Quote from: Piotr on April 05, 2014, 12:39:30 PM
This particular forum is also a scientific experiment testing http://ultimatelaw.org The results are so far very interesting and I intend to continue this experiment. Peace ;)
So I wanted to posit that the "ultimate law" is useless, ineffective, and borderline uninteligible.
First that "Logic is the ultimate law" has two main problems
A-logic is a tool, not a law, any more than math is a law. Depending on how specific you want to get on the formal definition of logic, logic is basically cause and effect. Logic doesn't say that pain is bad, logic says "if you want to avoid pain and thing X causes pain, then you should avoid thing X".
Also, plenty of terrible actions are logical from the point of view of the actor's self interest. There are plenty of times when a person murders another because the murderer would be better off (given their set goals in life) for killing the other person. Logic alone is not a tool for a legal system.
B-if you changed the definitions enough to make logic a law, then you would make any illogical action unlawful.
B1-every single human acts illogically on a regular basis, so this would make everyone a law breaker. Defining all people as law breakers can work within a religious framework where all men require forgiveness, but it does not work as a worldly system for governance (please no religion debates here, I only make the reference for comparison's sake).
B2-it is no one's business whether I am logical or not in my private affairs. If I purposefully watch a movie I don't like instead of a movie I like, its illogical but any law that punishes it is stupid (I would have to have some reason for picking the bad movie, like feeling amused by the illogical choice even though I know that the amusement of the decision is less than the cost of the movie).
Point 2 - Don't do to others what they would not want to be done to them, or you will be punished regardless of your will.
This is first unclear to me whether "regardless of your will" means that your intent in your action is irrelevant or whether the law doesn't care that you don't want to be punished. Each of these cause problems, but since they diverge greatly in their analysis, I will leave those alone for now.
What if I want unreasonable things? What if I don't want anyone to use the word "frog" in my presence? Again, this is not illogical...if I have found that the word frog makes me unhappy (say I have a phobia or bad childhood experience) then it is perfectly logical to not want anyone to say to hat word to me. It is unreasonable of me to enforce my will on other people that way, but it is not illogical. If you mean that you should not do to others what they would not want done "if they are being reasonable" then you now don't care about them so much as a reasonable person or "ideal observer" standard, which is utterly different from the rule and has nothing to do with the "victim's" desires. Such "reasonable person" or "ideal observer" tests have their own problems that are outside the scope of this post.
Also, I will point out that this rule isn't so much a inherit I've to not do that as it is a cause an effect relationship between an action and a punishment. Without some specific justification, such a cause and effect relationship cannot stand simply because it says it does. The second law could say "if you are left handed, then anyone can punch you" and it would be just as intelligible and logically consistent of a rule even though it lacks justification. Pure Logic cannot justify it, and as I said in the previous paragraph, I believe the implied imperative is unjustifiable.
3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.
Let's look at real world examples to see how this is wrong. If I steal from you and am unrepentant, they will lock me up. This is done first, because it is for the good of society. Society is served by protecting people from those who would harm them, and it is assumed that someone who steals once will steal again if let free. Second, it is for the good of society to rehabilitate an offender, in the hopes of getting them to not offend again. Third, it is in society's interest to disincentivise crime, and the public knowledge that offenses are punished may stop other potential criminals from vomiting crimes.
Restitution, getting me to pay back the stolen money, isn't a punishment intended to set me back but is a civil remedy of the wronged to set them in as good a position as they were before. For example, if a company knew asbestos was dangerous and keep selling it as safe, they would have to pay both restitution (the cost of the miscalled treatment, loss if wages, a value f the death of a loved one, etc.) and, if their actions were willfully bad, punitive damages (which is not primarily based on the harm caused, but on the bad actions done). This is not a semantic difference....restitution and punishment are completely separate, even if they take the same form (ie money payments).
Lastly, retribution is illogical from a justice or societal standpoint. It is illogical to say that the world is better if a thief is himself robbed from, unless that "come uppence" is set up in such a way to give restitution to the victims or to teach the theif their error of their ways. As poetically just it may seem, context is required in order for this action to lead to any good for anyone.
