Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
In 1780, John Adams succinctly defined the principle of the Rule of Law in the Massachusetts Constitution by seeking to establish “a government of laws and not of men”. This reflects the democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution’s preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The very foundation of our legal system says that the law should work for us all, not just a select few.
This raises the question of what is a good law that serves the majority of society and what is a bad law that doesn’t serve the majority of society?
This idea is further bolstered by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The latter addition of the 14th Amendment as well as the Preamble of the Constitution both reflect the spirit in which this country was founded as set forth in the Declaration of Independence: “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Clearly, the pursuit of the Rule of Law under the Constitution as informed by the Declaration is a pursuit of the Utilitarian concept of the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action; what is in the best interest of greatest numbers of We the People is in the best interests of the country.
Utilitarianism is a quantitative and reductionist philosophical form. Utilitarianism, however, is not a unified philosophical view. It comes in different flavors with the two primary flavors being Rule Utilitarianism and Act Utilitarianism. Strong Rule Utilitarianism is an absolutist philosophical view and rules may never be broken. Like any absolutist view does not take into account that reality occasionally presents situations where breaking a rule results in the greater good. For example, the strong reductionist rule that murder is bad is countered by the exceptional example of murder is not bad if performed in self-defense or the defense of others. This result of practical application is reflected in what John Stuart Mill called Weak Rule Utilitarianism. It becomes apparent that since not all rules are absolutely enforceable when seeking the common good and exceptional circumstances require flexibility in the law, that the Utilitarian pursuit of the Rule of Law must be in Mill’s Weak Rule formulation of Utilitarianism. But is considering the greater good and circumstantial reasons for breaking or modifying rules the best way to judge whether a law is good or bad?
If one considers Kant’s Categorical Imperative – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” – then any law not universally applicable should not be a maxim worthy of being recognized as universal. This is contrary to Utilitarianism in general as well as Weak Rule Utilitarianism specifically, but while Kant’s view takes subjectivity into account when dealing with circumstances it does not take into account that there can be objective differences in circumstances as well. It is part of the judiciaries role as a trier of fact to consider not only subjective differences but objective differences in circumstances in formulating the most equitable and just solution to a case at bar. In seeking to be universally applicable in defining maxims, Kant is an absolutist as surely as Strong Rule Utilitarians are absolutists. As a consequence of reality not being neatly binary in nature and thus not often compatible to absolutists approaches to formulating laws for practical application, what can be done to keep Weak Rule Utilitarianism from degenerating into Act Utilitarianism where actors will seek the greatest personal pleasure when presented with a choice rather than the greater good? Utilitarianism conflicting with the Categorical Imperative? Is there a unitary philosophical approach to evaluating whether a law is good or bad?
The answer seems to be no. If there is no single view, absolutist or otherwise, that leads to a practical system for evaluating whether a law is good or bad, then there is only one option for building a framework for evaluation. That option is synthesis.
Consider that absolutist systems as they are not applicable in reality should be confined to being considered theoretical boundaries rather than practical boundaries. This does not negate the value of considering systems like Strong Rule Utilitarianism or Kant’s Categorical Imperative, but rather puts them in the place of aspirational goals rather than practically attainable goals in every circumstance. Given that Mill’s Weak Rule Utilitarianism can degrade into Act Utilitarianism and that degeneration can be compounded by the number of exceptions there are to a rule, are there ways to minimize the defects of using only Weak Rule Utilitarianism to determine the societal value of a law? What supplements can be made to that framework?
I submit that one such supplement is found in the form of Negative Utilitarianism. Negative Utilitarianism is exactly what it sounds like; the inverse function of Utilitarianism. Whereas Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that the right course of action is the one that maximizes the overall good consequences of an action, Negative Utilitarianism is the basic proposition that requires us to promote the least amount of evil or harm, or to prevent the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number. If one takes both into account in evaluation of the social value of a law (a synthetic approach), the test becomes a balancing act. On one side of the scale is the societal value of overall good consequences, on the other side is the societal value of preventing overall harm. This proposition suggests the following framework for evaluation of whether a law is good or bad.
