It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

An error in logic: stating that laws don't prevent crime

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
That another person can claim an injury. It is quite simple. This stems from the basis of civilized society.

Does injury include emotional distress and mental anguish, or strictly physical injury?

All forms of injury of course.

I've often said, all NATURAL LAWS (i.e laws relating to human behaviour independent of modern context such as a parking fine) can arise logically from one extremely simple principle that humanity has been trying to desperately encode into the larger framework of consciousness for thousands of years.

That simple principle is this:

'Do not force upon another will suffering that is not desired by it'.

Whether that's hitting someone, or calling them a name - it doesn't matter. However, you have to be sensible with this. It doesn't mean telling people to quiet down in public because they are 'forcing their voices upon you' for example.

If there is any way that we can rationalise 'objective morality' then I believe this principle is the way to do so.


edit on 1-5-2015 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

Interesting reply. I see where you are coming from and agree to a certain extent.

In regard to the principle "'Do not force upon another will suffering that is not desired by it'

You would need to define the word "suffering" strictly, as it could refer to a wide range of behaviours and emotions.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: DazDaKing

Interesting reply. I see where you are coming from and agree to a certain extent.

In regard to the principle "'Do not force upon another will suffering that is not desired by it'

You would need to define the word "suffering" strictly, as it could refer to a wide range of behaviours and emotions.


Nope. Not necessary. Likely impossible. All you need to do is convince a jury of your peers.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dark Ghost

This is the same logic use to push the three strikes laws in states like California. Except that in practice it just ends up over-staffing our prisons instead.


What's the alternative? Let them rule our streets?



new topics

top topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join