Retribution serves no purpose except to make the aggrieved party feel better (it is logical from that person's standpoint to want to feel better, but that is not nessisarily a compelling societal good). I have heard, and I expect I could find evidence that, retribution (also known as vengeance or revenge) doesn't actually make the person feel better in the long run, thereby removing the one benefit of retribution. (Many religions, including those that judge harshly, still disapprove of a person seeking retribution. Again, please no religion debate, I mention it in passing only. If you want examples please PM me to keep this thread from devolving into a religious fight.).
I would posit that reinforcing the idea that retribution is just or acceptable or appropriate is far more harmful to society than the grant of retribution to victims could ever overcome. A person who feels robbed of their vengeance, which through their society they have been taught is their right, can lead to years of mental torment and anger.
The closing if the ultimate law, that all other rules are just commentary stemming from these basic precepts, is not inherently objectionable to me. It is possible to build a large body of laws based on only a few principals, thereby attempting to keep the laws coherent and grounded. I reaffirm though that these rules set forth above are a terrible foundation.
I would love to hear people's thoughts on this, but let's keep it civil. :)
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
So I wanted to posit that the "ultimate law" is useless, ineffective, and borderline uninteligible.
Well, you have my attention! Keep in mind that I'm not here to argue or side with anyone. I find this post interesting, and would like to comment on a few of the points.
As someone who has sworn to use this law for the good of the forum, I'd like to share my views/interpretations of the law.
QuoteFirst that "Logic is the ultimate law" has two main problems
A-logic is a tool, not a law, any more than math is a law. Depending on how specific you want to get on the formal definition of logic, logic is basically cause and effect. Logic doesn't say that pain is bad, logic says "if you want to avoid pain and thing X causes pain, then you should avoid thing X".
A couple things on this one. In this forum, logic IS part of the law, not just a tool. If also like to point out that pain is not a bad thing. It's simply your body (physical pain) telling you that something is wrong, so that you may take the appriopriate steps to remedy the situation. Sure, nobody likes pain, but it itself is not bad. And logically, yes, you should avoid things thy cause you pain.
QuoteAlso, plenty of terrible actions are logical from the point of view of the actor's self interest. There are plenty of times when a person murders another because the murderer would be better off (given their set goals in life) for killing the other person. Logic alone is not a tool for a legal system.
This is a decent point. I believe the logic we are to use here is logic from a "healthy mind." I hope that we can all agree that murdering someone on this forum is not a logical response, and breaks more laws than just our iMtG law.
QuoteB-if you changed the definitions enough to make logic a law, then you would make any illogical action unlawful.
B1-every single human acts illogically on a regular basis, so this would make everyone a law breaker.
This point interests me. Examples and/or elaboration, please?
QuoteB2-it is no one's business whether I am logical or not in my private affairs. If I purposefully watch a movie I don't like instead of a movie I like, its illogical but any law that punishes it is stupid (I would have to have some reason for picking the bad movie, like feeling amused by the illogical choice even though I know that the amusement of the decision is less than the cost of the movie).
I think watching a bad movie isn't necessarily illogical. If you know the movie is bad, and you believe you'll get a laugh from it, then it makes sense to watch it for the amusement. Maybe not the best out-of-wallet investment, but I don't believe it's illogical.
QuotePoint 2 - Don't do to others what they would not want to be done to them, or you will be punished regardless of your will.
This is first unclear to me whether "regardless of your will" means that your intent in your action is irrelevant or whether the law doesn't care that you don't want to be punished. Each of these cause problems, but since they diverge greatly in their analysis, I will leave those alone for now.
It is the second one. If you break the law, you will be punished, regardless of whether or not you want to be punished. I believe this was to eliminate problems caused by the "do not do to others what they do not want to be done to them" part of the law. Otherwise, we could never punish anyone for anything, unless they wanted us to.
