CDZ The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,614
Points
290
Location
D.C.
THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.
You're going to need to address the scenario whereby the two work in tandem. That scenario allows both to be primary and not mutually exclusive.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
5,356
Reaction score
883
Points
255
"3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot."

False assumption.
 
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
You're going to need to address the scenario whereby the two work in tandem. That scenario allows both to be primary and not mutually exclusive.
I felt this was adequately addressed in "The Investigation" section as follows:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

Do you feel this does not suffice?
 
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
"3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot."

False assumption.
Do you suppose that two standards can both hold the primary place? Or are you denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose? Please explain your assertion of a false assumption.
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,614
Points
290
Location
D.C.
THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.
You're going to need to address the scenario whereby the two work in tandem. That scenario allows both to be primary and not mutually exclusive.
I felt this was adequately addressed in "The Investigation" section as follows:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

Do you feel this does not suffice?
Do you feel this does not suffice?
No. That passage is just an amplification of the emboldened inference with which I gook exception. It's not because what that discussion posits to do is obviate one or other driver rather than functioning as in tandem.
  • "we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent)"
  • If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard.
I think you're construing simultaneity of existence within a given temporal plane, space time, with simultaneity of functionality within a given temporal plane.
  • Your lungs and my heart exist in the same temporal plane, but they aren't functioning in tandem.
  • Your lungs and your heart exist in the same temporal plan and function in tandem.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
7,605
Reaction score
464
Points
155
Location
All in your mind
In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:
Authoritarian Doubletalk

You want each individual to follow whatever authority pleases him, call that moral, and call governmental authority immoral.
 
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
No. That passage is just an amplification of the emboldened inference with which I gook
exception. It's not because what that discussion posits to do is obviate one or other driver rather than functioning as in tandem.
  • "we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent)"
  • If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard.
I think you're construing simultaneity of existence within a given temporal plane, space time, with simultaneity of functionality within a given temporal plane.
  • Your lungs and my heart exist in the same temporal plane, but they aren't functioning in tandem.
  • Your lungs and your heart exist in the same temporal plan and function in tandem.
But how can they be working in tandem when one is not working at all? The primary standard is motivating the person to action (or inaction) fully, without any supplementary support from the secondary standard (which is making no contribution at all). The secondary standard had no authority, no effect, and thus does not exist (I understand the words of law may be written on parchment somewhere, but if law does not have authority, it no longer exists as law).
 
Last edited:
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
Authoritarian Doubletalk

You want each individual to follow whatever authority pleases him, call that moral, and call governmental authority immoral.
I never made any statement about what I "want". I am suggesting that the logic of the argument proves beyond doubt that a person cannot be both moral and faithfully law-abiding (as an overarching personal characteristic). If you have ANY personal moral standard at all, regardless of its particular nature or source of origin, you cannot also be personally obliged by law. Your actions may meet both standards in any given instance, but only one can be the primary motivating obligation (which will be revealed in instances of conflict between the two).

Governmental authority MUST be either irrelevant or immoral to the moral person, as the law must necessarily agree or disagree with their morality (their primary obligation).
 

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,614
Points
290
Location
D.C.
No. That passage is just an amplification of the emboldened inference with which I gook
exception. It's not because what that discussion posits to do is obviate one or other driver rather than functioning as in tandem.
  • "we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent)"
  • If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard.
I think you're construing simultaneity of existence within a given temporal plane, space time, with simultaneity of functionality within a given temporal plane.
  • Your lungs and my heart exist in the same temporal plane, but they aren't functioning in tandem.
  • Your lungs and your heart exist in the same temporal plan and function in tandem.
But how can they be working in tandem when one is not working at all? The primary standard is motivating the person to action (or inaction) fully, without any supplementary support from the secondary standard (which is making no contribution at all). The secondary standard had no authority, no effect, and thus does not exist (I understand the words of law may be written on parchment somewhere, but if law does not have authority, it no longer exists as law).
how can they be working in tandem when one is not working at all?
You're going to have to study philosophy (general and political) to understand how ethics and political philosophy can conjoin to form a body of jurisprudence that a polity enacts, enforces, and in turn uses as a framework for evaluating the nature and extent of infractions. In the abstract, when considering them from a theoretical perspective, sure they are distinct branches of philosophy, and they're taught as such. Pragmatically, however, people don't generally use them that way [1]; they draw notions from each, and from other branches of the discipline, to develop a system of jurisprudence.
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.


Notes:
  1. I suppose there are some 100% purists, but they are the exception not the norm. The very point of jurisprudence is to define a society deems as the limits of acceptable behavior. Take a simple limit such as the prohibition of murder and a statute stipulating as much. The basis for that law is as much about governance (maintaining order) as it is about morality (right to life). Other statutes, such as speed limits, are all about maintaining order, governance, and having nothing to do with morality. As goes economic policy and the statutes that support it, pure empiricists are concerned only with whether a given fiscal policy/law maximizes profitability/profits (governance); whereas normativists care not much about costs and benefits, but a good deal about what, in their mind is fair (morality).
  2. I didn't earlier go into this, but in your conclusion you simply declare the mutual exclusivity of morality law and governance law rather than establishing it using a series of premises and intermediate (to the overall argument you presented) conclusions/inferences. That alone invalidates your argument. I didn't "go there" because I wanted to focus on what struck me as the greater gap: the defective declaration that the two types of laws, and motivations for laws, are mutually exclusive.
 