- How many people benefit from the good consequences of a law?
- How many people benefit from the reduction of harm as consequences of a law?
- Does the benefits from promoting good consequences outweigh the costs of reduction of harm?
- Does the benefits from reducing harm outweigh the costs to the greater good in taking no action?
- Are the net consequences of a law perfectly knowable from either perspective or does the possibility of unforeseeable consequences exist? Can the unforeseeable risks be minimized either by construction of the law(s) to allow for contingencies or by regulating other risks or contributing factors?
- Do solutions from either perspective negatively impact human and/or civil rights? Do those negative impacts outweigh the positive effects to the greater human and/or civil rights of all?
This is but one way to evaluate whether a law is good or bad for society. What are other methods? Are there ways to improve this method? What do you think?
I will see nothing, either you can understand the work and summarize it and defend it yourself, or you cannot, in which case you are just engaging in hero worship, like a child.
Nobody has reduced reason to perception, that is a lie. If all you want to do is lie and insult, you will have to discuss with somebody else. I understand your need, I assume you are an abject failure and do not understand why, so you wish to blame the people that refuse to listen to you. Insult is a salve, I get that. Lying to make your points is easier than actual point-by-point reasoning, especially if you are incapable of it. I get that too.
But I will not be your foil for the relief you seek. If you want a discussion, you can try again; otherwise, little ape, you can fling shit out of the cage you have built yourself, just to relieve your self-pity for a moment.
Tony C.
> Alex the parrot is dead.
I wail and gnash my teeth. Will you join me in mourning? Friends ,Romans and birdbrains…
>to show that the bird could be taught elements of language…. to study whether it takes a primate-sized brain to understand language.
The birdbrains of modern thought have reduced reason to perception and then claim that perception is reason. In the context of these pseudo-scientific rituals of anti-reason, anti-man, egalitarian ideology, “understanding” is merely perceptually recognizing and perceptually manipulating perceived patterns. “Understanding” has meaning only in the context of reason. Millenia and more of man observing and using brute animals has not provided the slightest scientific justification for such experiments. These experiments drop the context of a vast amount and variety of such knowledge. These experiments and their interpretation as “understanding” are arbitrary, not science. You may want to study whether the moon is green cheese but there is no context for it and a vast context against it. On the other hand, Newton’s study of gravity had man’s vast concrete, pre-scientific experience of gravity and observations and recording of patterns in, eg, star movements. Science is rational system in both discovery and the organization of discoveries, not arbitrary hypotheses and conclusions.
Brute animals, even in bizarrely artificial lab experiments with no relevance for their live in the wild, are stuck in the concrete. Man, by abstracting from the concrete, ie ,selective attention, can regard concretes as units of a group and can then integrate (not associate) the units into a concept by omitting the measurements and retaining only the property that exists with different measurements. He can integrate chair, table and lamp into the concept, furniture. Furniture refers to all concrete things within a certain context, even the things not immediately perceived. Man uses concepts to expand his knowledge vastly beyond stuck-in-the-concrete perceptions of brute animals. He can even abstract from abstractions in a logical hierarchy (only with a base of perceived concretes). Einstein’s E=MC2 is the conclusion of a very long hierarchical/logical chain of conceptual abstractions based in ancient observations of star patterns. Justice and law are concepts logically/hierarchically abstracted from the perception of concretes. When the chain is broken, as in subjectivism and mysticism ,there is no reasoning.
See Rand’s _Intro. To Objectivist Epistemology_ which presents the solution to the problem of universals.
@Grossman: Unworkable for the creation of society, which the vast majority of people value, and according to the standard of fairness, the detection of which is apparently inherent in all humans with normally functioning brain parts and, reason will tell you, is the most likely root of reason itself.
Wait, I believe it might have been “A Language EXperiment.” No difference to the point, however, the bird was named after the experiment.