QuoteWhat if I want unreasonable things? What if I don't want anyone to use the word "frog" in my presence? Again, this is not illogical...if I have found that the word frog makes me unhappy (say I have a phobia or bad childhood experience) then it is perfectly logical to not want anyone to say to hat word to me.
I think in such a case, we would try and prevent people from abusing the word "frog" around said person. As it is a creature type, it would be difficult, but if the person has a legitimate phobia of the word, I'd do my best to protect them from rampant frog comments.
What a sentence that was.
QuoteAlso, I will point out that this rule isn't so much a inherit I've to not do that as it is a cause an effect relationship between an action and a punishment.
Fair enough, but as I said, the second part is there so that our law doesn't attack itself.
Quote3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.
I feel like this last part was being a bit pedantic about the word choice, but it was not without its points. Perhaps some rewording of the law would make sense here.
And just to touch on te retribution stand point. You had mentioned that it's only purpose was to make the aggrieved feel better. A lot of times, that's all we can do here. As this is an Internet forum, we can't go around arresting people or using the real world set of laws so easily. That is why our law exists, and we use it here for the purposes of dealing with this forum.
I'll leave it as is for now. I just got off work and need me some sleep, but I'd like to see where this goes. As I said, this interested me as someone who is here to follow the law, and help make sure it is being followed.
Im sorry i couldnt finish your post, but i got through at least 65% and that was enough for me to agree that logic as a law is ridiculous. Gvin that theres so much science cant explain, logic being a law would preclude of from ever existing, making us all major criminals and probably just cause us all to commit suicide. In theory they probably felt so smart but their being rather illogical if they think they have a case. That is all.
Keyeto- thought provoking responces, and I'm impressed at you tackling my whole (way too long) post in one go. I want to address each of your points but will need more time to do so.
Mr jh. I appreciate the vote of approval, and sorry for being so long winded. A lot of stuff to unpack in the law, and I wanted to lay it all out as a whole, but even with all that I didn't go as in depth as needed (there are books written on topics that I have a paragraph to address). I think you may be selling logic and science short in general, but you can't come to a moral/ethical system from pure logic. You need some assumptions too (even "unecessary pain is bad" or "life has value" are assumptions...I don't think you can reach either point from "a priori" pure logic).
Keyeto, can you elaborate on how logic is/is part of the law. Is it that all enforcement of the law must logically pursue a generally accepted pile of social goods? That's a problematic definition but seems similar to what is intended by "logic is law"
Two brief asides, as it may be days before I can adequately respond to keyeto, but I wanted to say two things re: llama.
First, I ubderstand your reference to recent specific cases/trials/troubles as illistrative of the points you wanted to make, but let's make sure this does not devolve into rehashing specific real examples (those cases are complex, emotional, and are being discussed at length elsewhere)
Second, you seemed troubled by the "below the line" commentary, and I don't think that concern is warrentes. "Do not lie" is not explicitly part of the code itself, but it (along with the other "commentary") is given as an example of something the code inherently/implicitly outlaws (it assumes that a person does not want to be lied to and therefore lowing to them in punishable).
This leaves all the issue as raised about the code itself, but I think the "commentary" is just the creater's interpretation of how to apply the code. It is an assumption that people don't like to be lied to, but that is a safe assumption. Debating the commentary is a separate conversation; once we get the code approved or changed, then is the appropriate time to debate specific implementation of the code (though of course examples are useful in seeing the implications of proposed code language)
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
Quote from: Piotr on April 05, 2014, 12:39:30 PM
This particular forum is also a scientific experiment testing http://ultimatelaw.org The results are so far very interesting and I intend to continue this experiment. Peace ;)
A-logic is a tool, not a law, any more than math is a law. Depending on how specific you want to get on the formal definition of logic, logic is basically cause and effect. Logic doesn't say that pain is bad, logic says "if you want to avoid pain and thing X causes pain, then you should avoid thing X".
Also, plenty of terrible actions are logical from the point of view of the actor's self interest. There are plenty of times when a person murders another because the murderer would be better off (given their set goals in life) for killing the other person. Logic alone is not a tool for a legal system.
