PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Crime Debates
     Human law versus Natural law
       Beyond terms of "right" or "wrong"

Topic Jump
« Back
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No matter how any action is considered, there is no argument, as to the ethicality, that cannot be argued both for and against. If the mind cannot succeed in labeling an act as "wrong" or "right", the act will come into consideration for accordance with law.

There are two basic laws: Natural law and human law.

Action happens by virtue of natural law; if it could not happen in this way, it would not happen. There are no natural properties of “being wrong” or “being right”; either the allowance is made by virtue of the right of way, or it is not. Natural law is simple, and nothing can contradict it. However some foolish monkey wondered if there is a will to contradict the law of nature, can there possibly be a way? The monkey became the human being in order to answer this question.

Humans do not leave well enough alone and the human so-called-life experience was complicated by the invention of human law. For example: The idea of wrong was invented in order to oppose the “right” or original virtue in reasonable terms.

In consideration of the act of being human, the imagination had to attribute meaning to the act, otherwise being human cannot be said to mean anything. Humans are trained, or programmed, in order to keep all or most humans operating within a theoretically acceptable range defined by the parameters of "human law". Trends have been observed through trial and error in the process of developing a "socially successful" human specimen that have aided the engineering of "people" to increase the production margin of acceptable "socially successful" human individuals. The “socially successful” human is one that is optimally designed to carry (contribute to the labor of conducting) the task of finding (inventing) the reasonable terms that might be used (of course all reasonable terms become obsolete in time) to define the human will to contradict nature. The trends that increase the productivity of such people are encouraged as "human law".

The will of an individual is not real, however it can be thought of, and that is all that matters in the context of human law.

When the idea of will was invented, it was meant to create reason for freedom (however there is no real reason, and therefore no real reason for freedom). Individuals can be taught to act according to their “freedom to will”, as long as the will of freedom is in definite-reasonable terms. Language is therefore the collective reasonable means of supporting the idea of human law in the process of defining the human will as an aspect of human character and the original means of challenging freedom.

Humans cannot exist without “human law”, but the organism, the living entity that was trained to be human, is alive, and is only acting the role of human because it can. Disobeying the rules it has been taught to act by (as human) and possibly jeopardizing the vested privilege to access the surpluses of society is considered an act against the will of self-preservation; this is only an illusion. Human law will eventually fail to check and balance the human will in any way, for there is no way to guaranty that the idea of being human will not fail. Any idea can be forgotten, either by choice or circumstance, as the human population dies off, or the human mind becomes exhausted by the process of scrutinizing the human character (essentially itself) for integrity. In this way the human mind and memory end as well. The only order that will endure the end of humanity is the natural order that made the original allowance for the human endeavor of will, or the human experiment. Natural law may rule out humanity, but humanity may not rule out natural law.

Human law is a contradiction of natural law. The way of humanity seems to be in willing for it’s own end.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 10:55 PM on December 22, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do Not Murder, Do Not Steal, Do Not Rap, Do Not Damage Another's Property. I don't see the contradiction.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 9:54 PM on April 14, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Stop looking, trying to see, before you go blind.

(Edited by forfunt1 4/17/2008 at 4:55 PM).


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 4:53 PM on April 17, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Given that the will of an individual is non-existent, and presuming that there has been no interference from supernatural entities (read: those that do not subscribe to the laws of nature), are not 'human laws' simply macroscopic consequences of 'natural laws', as apparently-interpreted by the individual?

I refer you to memetics and the evolution of society.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 11:02 AM on April 20, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I agree that 'human law' is derived from observing consequence, however I don't sense the presence of these laws by virtue of observation.

I don't sense the presence of natural law by virtue of any known means, including observation, and so I am not aware of any human law as a product of observing nature. There is a fundamental contradiction, possibly rooted in the dynamic of free-will, that creates the illusion of a relationship where no sense is reciprocated, so that correlation and/or corresponding cause and effect must be 'observed' in order to (actually) fill in the blank or void between the 'observed-self' and 'observed-other'.

There is nothing connecting human law to natural law, even though reason, logic, and rationalization (or any means of interpretation) have afforded nothing the opportunity of being something/anything of merit, and as far as I can see, this nothing/something/anything trying to make the connection is limited by no means, and cannot be proven real, as there is no end by means of challenging nothing that presents a reciprocated sense.

A meme is not real, it is a product of observing human behavior, and both the action-observed and the interpretation of that action are motivated by the agency of the intellectual self. This doesn't mean there is nothing-actually happening, as far as the individual experience; I mean there is nothing known about something/anything that affords the human an opportunity to think that something has happened for any order of reason or by any rule of reason. Culture is artificial, cultural entities are artificial, and so are the supposed trends observed of cultural behavior; memes are the data, in a way just like that of computers, that represent logic in-formation used to program the human mind.




-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:00 PM on April 20, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am not seeing the be discrepancy.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 02:26 AM on April 27, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Okay, SilverStar, listen-up. Find a set of earplugs and stick 'em in. Now find something to clamp your nose shut, okay. Next you will have to stick one thumb up your butt, and the other in your mouth. All set? This will help prevent anymore gas from escaping.