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.
I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic, and this thread in particular. Unfortunately, I've studied philosophy to a fair degree (having a bachelor's degree in that area of study) and though I would in no way claim to have masterful knowledge of all that has been written on the subject of jurisprudence, I've read enough to discern that the bulk of that material (as is so often the case in philosophy) serves more as a justification for a foregone conclusion, rather than an adequate validation of the position being proposed.

Similarly, your reply -- though incredibly thoughtful and well-written -- at no point demonstrates (even in the most rudimentary form) how either the premises or conclusion of my argument are false or invalid. To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

This I have done with my argument, allowing the premises to stand as self-evident unless challenged, at which point I would be happy to elaborate further.
 
Last edited:

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:
Law is law. It is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a concept within Philosophy. Has nothing to do with law.

Law is simply the enactments of the legislature sometimes as interpreted by the judiciary. It is then administered by the administration branch.

The original meaning of law in ancient Aryan/Persian was simply "the utterances of the King". Still nothing to do with morality -- not for over 27 centuries since the word was invented.

Ergo, your thesis is flawed in a really major way.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.
I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic, and this thread in particular. Unfortunately, I've studied philosophy to a fair degree (having a bachelor's degree in that area of study) and though I would in no way claim to have masterful knowledge of all that has been written on the subject of jurisprudence, I've read enough to discern that the bulk of that material (as is so often the case in philosophy) serves more as a justification for a foregone conclusion, rather than a validation of the position being proposed.

Similarly, your reply -- though incredibly thoughtful and well-written -- at no point demonstrates (even in the most rudimentary form) how either the premises or conclusion of my argument are false or invalid. To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

This I have done with my argument, allowing the premises to stand as self-evident unless challenged, at which point I would be happy to elaborate further.
Bachelor's Degree = B/S

Master's Degree = More of the Same

Ph.D. = Piled Higher and Deeper.

Your credentials are NOT impressive.

Now if you had written a few published books like Prof. Roger Scruton then maybe I would be impressed. But Scruton would never let you pull this crap.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
No. That passage is just an amplification of the emboldened inference with which I gook
exception. It's not because what that discussion posits to do is obviate one or other driver rather than functioning as in tandem.
  • "we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent)"
  • If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard.
I think you're construing simultaneity of existence within a given temporal plane, space time, with simultaneity of functionality within a given temporal plane.
  • Your lungs and my heart exist in the same temporal plane, but they aren't functioning in tandem.
  • Your lungs and your heart exist in the same temporal plan and function in tandem.
But how can they be working in tandem when one is not working at all? The primary standard is motivating the person to action (or inaction) fully, without any supplementary support from the secondary standard (which is making no contribution at all). The secondary standard had no authority, no effect, and thus does not exist (I understand the words of law may be written on parchment somewhere, but if law does not have authority, it no longer exists as law).
how can they be working in tandem when one is not working at all?
You're going to have to study philosophy (general and political) to understand how ethics and political philosophy can conjoin to form a body of jurisprudence that a polity enacts, enforces, and in turn uses as a framework for evaluating the nature and extent of infractions. In the abstract, when considering them from a theoretical perspective, sure they are distinct branches of philosophy, and they're taught as such. Pragmatically, however, people don't generally use them that way [1]; they draw notions from each, and from other branches of the discipline, to develop a system of jurisprudence.
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.


Notes:
  1. I suppose there are some 100% purists, but they are the exception not the norm. The very point of jurisprudence is to define a society deems as the limits of acceptable behavior. Take a simple limit such as the prohibition of murder and a statute stipulating as much. The basis for that law is as much about governance (maintaining order) as it is about morality (right to life). Other statutes, such as speed limits, are all about maintaining order, governance, and having nothing to do with morality. As goes economic policy and the statutes that support it, pure empiricists are concerned only with whether a given fiscal policy/law maximizes profitability/profits (governance); whereas normativists care not much about costs and benefits, but a good deal about what, in their mind is fair (morality).
  2. I didn't earlier go into this, but in your conclusion you simply declare the mutual exclusivity of morality law and governance law rather than establishing it using a series of premises and intermediate (to the overall argument you presented) conclusions/inferences. That alone invalidates your argument. I didn't "go there" because I wanted to focus on what struck me as the greater gap: the defective declaration that the two types of laws, and motivations for laws, are mutually exclusive.

Exactly.