Mathematical logic is reflection of the laws of nature, which are the ultimate law in reality. For practical purposes logic can be defined as common sense of 12 people, for example. We need some ultimate instance to refer to when theres 50-50 in a conflict.
Ultimate Law is designed to ignore the interest of offender completely, and focus on the victim. "if you do harm, you will be punished
regardless of your will"
Logic alone is just a tool, what really matters is the rest of the law, indeed. "do not do to others what they do not want to be done to them" The obvious things which people do not want to be done to them is in the commentary, to help people understand what the law is all about.
Im not selling science short, im refering to the single most important question in science: if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how can we exist? If logic(lack thereof) is punishable by law then existing from nothing and defiling a fundamental law of nature seems highly illogical. We should all be imprisoned and executed.
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
B1-every single human acts illogically on a regular basis, so this would make everyone a law breaker. Defining all people as law breakers can work within a religious framework where all men require forgiveness, but it does not work as a worldly system for governance (please no religion debates here, I only make the reference for comparison's sake).
You are missing the point here. Not a single human can act against the laws of nature. We are all subjects to the same ultimate law of gravity, law of supply and demand, law of evolution, the same logic of universe. Boring stuff, really obvious. Now, what is interesting is the rest of the law ;)
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
B2-it is no one's business whether I am logical or not in my private affairs. If I purposefully watch a movie I don't like instead of a movie I like, its illogical but any law that punishes it is stupid (I would have to have some reason for picking the bad movie, like feeling amused by the illogical choice even though I know that the amusement of the decision is less than the cost of the movie).
Your assumptions are wrong, can you see it now? ;)
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
Point 2 - Don't do to others what they would not want to be done to them, or you will be punished regardless of your will.
This is first unclear to me whether "regardless of your will" means that your intent in your action is irrelevant or whether the law doesn't care that you don't want to be punished. Each of these cause problems, but since they diverge greatly in their analysis, I will leave those alone for now.
It means both. Ultimate Law is a tool of solving conflicts, nothing more. It is imperfect, but true ;)
Quote from: MisterJH on April 06, 2014, 12:49:36 PM
Im not selling science short, im refering to the single most important question in science: if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then how can we exist? If logic(lack thereof) is punishable by law then existing from nothing and defiling a fundamental law of nature seems highly illogical. We should all be imprisoned and executed.
There are interesting theories for this that I halfway understand, but that is a topic for a different thread. :)
Its just a way for me to point out a fundamental flaw in using logic in science to govern exclusively, as we dont understand the half of it. If we had everything figured out, or even a small percentage(which i dont believe we do), that would change my views on this ultimate law. However if we understood so much that also may change the ideology of ultimate law to begin with. I subscribe to Piotr's view that its merely a tool, but i believe making such a tool a 'law' is rather mistaken in practice, because we are not fair judges of logic. Despite what you may believe, even logic is subjective. I could say more but i havent bothered to read most of these posts so ill refrain, and only post more if directly responded to until such time as i feel like catching up with the details.
Quote from: Keyeto on April 06, 2014, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.
I feel like this last part was being a bit pedantic about the word choice, but it was not without its points. Perhaps some rewording of the law would make sense here.
And just to touch on te retribution stand point. You had mentioned that it's only purpose was to make the aggrieved feel better. A lot of times, that's all we can do here. As this is an Internet forum, we can't go around arresting people or using the real world set of laws so easily. That is why our law exists, and we use it here for the purposes of dealing with this forum.
I'll leave it as is for now. I just got off work and need me some sleep, but I'd like to see where this goes. As I said, this interested me as someone who is here to follow the law, and help make sure it is being followed.
Ok, guilt can be defined as "the state of being unpunished criminal". It can be erased by retribution and restitution, and again it places the victim at the centre of the attention, for it is the victim who restitution is targeted at. The victim is also the one most able to decide on the appropriate punishment, as they know the damage best. Society can prevent silliness by ridiculing inappropriate claims. For example: if tried under iMtG Law, executing death penalty as a logical punishment for public insult or being homosexual can and should result in prosecution for murder. I can understand death penalty as a logical punishment in murder cases, but in no other.
