Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
the right and duty to kill |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12 |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||
Cryptic 
Arch Duke 
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: the right and duty to killPosted: 21-Dec-2010 at 15:28 |
|||
|
No, I do not believe it was God's will that that those things happen.
Continuing the discussion, if the states gives the right and duty to kill, is the state also the source of ethics? Can there be any objection to the ethics dictated by the state or the orders to kill dictated by the state?
|
||||
 |
||||
|
opuslola
Tsar 
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Dec-2010 at 18:33 |
|||
|
Dear Cryptic, was your response above directed to my last? I don't believe I suggest "God's will" but "mans!"
And, continuing your idea from the above, of course the State also determines the "morals" of any given situation! But, if these "draconian?" rules are used, then there must be some "religious" confirmation, in most societies! Edited by opuslola - 21-Dec-2010 at 18:35 |
||||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||||
|
||||
|
Athena
Baron 
Joined: 28-Sep-2010 Location: Eugene, Oregon Online Status: Offline Posts: 403 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2010 at 01:50 |
|||
|
Opuslola, that was nicely said.
Hegel would argue everyone must submit to the state and in effect that state is God. Long before Hegel the Roman statesman Cicero was sure citizens must serve Rome. In Sparta there was no absolutely no choice but to serve Sparta. To this day we assume the governing authority has the right and duty to conscript men into military service, and I believe Israel requires females to serve as well. Only if we outlaw conscription would an individual have freedom or choice, and I don't see that happening.
Since ancient times, citizens have enjoyed the idea that the ruler is doing the will of god or is a god or goddess, and the best suited to rule. Without question many Christians believed Bush was doing the will of God, and not long before that, Christians believed Hitler was doing the will of God. Then there are those following Ben Laden with this same notion that he is leading them to do the will of God. As I like saying, war is good for religion and religion is good for war.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mosquito
Caliph 
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2010 at 09:43 |
|||
|
This is a very complicated matter and concerns philosophy and theory of law. When I was studying it was one of the hardest subjects to learn and one of the hardest exams to pass. Belive me Cryptic, before you go into such discussions, you should read a lot.
In general I can say that there are 2 main streams in the law sciences, 1st is called Legal positivism and the other is the school of natural law. Wikipedia articles about it are worthless at least in english, in the article of legal positivism there are only anglo-saxon lawyers mentioned and their vievs while the most important were Germans (at least for legal sciences).
And Athena - Im impressed by you. Reading Hegel! When I was studying it almost killed me lol
|
||||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2010 at 10:46 |
|||
|
Not always in modern times. Stalin's, Mao's and Pol Pot's draconian rules had no religious justifications what so ever and citizens never concluded that the rulers were divinely inspired. Same is true with excesses of the French Revolution. In these cases, the draconian rules and affirmation of the citizens were derived from humanistic philosophies / ideaologies.
As a side note, most secular governments in western Europe no longer claim a religous justification for their authority nor do most citizens view the governmental authority as being divenly inspired. Yet with the examples of Stalin and Mao above, this hardly seems like a guarantee of future "reason".
What if the state is the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Chairman Mao? Do citizens still owe such states their obediance? Or can citizens, perhaps refuse their obediance because they have concluded that a diety forbids certain actions?
Thanks, I will do some reading, but I will also continue to participate when I can. Edited by Cryptic - 22-Dec-2010 at 11:31 |
||||
|
||||
|
p,c,ma
Samurai 
Joined: 08-Sep-2010 Location: Tennessee Online Status: Offline Posts: 119 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2010 at 16:58 |
|||
|
The only rights people have is those which they get for themselves. Even if the states obligation is to its people that does not mean that it always will. Times come when people have to do what is necessary to get peace.
|
||||
|
||||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 22-Dec-2010 at 19:43 |
|||
|
I can only state the obvious "REVOLUTION!", or? (antigonism?)
If it is revolution that we choose, the just who or whom determines which of our enemies shoud die?, and by what method? You see, even in a class-less society, some people need to be publically punished! That is unless you disagree? So, in such a society, just who/whom determines the breath of the punishment? Sorry about my spelling above, I was pressed for time! Edited by opuslola - 22-Dec-2010 at 19:49 |
||||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2010 at 07:19 |
|||
The legal positivists say that the state can do anything and that has nothing to do with the ethics because the law has nothing to do with the ethics or morals. Even the most unjust and cruel law must be obeyed by the people if was enacted by state. However there was made a silent asumption of some philosophers that the state would never enact a bad law. But people are not supposed to judge if the law is good or not but to obey it rules. This school of law felt into deep crisis after WW2 when all the atrocities commited by German State became well known. It is worth to mention that this vievs were especially popular in Germany since the 19th century.
The member of school of natural law would answer that the human or state law which is in conflict with natural law is not a law and everyone got right to disobey it. Only such law's that are based on natural law, which are moral and ethic can be a law and must be obeyed. So first state must "discover" a rule of natural law and next change it into state law. The state law is not a source of morals or ethics because natural law is its source. As for the sources of natural law - for some it was God, for others nature or cosmos.
