• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Writing of Laws Is A Dumb Thing To do

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Using our laws on killing as an example, I will explain why law-writing is a dumb thing to do.

Laws are official rules that people must obey. There are two kinds of rules general and absolute. General rules allow for exceptions. Absolute rules do not allow for exceptions. They always apply.

If we wrote a law proclaiming that killing was always wrong, the law would be a simple matter to write and apply but it would be opposed to our conscience (moral intuition) in many cases such as those where the facts support clear cases of self-defense.

In fact, absolute moral rules never apply because there are no human acts that are always wrong because any act can become morally justified when it is does the least harm in a moral dilemma.

We could write general rules allowing for exceptions but they would be useless when needed to judge specific cases (which might be exceptions). A law that stated "Killing is wrong as a general rule" would be useless when needed to judge specific cases.

So, basically, laws are attempts to write absolute rules by anticipating the facts in future cases. The problem with this is that human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and a slight variation might change the judgment. In the 50 states of the USA, there are 50 massive laws on murder and no two are alike. The very same killing might qualify as justifiable self-defense in some states but not in others.

The writing of laws on murder is a foolish attempt to micro-manage judgments in future cases on a grand scale. Moreover, lawmakers must do it without having the actual facts of specific cases.

Not only does the writing of laws sometimes conflict with good case-by-case judgment, it produces more dumb ideas like the loophole. Even if we know the act is morally wrong, it can't be punished unless it's specifically prohibited by the lawmakers. Does that make sense?

An expert panel, one trained for the task, unhindered by laws, would be better able to investigate the facts and judge whether a killing was justifiable or not. The state might establish the authority of such panels with a simple statement like the following

The primary task of our Criminal Justice Panels is to protect innocent citizens from serious harm caused by intentional, immoral acts while at the same time being fair in the treatment of the people accused of crimes. The panels will strive to make the correct decisions as consistently as humanly possible by getting the correct answers to both the questions of reason and the questions of conscience.

If this statement seems too simplistic, consider that the current criminal justice system in the USA was founded on the Blackstone formulation and its goal to prevent the conviction of innocent people. It has resulted in a body of laws that make it difficult to convict the guilty and undermines the system's ability to protect the public. Moreover, it ends with many innocent people pleading guilty to lesser charges because they can't trust that the flawed system will make the right decision and find them innocent.

The members of an expert panel, with its members trained to make specific kinds of decisions, unhindered by laws, will make better decisions.


Laws are mankind's attempt to Control others. Is Control really the best avenue?

Yes, I understand the need to protect people, on the other hand, how much is actually been done to Solve the Real problems. If mankind understood why crime was being done, they could take steps to prevent it rather than Controlling it after it gets loose.

As I see, in God's system of things, lessons are given long enough until there is true understanding of all sides. When one understands all sides, intelligence will make the best choices. There will come a point when laws will not exist simply because they will not be needed.

Perhaps, mankind should work at copying God. There is much to Learn and much to Teach others before the problem will no longer exist. It would be good for mankind to get started. Clearly, what they are doing now is not working.

What is more important? Payback or Solving the Real Problems and Fixing the People?

Which brings better results?

I understand it is a Large Task. On the other hand, even with baby steps, things will get better for everyone.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hey...... @joe1776 :)

Guess what?

On RF there are many rules written to give members an exact idea of what they can and cannot do...... a bit like laws, you see?

Why don't you tell RF that you think they are dumb to write RF laws? After all, they could moderate by your technique ...... the only problem being that nobody would know what they could safely do. That's a bit like your ideas about Laws.

You see? We all need exact descriptions of laws, and rules.

QED
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Why would I be 'biased' rather than simply rejecting a poorly reasoned and completely unworkable idea?
You would be biased on your judgment of anything I wrote on immigration or on the rules of the road because you have already staked out a position opposed to mine.

But seeing as you are unable to explain these, there's nothing much to judge.
You just proved your bias. You might have concluded that I chose not to waste my time when there was no hope of changing your mind. Instead, you concluded that I was unable to fill your request. Your bias is obvious.

You don't seem to grasp that most laws don't relate to simple right/wrong.
How did you determine that most laws don't relate to simple right and wrong? The opposite seems true to me.

