The Law

On Laws

~~~~~ Kahlil Gibran

You delight in laying down laws,
Yet you delight more in breaking them.
Like children playing by the ocean who build sand-towers with constancy and then destroy them with laughter.
But while you build your sand-towers the ocean brings more sand to the shore,
And when you destroy them the ocean laughs with you.
Verily the ocean laughs always with the innocent.


But what of those to whom life is not an ocean, and man-made laws are not sandtowers,
But to whom life is a rock, and the law a chisel with which they would carve it in their own likeness?
What of the cripple who hates dancers?
What of the ox who loves his yoke and deems the elk and deer of the forest stray and vagrant things?
What of the old serpent who cannot shed his skin, and calls all others naked and shameless?
And of him who comes early to the wedding-feast, and when over-fed and tired goes his way saying that all feasts are violation and all feasters lawbreakers?


What shall I say of these save that they too stand in the sunlight, but with their backs to the sun?
They see only their shadows, and their shadows are their laws.
And what is the sun to them but a caster of shadows?
And what is it to acknowledge the laws but to stoop down and trace their shadows upon the earth?
But you who walk facing the sun, what images drawn on the earth can hold you?
You who travel with the wind, what weather-vane shall direct your course?
What man's law shall bind you if you break your yoke but upon no man's prison door?
What laws shall you fear if you dance but stumble against no man's iron chains?
And who is he that shall bring you to judgment if you tear off your garment yet leave it in no man's path?


People of Orphalese, you can muffle the drum, and you can loosen the strings of the lyre, but who shall command the skylark not to sing?

@ akkarin

Laws have much to do with morality but they are not the only way morality can be enacted. What I mean to say is how moral is a law that can simply be changed by a vote. Issues like murder, kidnapping, and rape can all be changed in the same way. Its not likely that they will be changed but they can be changed.

Now if you want laws than there is the law of gravity or aerodynamics that nothing is exempt from and no votes can change it. There is also the law of nature but for what ever reason humans think they are exempt from it. But thats another issue altogether.

@JORIZQUI

I agree that where there is man there is society but many tribal peoples and animal have no laws at all. Our laws are things you CAN NOT DO or you will be committing a crime and therefore you will have to be punished for it. Many tribes have no such thing. A lot of them have the understanding that if you do some thing, something else will happen. There are options, understandings and consequences but no laws. They would never tell you CANT do something let alone that you'll be punished for it.

How about a Racetrack analogy for society: laws, ethics and morals!?

Law's are the walls around the racetrack which keep the cars and public separate (which define acceptable behaviour to participate within a specific community). Ethic's are the white lines painted on the road so the car's can operate in the spirit of the walls but without getting slowed down by the details, and moral's are the racing rules of the road - the subtle interactions which promote either a fast race or a demolition derby.

rugadd wrote: A lot of people consider a discussion on acting morally or immorally concluded in their favor when their reasoning is "it's wrong because because it is against the law". Have we not established that man and his laws are fallible? Why then is this an acceptable stopping point?

Going back to the beggining of the thread, I can see that for certain laws That point could make sense.

Take the laws regulating a simple carsale or any other sale for that matter. A lot of thinking went into the redaction of those laws, especially if they are somewhat old (I allready argued that nowadays laws are decreasing quality because they are being used for political profits) In that sense i makes sense to me that we would say, well if a group of people analizing this issue came to the conclusion that this is the way to go about it, that is certainly a plus.

Now, using the "cause it's against the law" card as a secondary argumentative tool is ok, but I do not think we can take it as the master argument that wins them all. Like jurisprudence, what others have concluded on whatever topic after seriously considering it has to have some weight in an argument, but we have to reach our own conclusions and identify our own reasons.

What I do not agree with in any way is the opposing point of view, the one that sees the law as permanetly wrong and stupid. If something is forbidden by law there is a reason behind it, and only if we identify that reason will we be able to reach a conclusion on weather in that case "because the law sais" is a valid point or not.

The issue should not be What does the law say?, The issue should be Why does the law say it? And that is a question we cannot answer in 10 minutes, nor in an hour. That question requires alot of investigation and thought to be answered.

"La philosophie m'a apprit ceci : ce que je fais sans que l'on me l'ordonne, les autres le font par crainte de la loi." ~ Aristote

rugadd wrote: A lot of people consider a discussion on acting morally or immorally concluded in their favor when their reasoning is "it's wrong because because it is against the law". Have we not established that man and his laws are fallible? Why then is this an acceptable stopping point?

Because many people don't want or like taking responsibility. They're afraid of getting in trouble or are too lazy/content to think things through.

Think about it. What's safer?

Making a decision yourself, based on what you think is right and not knowing the outcome, an outcome that could potentially have major consequences on your life if you choose wrong.

Or

Having the "law" tell you what to do and then you can blame 'That Guy' if you make mistake and walk away scot-free?

That and many people have been taught that the law and the government are "God". You don't question the law and you don't question your lawmakers...which is a terrible thing to teach a person, but many people live that way.

Wendaline wrote:
Because many people don't want or like taking responsibility. They're afraid of getting in trouble or are too lazy/content to think things through.

Good point! ^.^

In addition there are very view laws that actually stop the behavior they were launched to stop. So why make more laws? I'll tell you why! :laugh:

Every year we make more and more laws thinking that things will get better but they dont.
Every year Law makers blame the failure of laws on poor planning, bad training, weak programs, and a lack of funds. Every year law makers spend more and more money on planning, training, and programs to make laws better for every one.
Every year they fail. So why keep doing it?

Because every year law makers get more! :woohoo: More Time to plan, more training, more programs, and best of all MORE MONEY! So why complain or point out that this system isn't working?

Daniel L. wrote:

Wendaline wrote:
Because many people don't want or like taking responsibility. They're afraid of getting in trouble or are too lazy/content to think things through.

Good point! ^.^

In addition there are very view laws that actually stop the behavior they were launched to stop. So why make more laws? I'll tell you why! :laugh:

Every year we make more and more laws thinking that things will get better but they dont.
Every year Law makers blame the failure of laws on poor planning, bad training, weak programs, and a lack of funds. Every year law makers spend more and more money on planning, training, and programs to make laws better for every one.
Every year they fail. So why keep doing it?

Because every year law makers get more! :woohoo: More Time to plan, more training, more programs, and best of all MORE MONEY! So why complain or point out that this system isn't working?

Too true. The system needs itself. I was looking at all the open offices and I could not believe the enormous salaries these people get. $200k for a judge... $174k for a senator... and then there are all the gov't employees who want promotions but the only way they can get promoted is if someone dies or their agency grows...

Whyte Horse wrote:

Daniel L. wrote:

Wendaline wrote:
Because many people don't want or like taking responsibility. They're afraid of getting in trouble or are too lazy/content to think things through.

Good point! ^.^

In addition there are very view laws that actually stop the behavior they were launched to stop. So why make more laws? I'll tell you why! :laugh:

Every year we make more and more laws thinking that things will get better but they dont.
Every year Law makers blame the failure of laws on poor planning, bad training, weak programs, and a lack of funds. Every year law makers spend more and more money on planning, training, and programs to make laws better for every one.
Every year they fail. So why keep doing it?

Because every year law makers get more! :woohoo: More Time to plan, more training, more programs, and best of all MORE MONEY! So why complain or point out that this system isn't working?

Too true. The system needs itself. I was looking at all the open offices and I could not believe the enormous salaries these people get. $200k for a judge... $174k for a senator... and then there are all the gov't employees who want promotions but the only way they can get promoted is if someone dies or their agency grows...

And then many of those people get those salaries for life. It's pretty warped.