I think that society should introduce 7 fundamental rules, which would be above the law. No law may overwrite those rules, change them or be against them:
- One should act with compassion and empathy
- One’s own sense of justice must be put above the law
- Bodily freedom is supreme
- Freedoms of others, including freedom to offend, must be respected. One who violates the freedom of others gives up their freedom
- Unscientific beliefs are not allowed
- All who commit wrongdoing must rectify it.
- Above rules are interpreted according to common sense
Another thing I want to introduce, which is not a formal law, is optional taxation. People may choose not to pay taxes, but they would need to pay for public services.
You cannot forced good behavior. You can only punish bad behavior.
number 1 is a nothing rule, unless you change it to “One must act with compassion and empathy”. Then you have to define compassion and empathy, and what it means to act with them, in a way that respects rules 2 and 3.
number 2 renders all other laws meaningless unless you have some objective measurement of a person’s sense of justice, whatever that is.
number 3, ok, supreme over what? over someone else’s sense of justice?
number 4: you don’t get to demand my respect. My mind is in my body, therefore rule 4 is a violation of rule 3
number 5: LMAO unscientific belief is the progenitor of science, also rule 3 so kick rocks telling me what I can and cannot believe.
number 6: who defines and adjudicates wrongdoing and remedies thereof if not the law? How can anyone contradict my own sense of justice without violating rule 2?
number 7 is another do-nothing law until you define common sense and everyone agrees that the definition conforms to their own sense of justice. Good luck with that.
number * a.k.a. optional taxation: Taxes are already optional. Optional doesn’t mean consequence free. Who are you to contradict the tax collector’s sense of justice?
overall score .25/7*, I do not endorse these rules and judge them unpopular to the extremity.
P.S. I think you’re on the right track. Reading back over my criticisms they sound harsh, and I stand by them, but I think it’s good to think about these things. Creating rules for groups of people is really, really hard, and I am of the opinion that no one has ever done a very good job at it, so in this respect you are in esteemed company. I hope you post another draft at some point.
P.P.S. A lot of my criticism revolves around the expansive nature of Rule 2 and the phrase “sense of justice”. The tension between one’s personal sense of justice and the relative inflexibility of the law is a huge philosophical problem known as Civil Disobedience and reading up on some other thinkers on the topic may help you sharpen your own thoughts on the matter. As a start I’d recommend some Thoreau for the reason that he’s the first person I thought of, since he figuratively wrote the book on it.
This guy debates!!
There is a guy that wrote like 7 books about the 3 absolute law any robot must obey.
I don’t even imagine the number of paradox and contradiction your 7 law could generate😅. This would create great stories.
It might create paradoxes, but most likely it will lead to a better world.
It will be different, those rules are good
Up to a certain point. You’ll face the trolley problem sooner or later.
But it’s an interesting social problem. Can we define a set of absolute consistent rule a society must follow ? Pretty sure Gödel incompletude theorem would enter the room at some point.
All solutions to the trolley problem are correct.
Can we define a set of absolute consistent rule a society must follow
Yes, see my rules
I see you’re trying to solve social ills through these seven rules. I read your comments, and I noticed something that’s worth talking about. It might bring some clarity to our words.
I see your idea of freedom, and it very much sounds like negative freedom. This kind of freedom is not empirical or scientific. It is a-priori. In other words, you close your eyes and assume everyone is equally free.
The problem with this stance is that it is not empirical or scientific. A truly empirical ad scientific view of freedom is positive freedom. In it, your freedoms exist to the extent that you’re capable to be free.
Can’t talk? You’re less free than someone who can talk. Can’t learn? You’re less free than someone who can learn. Can’t bribe politicians? You’re less free than someone who can.
Positive freedom is also known as human development. And a society that takes human development seriously is a society that invests in their people.
I personally think adopting a pragmatic view of human development is better than assuming good rules will save us.
Another issue I noticed is that common sense is not the same everywhere. Some people are convinced they’re in the right while someone else thinks they’re in the wrong. That is why I prefer the clarity that scientific positive freedom or human development brings. It brings clarity. It’s less ambiguous.
Also, your rules sound a hell of a lot like one of the secular satanist groups. I wouldn’t be surprised if they inspired yours! I actually think they did.
Anyway, have a good one!
many are to interpretation dependent. maga could totally say they are following the rules and its you who are not and that is why its all above the low. also the law is the rules we agree to. the constitution is basically the law above law which is far more specific and the high court is easily disregarding enforcing/protecting it from the executive violating it as a matter of policy. also the legislative branch is not acting and lends words of encouragement to it all. well one party anyway.
Yes, everyone can interpret these rules through their own common sense. That is a feature, not a bug. The rules are not about what you cannot do, but about what you can do. No court is needed for that: common sense and justice are the court.
yeah so everything is fine. its the same as throwing out the law. the serial killers own sense of morality is such that these people had to die. they were after all possessed. i will kill you if your common sense says different than mine.