All criminal laws certainly do. And yes, most of your list are directly linked to moral choices involving harm. All of them could be better decided by an expert panel rather than legislators who have no expertise.

Most laws are morally-based. Yes, there are a few rules that don't have a moral connection but your nit-picking of my argument isn't going to be persuasive to unbiased minds.

When people are considering how much alcohol can be in the blood and still legally drive, they don't use their conscience.
The conscience is involved in the determination that it would be wrong to drive drunk and endanger other lives.

When you need to know how fast you can drive on different roads, you don't use your conscience.
Someone made a determination on the safe speed based on the moral determination that much harm would result from unsafe speeds. It would be immoral for the state not to post the speeds.

When you need to plan how many fire escapes to put in a hotel, you don't use your conscience
.It would be immoral for the city not to require adequate fire escapes for the same reason that it would be immoral for the state not to post safe speeds.

Most laws are moral obligations and questions of conscience.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Hey...... @joe1776 :)

Guess what?

On RF there are many rules written to give members an exact idea of what they can and cannot do...... a bit like laws, you see?

Why don't you tell RF that you think they are dumb to write RF laws? After all, they could moderate by your technique ...... the only problem being that nobody would know what they could safely do. That's a bit like your ideas about Laws.

You see? We all need exact descriptions of laws, and rules.

QED
Your analogy doesn't work because RF isn't a society. It's a man-made system that, like a game, requires rules.

A society, on the other hand, is a cooperative endeavor that needs to be governed. The debate here is about how to govern it.
 
Last edited:

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...Yes, I understand the need to protect people, on the other hand, how much is actually been done to Solve the Real problems. If mankind understood why crime was being done, they could take steps to prevent it rather than Controlling it after it gets loose...
You are right, of course, prevention of crime would be a better way to go about it.

The problem is that we don't yet know enough about our nature to be able to prevent our crimes.

Our experts, psychiatrists and psychologists, don't yet have a handle on the causes.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Your analogy doesn't work because RF isn't a society. It's a man-made system that, like a game, requires rules.

A society, on the other hand, is a cooperative endeavor that needs to be governed. The debate here is about how to govern it.
Nope......
RF and our governments are man-made systems both.

Laws and rules are much the same, which immediately shows your ideas to be misguided.

A country which does not have its rules clearly shown for all to follow would be a very dangerous place, because your 'expert' groups can sit in armchairs and decide what they think is right or wrong about peoples past actions and decisions.... a terrifying condition for sensible people to live in.

So you understand the common sense of clear Rules in social gatherings but you don't understand this for Town, County, State or Country social gatherings?

That's absurd..... honestly.......
 
You would be biased on your judgment of anything I wrote on immigration or on the rules of the road because you have already staked out a position opposed to mine.

You just proved your bias. You might have concluded that I chose not to waste my time when there was no hope of changing your mind. Instead, you concluded that I was unable to fill your request. Your bias is obvious.

I concluded you are unable to as you clearly haven't thought the issue through very well as evidenced by your replies. You even implicitly argue that we need laws later in your post.

How did you determine that most laws don't relate to simple right and wrong? The opposite seems true to me.

Because you are focusing on the principle behind the laws rather than the specific details that people need to know to be able to operate within the law.

The specific details are often quite arbitrary, yet people still need to know them (speed limits, safety regulations, etc.)

Most laws are morally-based. Yes, there are a few rules that don't have a moral connection but your nit-picking of my argument isn't going to be persuasive to unbiased minds.

The conscience is involved in the determination that it would be wrong to drive drunk and endanger other lives.

It's not "nit-picking" to point out you either have written laws, or an unworkable system, and lots of "unbiased" people would agree on that (see this thread for example).

The problem is that the safe level for driving is not based on conscience but a (somewhat subjective) risk evaluation based on human physiology and physics.

People need to know what that safe level is, exactly. Once you write this down it becomes a law.

Someone made a determination on the safe speed based on the moral determination that much harm would result from unsafe speeds. It would be immoral for the state not to post the speeds.

Someone determined the safe speed based on physics, etc. Once you post the speed limit, as you advocate, you have a law.

You accept we need to post these speed limits. You accept we need written laws.

.It would be immoral for the city not to require adequate fire escapes for the same reason that it would be immoral for the state not to post safe speeds.