Quote from: Piotr on April 06, 2014, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on April 06, 2014, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.
I feel like this last part was being a bit pedantic about the word choice, but it was not without its points. Perhaps some rewording of the law would make sense here.
And just to touch on te retribution stand point. You had mentioned that it's only purpose was to make the aggrieved feel better. A lot of times, that's all we can do here. As this is an Internet forum, we can't go around arresting people or using the real world set of laws so easily. That is why our law exists, and we use it here for the purposes of dealing with this forum.
I'll leave it as is for now. I just got off work and need me some sleep, but I'd like to see where this goes. As I said, this interested me as someone who is here to follow the law, and help make sure it is being followed.
Ok, guilt can be defined as "the state of being unpunished criminal".
This is all I read. Nowhere in the dictionary does it say this, nor is it logically accurate. Will a criminal feel guilt? No, because they may feel like they dos the just thing.
Also, are they not guity of breaking a law if they're not punished? And since they can't be punished until guilty, doesn't that mean nothing would ever happened?
When will you finally see all your falsities?
Death the kid.
I think the idea of defining guilt as "the attribute of being an unpunished criminal" is....not good..., but let's keep it civil here.
I will post deeper analysis when I can, but keyeto gave me a lot of things to wrestle with so it may take a while.
Death just.. Dont try, its like punching a brick wall
Well by US law youre innocent until proven guilty. Also 'guilty' and 'guilt' are different for starters. 'Guilt' is an emotion dependent on empathy, which many lack. 'Guilty' has nothing to do with punishment. You can be unpunished and guilty, but even if punished youre still guilty of the crime. A fair amount of these comments are invalid and really kind of dumb... But who am i to judge.
Quote from: Taysby on April 06, 2014, 09:08:53 PM
Quote from: Death, the Kid on April 06, 2014, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Piotr on April 06, 2014, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Keyeto on April 06, 2014, 09:38:33 AM
Quote from: Ieatfood7 on April 06, 2014, 08:50:06 AM
3-the purpose d punishment is to erase guilt, via retribution and restitution.
I feel like this last part was being a bit pedantic about the word choice, but it was not without its points. Perhaps some rewording of the law would make sense here.
And just to touch on te retribution stand point. You had mentioned that it's only purpose was to make the aggrieved feel better. A lot of times, that's all we can do here. As this is an Internet forum, we can't go around arresting people or using the real world set of laws so easily. That is why our law exists, and we use it here for the purposes of dealing with this forum.
I'll leave it as is for now. I just got off work and need me some sleep, but I'd like to see where this goes. As I said, this interested me as someone who is here to follow the law, and help make sure it is being followed.
Ok, guilt can be defined as "the state of being unpunished criminal".
This is all I read. Nowhere in the dictionary does it say this, nor is it logically accurate. Will a criminal feel guilt? No, because they may feel like they dos the just thing.
Also, are they not guity of breaking a law if they're not punished? And since they can't be punished until guilty, doesn't that mean nothing would ever happened?
When will you finally see all your falsities?
For the purposes of this law, guilt is defined as the above. They are guilty of breaking the law if not punished. Where does it say they can't be punished utill they are proven guilty?
Nowhere. The logic of reality is that one is guilty from the moment one commits crime.
Quote
This law takes people who aren't ignoramuses to properly use it. Your comments are valid, if idiots are trying to interpret it.
This is a valid issue, law should be worded in way which is clear enough for ordinary people to understand. In that aspect, Ultimate Law is far better than, for example, EU regulation ;) Given a couple of pages of simple definitions, Ultimate Law can be used at state level.
^with disAstrous consequence. do you really think that wouldnt be abused worse than rihanna when chris brown got a hold of her? If 'logic' were used at state level.. Well America would finally take the dive off the cliff that im pretty confident in. Not that you said it should be used at state level, only that it could.