It’s not throwing out the law. It’s protecting those who are against the law on the side of justice.
Justice is more important than law
like the serial killer. also religious rules. after all believing in god is common sense. well the right god. and those who feel its common sense not to just don’t have commone sense or the right personal code of morality. honestly im getting away from the point. anyone can break the so yes. it is throwing out the law.
If somebody does something bad, they forfeit their freedom and must rectify.
so law is enforced and their freedom curtailed despite their sense of justice and common sense. What the heck is the point of this whole post then? lets have a list of feel good rules that don’t matter in how we do things?
This would be different than the current system. Justice over arbitrary law. fairness over unfairness and freedom over oppression.
What, so today you decided to fix the worlds problems and then post on Lemmy with the goal of arguing with anyone who might disagree at all?
Yes. Today I formalized these ideas, and arguing them out is exactly why I posted them here.
Need a hobby bro
Need to attack the argument bro
You don’t have an argument. You just made a list of wishful thinking rhetoric.
Nope, that’s what you want, not here to do that. You came here hoping to fight over your rules, do it with everyone else. I don’t care.
I’m here to show my unpopular opinion and argue them. That’s how science works.
\2. One’s own sense of justice must be put above the law
Shariah law anyone? It’s your own sense according to god who is above all. It never ends well.
\5. Unscientific beliefs are not allowed
We used to give cocaine to cure people when we didn’t know better. Or “bloodletting” to remove ghosts from bodies. It was scientific at the time. And we now have chemotherapy which is basically “we are killing your body to prevent your body from killing itself because we don’t know better and cannot cure cancer.” There is science in that, but it’s weird.
The rest is fine.
Rule 2. Common sense is not god.
Rule 5. It wasn’t scientific. None of it went through the modern scientific method.
Your rule 2 doesn’t say anything about common sense. It says 'One’s own sense of justice…". If someone’s sense of justice is in line with Code of Hammurabi, does that mean they get to go around and rape rapists, steal from thieves, or go vigilante style killings against murderers? And what about people that don’t line up with that? Who’s justice prevails?
2 is an issue. I interpret that in two ways and both are problematic.
A) You as an individual are allowed to ignore a law that conflicts with your own sense of justice. Historically, there was a period in the US where a black man touching a white woman, literally making physical contact, was seen as a capital offense. Those involved in the linching ignored the law to follow their own sense of justice. This would be just as permissable as noble crimes like stealing food to avoid starving or rebelling against a corrupt government.
B) The law cannot penalize a crime committed by someone who believes the actions they commited upholds their sense of justice. Ignoring the fact that one could just lie and say that it was justice that compelling them to do something, we again have to account for conflicting views of justice. That guy that burned down the wearhouse believed wholly that it was justice for the mistreatment levied by the company, but the executives of that company likely feel justified in paying them so poorly because that could just get a different job.
It would likely be better to incode a sense of justice that can’t be argued against tusk allow the individual to make their own.
If someone violates your freedom while claiming to act justly, they have forfeited their own freedom in your eyes. That is common sense. They should also rectify the harm they caused.
Yeah, they tried that before with a book called The Bible. We all know how well that went.
The difference lies in the content. The Ten Commandments were anti-freedom at their core, an arbitrary list of restrictions imposed from above. These rules are pro-freedom: they secure liberty rather than curtail it. The outcome will differ precisely because the foundation does.
The Ten Commandments were anti-freedom
Akshually, some scholars would tell you that the rules in the bible or the quran gave people MORE freedom than they had before. It was some kind of progress.
Look at the 1st amendment in the USA. I value my own freedom of speech above all, are you trying to silence me with your new rules? I’m hurt and offended by that. But you are now allowing nazis and shit who don’t care about your rules.
In absolute terms, they were anti-freedom.
I’m not trying to silence you. In that system, if you feel hurt you might demand rectification or announce I forfeited my freedom and restrict it. In my opinion that’s unjust, and you forfeited your freedom first.
This is the kind of thing I would’ve come up with in my early teens when I first discovered sociology.
I would invite you to attack the argument rather than the arguer. The validity of a proposal does not depend on who first conceived it.
There are really too many flaws to spend time writing a whole essay on it, but okay, for example:
Freedoms of others, including freedom to offend, must be respected. One who violates the freedom of others gives up their freedom
What about the freedom to hold your own beliefs, which you would do away with in the very next rule?
And what does common sense tell you should happen in that case?
Whose common sense? Are you going to legislate the definition of that too?
The common sense of whoever is doing that.
Flaws… Flaws everywhere!
Name one.
I can name 7…
Owned!
You want to argue against bodily freedom? Acting with compassion and empathy?
You can’t define either of those in a way that everyone can agree on.