Again you miss the point that the hotelier must be completely aware of precisely how many fire escapes are 'adequate'. Conscience doesn't tell them this, a law does.

Either you have a fixed limit, and thus a law (which you consider "dumb"), or you have a system where people don't know what the legal limit which is unworkable (and immoral).

Do you agree people may need to be able to see a written copy of the (legal) building code?

Most laws are moral obligations and questions of conscience.

Most laws actually relate to processes, procedures, regulations, etc. there might be a moral underpinning (workplace health and safety, or immigration law for example), but the technicalities are not self-evident via simple mediations of conscience.

People must know these technicalities exactly (like speed limits), thus you need written laws.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Yes, they are full-time. I guess I didn't make that clear. I call them expert panelists. If you'd rather call them judges, it's fine with me but the word judges to me implies people who interpret laws.

In the USA, law schools have been using the LSAT standardized test to screen the applicants for law school. So, that test could be used. I don't care.

You wrote "it is impossible for a citizen to know what is legal conduct and what isn't." I pointed out that not even lawyers know what is legal conduct and what isn't (except in their area of expertise). So, the notion that lawmaking is justified so that average citizens know what's legal and what isn't is absurd.

I foresee the discussion and debate of the expert panels being done online and in writing just as we're doing here. Calling that a "case law system" is what I call "argument by labeling." Call it that if you want but law writing isn't involved.

OK so they are in effect professional judges, but operating in a different legal system from the one we have today. Fair enough.

It seems to me that the central point about law is that it should be applied consistently, fairly and equally to all citizens. That is what makes it superior to mob rule and that is what enables society to function without resorting to corruption of those in authority. You yourself complain that a right of self-defence may vary from state to state in the USA. So that is a complaint about lack of consistency and fairness.

I suggest to you that a good way to deliver consistency and fairness, in a system with no statute law, is for these judges to refer to written records of similar past cases, to help them reach decisions which, though individually determined by the facts of each case, are as far as possible consistent with previous decisions. That is exactly how a case law or common law system works.

If you accept that, then it seems your argument is about the value of statute law. Would that be a fair summary?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Nope......
RF and our governments are man-made systems both.

Laws and rules are much the same, which immediately shows your ideas to be misguided.

A country which does not have its rules clearly shown for all to follow would be a very dangerous place, because your 'expert' groups can sit in armchairs and decide what they think is right or wrong about peoples past actions and decisions.... a terrifying condition for sensible people to live in.

So you understand the common sense of clear Rules in social gatherings but you don't understand this for Town, County, State or Country social gatherings?

That's absurd..... honestly.......

A society is a cooperative endeavor. It must be governed, which means that policy decisions must be made, but those decisions in 2019 would best be made by a panel of experts in 2019 and not guided by laws written by men in a previous century who were not gods possessed of a rare ability to see the future.

In the USA, we have gun laws which the courts allow that are based on constitutional law written by men a couple of centuries ago who had no idea of the extent of the problem that would be caused by weapons technology long after their deaths.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
I concluded you are unable to as you clearly haven't thought the issue through very well as evidenced by your replies. You even implicitly argue that we need laws later in your post.
In bold font you admit your bias. If your posts had demonstrated interest and not bias I would have given you a paragraph on traffic control. That would have been simple but the immigration guidelines would have been more complicated.

Because you are focusing on the principle behind the laws rather than the specific details that people need to know to be able to operate within the law.
People don't usually kill each other. That's not because it's against the state law which they have committed to memory. It's because they were gifted at birth with a conscience which guides them.

The specific details are often quite arbitrary, yet people still need to know them (speed limits, safety regulations, etc.)
Signs tell drivers the speed limits but the decisions to place those signs can be made by an expert panel with the authority to manage traffic control.

The problem is that the safe level for driving is not based on conscience but a (somewhat subjective) risk evaluation based on human physiology and physics.
You are focused on the mechanics of the problem and missing the point that driving safely is a moral obligation. It's that obligation that justifies the state's control.

People need to know what that safe level is, exactly. Once you write this down it becomes a law.
Yes drivers need to know what a safe level is but drivers are notified by road signs. They are oblivious to the statutes. So, the authority to control the process can be given to an expert panel which will make better decisions than lawyers who aren't..

Someone determined the safe speed based on physics, etc. Once you post the speed limit, as you advocate, you have a law.