All you have to do now is keep your eyes open. After you have seen the world, you will not rely on anyone else to resolve your confusion. Good-luck ;-)


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:05 PM on April 27, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't sense the presence of natural law by virtue of any known means, including observation, and so I am not aware of any human law as a product of observing nature.

Are you referring to the observability of causality? Beyond that, natural 'law' - that of gravity, electromagnetism et al - is clearly visible.
Should you be referring to the absence of visible causality, it is certain to state that particles (and their macroscopic consequences) follow predictable patterns. You can simply state that human-agents follow similar predictable patterns.

My general argument here is that as determinism applies to all universal entities, human law(-apparent, as it does not exist beyond a construct) is a necessary consequence of natural 'laws'(-apparent, if you want to take the anti-causality route).


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 7:38 PM on April 29, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from forfunt1 at 7:05 PM on April 27, 2008 :
Okay, SilverStar, listen-up. Find a set of earplugs and stick 'em in. Now find something to clamp your nose shut, okay. Next you will have to stick one thumb up your butt, and the other in your mouth. All set? This will help prevent anymore gas from escaping.

All you have to do now is keep your eyes open. After you have seen the world, you will not rely on anyone else to resolve your confusion. Good-luck ;-)



How does this anwer my question?



-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 8:04 PM on May 1, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Humans make stuff up, like gravity and electromagnetism, in order to play mind games.

Imagine there being 'laws' or 'patterns' in the way nature behaves, then think of how easy it would be to rule an individual mind by training it to emulate those supposed laws of nature, after of-course, having explained that these laws cannot fail, in terms labeled as 'universal', and made to seem so awesome and powerful, that an individual would be considered stupid, ignorant, or somehow unintelligent (even by itself) for thinking that these laws are nonsense because none of them can be felt or sensed any differently after the thought of their existence. Do you see? There is no reciprocated sense between nature, and what humans think is known about nature. Sure there is a sense that cannot be denied and thoughts are rooted in experiencing sense, but it is just as futile to prove any thought to be true to any sense as it is prove it isn't. Meaning, the living connection of nature to 'what' is human, is not a 'what' any mind can know, and of-course, the mind cannot know how to feel.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 8:23 PM on May 1, 2008 | IP
iangb

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There are observable patterns in the way that nature behaves. Every time "i" "drop" a "ball", the "ball" "falls" "downwards" ("quotes" added to emphasise that this is all experiential).
Of course, extrapolating those patterns to the future via induction and thus expecting the future to behave in a certain way is, to a certain extent, irrational (in a world without axioms). However, this is everyone's instinctive way of behaving: even you, who rejects this idea, type your messages on a keyboard in the assumption that pressing a key will correspond to the appropriate letter.

So, while it is entirely possible to take even a rationalist or even solipsist approach to your experiences, you still instinctively act on the assumption that your actions will modify what your senses experience in an inductive manner. Your instincts may be incorrect, but they percieve natural 'laws'. As it is equally merely your experiences that percieve human 'laws', what is the difference between the two? Neither provably exist, save to your experiences, and on that level it can be shown that one is the consequence of the other.


-------
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.
 


Posts: 81 | Posted: 08:37 AM on May 2, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are not getting the message. Thought has nothing to do with  life experience. The human mind can remember, but cannot recreate; all thought, and the relationship of all thoughts, is a product of mind, derived from a present sense into the form of a recent (past) memory, and is limited to functioning within the mind. There is no cause-and-effect in the present; only in the head!


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 7:20 PM on May 5, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything you do or say or see or hear is really  just a simulation created by you mind. So you might say that your mind does create.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:25 PM on May 27, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Everything you do or say or see or hear is really  just a simulation created by your mind. So you might say that your mind does create.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 6:25 PM on May 27, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How long will you wait before you get a clue? Live your life in your own mind if doing so makes you happy. You will either create something by thinking about it, or you will die trying. Either way you are insane ;-)

I dare you to prove that your mind can create, seeing as how all of life is showing you that even though you think you can, the reality is you will never know how, when, where, why, or even who is trying;

Go ahead and fish around in that empty hat, trying to catch the bunny; All you are doing is acting like a fool for your own entertainment.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 11:26 PM on May 28, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Can you prove that what we call blue would look blue to me if I was to see how your mind processed it?


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:18 PM on June 18, 2008 | IP
forfunt1

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

nope.


-------
-yo
 


Posts: 163 | Posted: 5:33 PM on June 19, 2008 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have not been on here for several years. my position on this topic has changed some what. partly because of a greater understanding of human law. I now see many instances were human law does contradict natural law. I still stand by my original comment regarding basic laws.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 10:11 AM on December 10, 2010 | IP
vBlueSki

|      |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from SilverStar at 6:54 PM on April 14, 2008 :
Do Not Murder, Do Not Steal, Do Not Rap, Do Not Damage Another's Property. I don't see the contradiction.

Unless i said its wrong not to do those things. then we just have an argument on our hands. Because when there is two ways to believe something, neither is right nor wrong. yOu could claim that killing someone is wrong, but what if i said my god would spoil me in heaven for it? But, thankfully i agree its not beneficail to society to kill someone.





-------
Deny Everything
 


Posts: 19 | Posted: 2:19 PM on December 5, 2012 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.