He should read some Roger Scruton too.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.
You're going to need to address the scenario whereby the two work in tandem. That scenario allows both to be primary and not mutually exclusive.
I felt this was adequately addressed in "The Investigation" section as follows:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

Do you feel this does not suffice?
Do you feel this does not suffice?
No. That passage is just an amplification of the emboldened inference with which I gook exception. It's not because what that discussion posits to do is obviate one or other driver rather than functioning as in tandem.
  • "we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent)"
  • If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard.
I think you're construing simultaneity of existence within a given temporal plane, space time, with simultaneity of functionality within a given temporal plane.
  • Your lungs and my heart exist in the same temporal plane, but they aren't functioning in tandem.
  • Your lungs and your heart exist in the same temporal plan and function in tandem.
I was looking for pretzel logic (affirmation of the consequent) actually.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
Xelor originally I thought Brian Blackwell was a high school kid (in Catholic or Prep School where they first teach Philosophy and they were in the chapter on John Locke. But he says he graduated from college with a B.S.

Now I'm thinking B/S not B.S.

:D
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
You can't really do anything with a B.S.

You really need the M.S. just to get started.

Probably after that some kind of state license too.
 
OP
Brian Blackwell

Brian Blackwell

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2018
Messages
994
Reaction score
127
Points
45
.
Law is law. It is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a concept within Philosophy. Has nothing to do with law.

Law is simply the enactments of the legislature sometimes as interpreted by the judiciary. It is then administered by the administration branch.

The original meaning of law in ancient Aryan/Persian was simply "the utterances of the King". Still nothing to do with morality -- not for over 27 centuries since the word was invented.

Ergo, your thesis is flawed in a really major way.
I purposefully did not secure my argument with laborious clarifying verbiage for the sake of brevity; trusting that readers would understand that the informal setting did not require such tedious language. Earnest investigators would perceive clearly upon reading the entirety of my opening post that my initial statement, “inconsistency between morality and governmental law” carries the implication of “as practically applied by the individual.” The overall nature of law as a concept, or strict definitions of the word are not what’s being addressed here.

My credentials are minor and not meant to impress, or even to be considered relevant. I mention them merely to illustrate that I have read much of the philosophical justifications for government and its law, and do not feel that the argument presented at the head of this thread has been adequately addressed. Would you like to address it now?
 
Last edited:

usmbguest5318

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
10,923
Reaction score
1,614
Points
290
Location
D.C.
I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.
I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic, and this thread in particular. Unfortunately, I've studied philosophy to a fair degree (having a bachelor's degree in that area of study) and though I would in no way claim to have masterful knowledge of all that has been written on the subject of jurisprudence, I've read enough to discern that the bulk of that material (as is so often the case in philosophy) serves more as a justification for a foregone conclusion, rather than an adequate validation of the position being proposed.

Similarly, your reply -- though incredibly thoughtful and well-written -- at no point demonstrates (even in the most rudimentary form) how either the premises or conclusion of my argument are false or invalid. To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

This I have done with my argument, allowing the premises to stand as self-evident unless challenged, at which point I would be happy to elaborate further.
Okay. I appreciate the substantive response. I'll get back to you. It's not that I'll have a lengthy reply; it's that I've started writing and a guest showed up in the midst of it, so I can't finish it.
 

yiostheoy

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2016
Messages
20,876
Reaction score
1,926
Points
290
.
Law is law. It is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a concept within Philosophy. Has nothing to do with law.

Law is simply the enactments of the legislature sometimes as interpreted by the judiciary. It is then administered by the administration branch.

The original meaning of law in ancient Aryan/Persian was simply "the utterances of the King". Still nothing to do with morality -- not for over 27 centuries since the word was invented.

Ergo, your thesis is flawed in a really major way.
I purposefully did not secure my argument with laborious clarifying verbiage for the sake of brevity; trusting that readers would understand that the informal setting did not require such tedious language. Earnest investigators would perceive clearly upon reading the entirety of my opening post that my initial statement, “inconsistency between morality and governmental law” carries the implication of “as practically applied by the individual.” The overall nature of law as a concept, or strict definitions of the word are not what’s being addressed here.

My credentials are minor and not meant to impress, or even to be considered relevant. I mention them merely to illustrate that I have read much of the philosophical justifications for government and its law, and do not feel that the argument presented at the head of this thread has been adequately addressed. Would you like to address it now?
"... the philosophical justifications for government and its law ..." essentially referring to John Locke et al.

Locke is no better or worse nor more or less sacred than any other philosopher. You could say he was merely a more modern Plato, and whereas Plato was fascist, Locke was Federalist.

Philosophy does not justify anything, and especially not government (unless you have been truly brainwashed by Locke).

Philosophy is simply pure human thought applied to everything -- mostly to questions which are esoteric in nature.

Word for the day:

es·o·ter·ic
ˌesəˈterik/
adjective
adjective: esoteric
  1. intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
    "esoteric philosophical debates"
    synonyms: abstruse, obscure, arcane, recherché, rarefied, recondite, abstract; More
    enigmatic, inscrutable, cryptic, Delphic;
    complex, complicated, incomprehensible, opaque, impenetrable, mysterious
    "in attendance were more than 50 antiques dealers brimming with esoteric knowledge"
Origin
upload_2018-3-16_9-40-21.png

mid 17th century: from Greek esōterikos, from esōterō, comparative of esō ‘within,’ from es, eis ‘into.’ Compare with exoteric.
 

New Posts

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top