You accept we need to post these speed limits. You accept we need written laws.
You don't need laws to post speed limits. The authority to do that can rest with the expert panel on traffic control which will make better decisions than non-expert lawyers.

Do you agree people may need to be able to see a written copy of the (legal) building code?
A panel of experts on building would make better decisions of what can be allowed and what can't than a group of lawyers. They would provide a list of practices acceptable and not acceptable but his list doesn't have to be codified into state law.

Most laws actually relate to processes, procedures, regulations, etc. there might be a moral underpinning (workplace health and safety, or immigration law for example), but the technicalities are not self-evident via simple mediations of conscience.

People must know these technicalities exactly (like speed limits), thus you need written laws.
Yes, of course there are processes to consider. But the point you are missing is your notion that if it isn't written down into a law, then the act can't be controlled. That's a fiction that benefits lawyers but not the public.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...
I suggest to you that a good way to deliver consistency and fairness, in a system with no statute law, is for these judges to refer to written records of similar past cases, to help them reach decisions which, though individually determined by the facts of each case, are as far as possible consistent with previous decisions. That is exactly how a case law or common law system works.

If you accept that, then it seems your argument is about the value of statute law. Would that be a fair summary?
No. I'll try to explain why I don't think that would work well.

Let's use a borderline case of self-defense as an example. In state laws, timing is a major variable. Did the killing take place as a quick reaction to immediate danger or was it a planned killing? Was the killer's fear justified?

These questions try to determine the intent of the killer and the facts vary from case to case. Trying to write laws to guide future judgments is impossible. It's something like trying to write laws governing the construction of snowflakes.

In self-defense cases, jurors need to hear the testimony of the killer firsthand. The judgments in prior cases are of no help and laws are likely to create biases.
 
In bold font you admit your bias. If your posts had demonstrated interest and not bias I would have given you a paragraph on traffic control. That would have been simple but the immigration guidelines would have been more complicated.

Again, explaining why I disagree with your poorly reasoned argument is not "bias".

It is possible for reasonable people to remain unpersuaded by incomplete, evidence-free arguments that their authors refuse to explain you know ;)

Yes drivers need to know what a safe level is but drivers are notified by road signs. They are oblivious to the statutes. So, the authority to control the process can be given to an expert panel which will make better decisions than lawyers who aren't..

Traffic law (like most regulations) aren't made by "non-expert lawyers", they are the product of government agencies basing their decisions on advice given by experts.

You don't need laws to post speed limits.

If I get caught driving at 70km/h in a 50km/h zone, what happens if I've not broken any laws?

But the point you are missing is your notion that if it isn't written down into a law, then the act can't be controlled.

The point you are missing is that some laws need to be both formal, and highly specific, even if others don't.

Without some degree of formal, written law then acts can't be controlled in a fair, open and consistent manner, and the public can't understand what they need to do to stay within the law.

For example, traffic laws, to some extent, need to be clear, specific and unambiguously delineate legal from illegal behaviour.

If you write out a list of traffic regulations, publish them and punish people for transgressing them, then why are these different from written laws?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
A society is a cooperative endeavor. It must be governed, which means that policy decisions must be made, but those decisions in 2019 would best be made by a panel of experts in 2019 and not guided by laws written by men in a previous century who were not gods possessed of a rare ability to see the future.

In the USA, we have gun laws which the courts allow that are based on constitutional law written by men a couple of centuries ago who had no idea of the extent of the problem that would be caused by weapons technology long after their deaths.
Ah ha!
So you don't mind modern criminal legislation after all?
That's good.
Where I live most of the old laws are repealed. Only old common laws exist.

You see? Criminal legislation is not so dumb after all.

But your ancient laws are still fairly sensible. Your 2nd amendment reads fairly well, it's just that it's been twisted because most guns were muzzle loading smooth bores back then, and even the rifles took a long time to load. It was all about defence of counties and States, not for idiots to own military war guns.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...If I get caught driving at 70km/h in a 50km/h zone, what happens if I've not broken any laws?...
Your question made me realize that you are making the same two errors in reasoning on this topic that people have made for centuries.

First, you somehow have jumped to the conclusion that crimes can't be punished unless a written law specifically prohibits it. It's this kind of thinking that allows lawyers to look for loopholes on the stupid premise that if the legislators didn't have the foresight to specifically prohibit it, the wrongful act should not be punished.