This was for centuries the main and basic division of philosophy of law. After experiences of WW2 many former postivists started to look for the third way, between natural law and legal positivism. Edited by Mosquito - 23-Dec-2010 at 07:24 |
||||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||||
|
||||
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2010 at 07:40 |
|||
In the communist state there is no such thing like "nation" or "people". This is a class state designed and in theory ruled by a one or more classes of the society. This class was a working class or even not whole working class but "workers" with the help of paesants and soldiers. Later in some communist countries they added "enlighted part of inteligentsia" but they were always the less important part of society. The workers were ruling the state by their "active and enlighted" representatives. All those enlighted activists of proletariat were supposed to be members of the communist party which was ruling the state in the name of workers ( or proletariat). The communist state and its law did not serve all the people but only proletariat. Proletariat itself wasnt able to rule so the state was ruled by its enlighted members gathered in the communist party, who knows whats best. No moral or ethic rules were binding the communists if they had to do whats necessary for the sake of proletariat and all so called "western" or "liberal" values were worthless, especially concerning individualism, because the state was not designed to serve individuals but proletariat class as biggest group of people. Edited by Mosquito - 23-Dec-2010 at 07:47 |
||||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||||
|
||||
|
Cryptic
Arch Duke
Retired AE Moderator Joined: 05-Jul-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1962 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2010 at 10:26 |
|||
My point was addressed to Athena's emphasis on war is good for religion and religion in good for war and her stongly implied statements that governments with a religous basis are immoral and that a government founded on a humanistic form of "reason" promises a better tomorrow.
Yet.... communism was a governmental authority not founded on religion and made no claims to divine insiration. Instead, a humanistic "reason" based philosophy led to the deaths of millions Edited by Cryptic - 23-Dec-2010 at 10:31 |
||||
|
||||
|
p,c,ma
Samurai
Joined: 08-Sep-2010 Location: Tennessee Online Status: Offline Posts: 119 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Dec-2010 at 12:06 |
|||
|
People have to choose for themselves. People set up the goverments in the beginning thus if a problem arises it is the duty of the people to fix it.
Goverments are exposed to be BY THE PEOPLE for the people.
|
||||
|
||||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2010 at 16:13 |
|||
|
The above was a great discourse! I really enjoyed the great deal of thinking involved by all! I especially enjoyed the last remarks by Hunter!
Something most people upon this planet should think about! That is, if the "people" by what ever definition one should choose to use, are always considered as "correct!" |
||||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||||
|
||||
|
p,c,ma
Samurai
Joined: 08-Sep-2010 Location: Tennessee Online Status: Offline Posts: 119 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Dec-2010 at 21:38 |
|||
|
Think you, think you I liked it too.
I like to think though that people are thinking about it. We people (and like it or not that includes all of us) have to do what is best for mankind.
To do that though people have to stand up for what they believe in no matter what the cost.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Athena
Baron
Joined: 28-Sep-2010 Location: Eugene, Oregon Online Status: Offline Posts: 403 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2010 at 12:18 |
|||
Mosquito, I think I love you!
 That was beautiful! What you said is directly connected to education for technology, which is completely separated from moral judgment. Germany had education for technology and the US replaced its liberal education with the German model of education for technology, and left moral training to the church. Athens made this same mistake, when it became strong enough to force its will on others. It focused its education on technological correctness, so it could send properly trained civil leaders to colonies and expand its power. THIS IS A DRAMATIC SHIFT IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF RULE BY LAW. THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF RULE BY LAW IN THE US, WAS NATURE'S LAW, AND TODAY IT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY CORRECT LAW., WITH CHRISTIANS FIGHTING AS MUCH AS MUSLIMS FOR RULE BY GOD'S LAW. Oh, oh you know that argument, is light a wave or a particle? The same law of nature applies to man. Is man an individual or a state? You know darn well, a well trained army is not a bunch of individuals, and neither is the technologically correct US, even if the components of the social/military machine may appear different, they are all subdued and ordred by the bureaucratic order above them, or are marginalized and rendered powerless.
Cyrus, you add such an important point of view to our discussions, it is vital to our discussions. Without you, I could never have the realizations I have. Thank you.
What does rule by law mean? Does it mean God's law, Nature's law, or man's law? It depends on how the people are educated, right? If the people's education is confined or controlled by religion, than they will believe rule by law, means God's laws. Liberal education results in an understanding of rule by law as Nature's laws. Education for technology results in legal positivists. Thanks Misquito for this concept and term.
Now who determines what God's laws are? A holy book written centuries ago and those within the religion who have been give the "authority" by the religious organization to declare what God's laws are, and what God wills. All the rest are left only to obey.
