 question, IT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT

0 Replies

Re: CONTEXT

yardsale wrote:

Quote:
but hopefully you can see that you are using your narrow view of the world as your basis of what is and what isn't. If you can come up with ideas of what is or isn't in "the common good" based on your misconceptions then what would you propose to prevent other's from doing the same? Keep in mind here that to remain true to your supposition that your solution can't create an imposition on their free will either.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUESTION POSED ABOUT FREE WILL, LAW, AND ETC????????????????????????????????????????

ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've asked "If humanity were not ruled by the conflict of ideas and motives would there be any need for law other than those for the common good (i.e. against murder and etc)?" and I've addressed that two different ways now.

If we accept the idea that everyone could have the exact same thoughts/ideas then there would be absolutely no need for any laws at all (including laws for the "common good").

On the other hand, if we accept reality we'd have to accept that different people have different views and concepts of who's common good they are advancing. As a result you get laws.

(With this 2nd response you seem to want to seperate a significant curbing of free will from a minor curbing of free will but I would maintain that any infringement any all would be seen by someone as significant. The semantics of what is significant and what is insignificant rests entirely on which end of the law the individual ends up on.)

Those are the only two options. Everything else is just rephrasing those two possibilities.

0 Replies

Moving on................

0 Replies

This is simplistic, but could be of interest!

All other things aside, say there is a basic set of rules that goes across cultural, ethnic and national lines (a foundation for law, universal). I suppose this could be thought of as natural law. Maybe Murder, betrayal, and others emerged based on such.

I wonder if the will or instinct of survival was the first emerging affect on how law developed in the beginning. Through time maybe the development of speech, language, abstract thought, the increase in technology and etc caused law to take new shapes off the beat of law, as associated with survival. Possibly, similar to the way that the survival instinct has not potentially kept up with the evolution of the human mind, meaning that survival in this period of our development gets confused with the area of want verse need and true threat to existence verse threat of losing a certain way of life or something not a mortal threat(i.e. losing a job and etc).

Possibly, today we are in a period were free will has been eroded to the point that some sort of may be in order for certain areas of the world. I am thinking that this may be applicable in the most advanced areas in our world. Maybe humanity has been polluted with abstract thought and such advancements. If following the line of thought here, maybe current law is a reflection of confusion of the human animal with the development of advanced reasoning (conflict between the two).

Advanced reasoning could include, religion, philosophy and etc.

Based on the assumption that the human animal was at its purest form during the first few instances of our species existence.

0 Replies

apoligues for the confusion

The thread has been reposted in a different format

Cheers!

0 Replies

Ideology, Religion, and Corruption of Law (Ethics)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know