The second error you make is that you assume that laws will prevent bad behavior. If this premise was true, we could prevent people from drinking alcohol and causing so much trouble by passing a law to make the drinking of alcohol illegal. We could call it Prohibition.

Without laws, expert panels can punish wrongdoers just as parents punish disobedient children without written laws. It's the threat of punishment that keeps misbehavior in check not the laws.
 
Last edited:
Your question made me realize that you are making the same two errors in reasoning on this topic that people have made for centuries.

First, you somehow have jumped to the conclusion that crimes can't be punished unless a written law specifically prohibits it. It's this kind of thinking that allows lawyers to look for loopholes on the stupid premise that if the legislators didn't have the foresight to specifically prohibit it, the wrongful act should not be punished.

The second error you make is that you assume that laws will prevent bad behavior. If this premise was true, we could prevent people from drinking alcohol and causing so much trouble by passing a law to make the drinking of alcohol illegal. We could call it Prohibition.

Without laws, expert panels can punish wrongdoers just as parents punish disobedient children without written laws. It's the threat of punishment that keeps misbehavior in check not the laws.

Why do you keep inventing reasons to avoid actually explaining your ideas? I didn't say or imply either of those 2 things.

So, what would happen if someone was caught driving 70kph in a 50kph zone given there are no laws against it?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
You evidently misunderstood me. As I wrote in the OP, I think all law writing is a dumb idea.
Imagine that.
No rules or laws anywhere in the world .
What a crazy place that would be.

Imagine........ No Health and safety laws for commerce, industry, retail and travel. Nothing for any person or company to have to keep to.

And loads of teams of 'experts,', all sitting in judgement after all things have gone wrong.

You might like anarchy today, but you would hate it if you were any kind of victim to any kind of injustice.

Wonky....... A really wonky idea.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
No. I'll try to explain why I don't think that would work well.

Let's use a borderline case of self-defense as an example. In state laws, timing is a major variable. Did the killing take place as a quick reaction to immediate danger or was it a planned killing? Was the killer's fear justified?

These questions try to determine the intent of the killer and the facts vary from case to case. Trying to write laws to guide future judgments is impossible. It's something like trying to write laws governing the construction of snowflakes.

In self-defense cases, jurors need to hear the testimony of the killer firsthand. The judgments in prior cases are of no help and laws are likely to create biases.
But I'm not talking about "writing laws". I'm suggesting that to ensure fairness and consistency, your experts (judges, in effect) will need to make themselves aware of the judgements given in other similar cases. To do this, they will want to review written reports of these cases.

That is all.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Why do you keep inventing reasons to avoid actually explaining your ideas? I didn't say or imply either of those 2 things.
My answer to your question required a simple logical deduction: namely that you foolishly doubt whether a wrongdoer can be punished unless he's breaking a written law.

So, what would happen if someone was caught driving 70kph in a 50kph zone given there are no laws against it?
If he exceed the posted speed limits, he'd be punished by authority of the expert panel in charge of traffic safety, of course.
 
My answer to your question required a simple logical deduction: namely that you foolishly doubt whether a wrongdoer can be punished unless he's breaking a written law.

A "simple" deduction based on a false premise.

It's not that people can't be punished, obviously people can be punished without laws. One of the reasons modern legal systems developed was to safeguard people from arbitrary punishment. Laws have a 2 way dynamic, not just the 1 way you keep focusing on.

The issue is that they can't be punished in a consistent and workable manner (fairness), and that people need clear, written instructions regarding what is permissible in many areas (clarity).

If you have clear, written, legally enforced directives regarding what is allowed/prohibited then these are laws whether or not we playing a semantic game and pretending they are not. If we don't have clear, written directives then we get confusion and inconsistent decisions (unless you can explain how it would be otherwise in your system).

If he exceed the posted speed limits, he'd be punished by authority of the expert panel in charge of traffic safety, of course.

If he breaks a published, written "directive" he will be legally punished: that's just a law.

Current (basic overview):
Government experts set legally enforced rules which are written down and made publicly available

Minor transgressions: fine
Repeated transgressions: Licence suspended
Serious transgressions: Criminal charges

How do your system differ from this?
 
Top