How do we know Nature's laws? Well that requires liberal education, individual observation, and then checking what one believes with others. Arguing until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. It is in imitation of Gods. Everyone is prepared equally to be industrial and civic leaders, and each will rise to the top depending on his individual talents and interest. They are all as brothers and sisters, not as kings and servants, and together they adopt their laws to the laws of Nature. Only this group does not passively obey, but accepts individual responsibility of his/her actions and the laws of the nature.
Now hail Hitler and George Bush and Chaney. I hope I am saying this politically correctly.
 We come to man's law. You know, that law made by the experts and best suited to judge what is good for us. We can not leave things up to individuals because life is too complex for that, and the average human being is rather pathetic is he not? We must have experts and bureaucracy that puts the bureaucracy of Sumer and Egypt to shame. We can have complete faith in those who make and enforce our laws, because we have taken every step to assure they are technological correct. As the religious people, these people obey. It is illusion to believe their is a big difference between their worship man and technology, and the worship of religious people. Is there any doubt that we worship leaders? Our reasoning for the worship may vary but atheist and believers in God, share a human wave reality. The human wave factor is behind all the Great men, because none of them could achieved what they achieve if they were not riding a wave supported by a mass of humanity, and to credit individuals with what the mass achieves, is as false as worhipping a many gods. Is such human behavior manifesting God's will? I leave that to you to decide. We worship our leaders by the same law of Nature that causes dog's to submit to their pack leader. We would do so even if we lacked the capacity of reason. However, because we do reason, we are aware that the mass is greater than the individual, and I am more than I am when I one with the mass. Amen
Here is a debate on if Mao is worshiped or not.
|
||||
|
||||
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator 
Master of Meanings Joined: 06-Nov-2010 Location: / Online Status: Offline Posts: 17084 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2010 at 14:16 |
|||
|
1.what is the law:
Not to go on all fours Not to eat human flash Not to KILL ALL aganst the law will have to go in House of pain.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kONqJoTMlk |
||||
|
||||
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2010 at 06:30 |
|||
Thank you Athena but this what I said is nothing special but complete basics of the theory of law. In general the science of law is to some extent "technic" science. Its not about morals or ethics but about how the law should be efectivelly created and used. One of the first things that student of law learns on theory of law lectures is that the notion "justice" is meaningless. Many people say that somthing is just or unjust but those words got really no meaning if you not bind with them some special formula, defining it.
For example:
meaning of justice in the liberal system: people get pay according to their skills, work, education. When someone gets rich because he has invetend somthing what gave him money or he was working hard and gets more money than someone who didnt want to work - this is just.
But for example in the communist system: people should work as much as they can but should get as much as they need. Noone should be richer than oher, if some are rivh and others are poor this is unjust. Or in general everyone should get the same, doesnt matter if he is factory worker or rocket enginier.
In socialist system: even those who dont work should get pay to not starve and state is obliged to give them and their children same education and healthcare as the rich gets (at least in theory). People can be rich but especially those rich must pay more taxes for those who are not as skilled or educated as they are poorer. So the justice means that money of the richer are transfered to poorer and it doesnt matter if they are poorer because are unlucky or leazy. Thats so called social justice.
Or in penal law: in one system the formula is "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" but in other such punishment is considered as cruel and unjust. One formula says that killing the murderer is justified and other formula says that state and society have no right to kill even the murderers.
Or another example: in feudal penal law it is just that people got different punishments for crimes depend on their class (if paesant kill a noble, he will be tortured and killed, if noble kill a paesant he will pay his familly for example 10 florens or if paesant rape the noble born girl he will be killed but if noble rape paesant girl he will pay her 10 florens) and this is just but if noble will be killed for raping or killing paesant it would be unjust. So the formula that all the people should gets same punishments for the same crimes not always was considered as justice.
Those formulas of justice comes from the society and from the philosophy, which change in time.
Edited by Mosquito - 28-Dec-2010 at 12:43 |
||||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||||
|
||||
|
opuslola
Tsar
suspended Joined: 23-Sep-2009 Location: Long Beach, MS, Online Status: Offline Posts: 4620 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Dec-2010 at 15:48 |
|||
|
medenaywe, sorry to have taken so long to reply! You quoted from one of my favorites, the "Island of Dr. Moreau", or its other title!
I especially loved Charles Laughton's version! |
||||
|
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/
|
||||
|
||||
|
medenaywe
AE Moderator
Master of Meanings Joined: 06-Nov-2010 Location: / Online Status: Offline Posts: 17084 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2010 at 03:46 |
|||
|
I believe there are more basic law principals in this movie, than in any human law justice system today...And eternal question:Is it possible for animal species to build social system out of animal order and rules?
Will be more precise:Do we have Rule of strongest units,when they are covered by social institutions? I believe that this lead to schismatic social system,with other words during our civilized history lier units go ahead... |
||||
|
||||
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended Joined: 05-Aug-2004 Location: Sarmatia Online Status: Offline Posts: 2537 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Dec-2010 at 04:59 |
|||
a very - forgive me please - stupid and ignorant sentence. There is no somthing like "basic law principals" which are universal and for ever
|
||||
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