@Grossman: First, Alex the parrot is dead. Second, you apparently cannot read, the point of the science with Alex, who was named for the experiment he was part of (A Lexical EXperiment), was not to show the bird was “rational” but to show that the bird could be taught elements of language requiring cognition once thought to be strictly in the province of humans.
That goal was accomplished, stunningly and scientifically. Dr. Pepperberg proved this without doubt and overturned dogma in her science, which is never any small feat, in any science. The point was not to study whether the bird could reason, the point was to study whether it takes a primate-sized brain to understand language. It does not. The bird could understand sentences and respond appropriately. Extensive precautions were taken to ensure there was no alternative explanation, or any way that the parrot would be prompted to just repeat a memorized answer, or anything else of that sort.
Your snorting dismissal of the science of those experiments only serves to prove further that you are not yet mature. It is you that is the intellectual fraud; it is evidenced by your pretentious misuse of language and your inability to argue from a rational basis and the rage that comes through on the page at your mistreatment by society.
In fact, all you can do, little boy, is Parrot the work of others. At least Alex could be original once in a while.
Gyges
>I am biased by my philosophical resistance to granting homo sapiens any sort of “special place” in the grand scheme of life on earth.
Why should you value an alleged grand scheme instead of your own rational scheme? Is your mind your enemy, a merciless reminder of the effects of evasion? And how can your contempt for man rationalize mass murder? Even the Nazis valued some humans. You value no human. You are a depraved monster.
Tony C.
> I am not evading ideas, I am dismissing them as childishly illogical, selfish, and unworkable.
Evidence?
Conventional, emotion-guided, predatory pseudo-selfishness or Rand’s “new theory of egoism?”
Unworkable for what purpose, by what standard?
You remain ann intellectual fraud, spitting on man’s mind, your own and others.
Mike Spindell
>Shouted like a true Fundamentalist,
Does mean that you are a Superficialist?
>name your religion.
One of the benefits of education, as distinct from your Progressive conceptual disintegration, is learning that rational, non-religious fundamentals created the West and have been profoundly influential for millenia. Eg, Thales, the first philosopher, rejected supernatural causes for natural causes.
>No wonder your teachers hated you, they saw you were batshit crazy.
One of the benefits of education, as distinct from your Progressive conceptual disintegration, is learning that
volitional ideas are not the product of automatic psychological processes. Ie, psychological reductionism is invalid.
They feared me. But they were mostly liberals who, given your view, should have pitied or even tolerated someone, given your view, alternatively psychological. The current philosophy dept chair posted a glowing notice about Alex, the allegedly rational parrot. Of course, he first reduced reason to perception. Im thinking of protesting until they hire Alex for a tenure track.
You remain an intellectual fraud known to honest posters, whatever their views.
@Stevie: I’m going to give you a time out if you keep shouting. I am not evading ideas, I am dismissing them as childishly illogical, selfish, and unworkable. They truly are not worth the time it takes to discuss them; they are so ludicrous. How much sugar have you been eating? You seem very hyper to me. You can do what you want, but I think you would feel better if you go jump on the trampoline for awhile.
Tony C.
>@KD, Roco, Grossman: No, the problem is you argue like immature children;
YOURE AGAIN EVADING IDEAS FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS!
“THERE IS NO INTELLECTUAL COMPETITION TO AYN RAND’S PHILOSOPHY OF OBJECTIVISM!”
Shouted like a true Fundamentalist, name your religion. That statement alone, irrespective of whether Rand has good points to make or not, shows you to be a religious nut of the socio-political kind. No wonder your teachers hated you, they saw you were batshit crazy.
So see RockO, You have all you need and did not realize it…Gosh aren’t you pleased you came a calling this morning….
RockO.
Never tried it…Not something that my palates would suffer well with….You go right ahead an drink the ripple and smoke that rock…if you used gloves do you think you palms would be blistered….but then you risk a fire…so just stick with the hand and palms…
Here I found this on the net for you:
Most any kind of pipe will do, and it doesnt matter what it is made of glass, plastic etc. , as long as it is nice and tight. I used to make them out of the clear 12 oz liqour bottles so i could see the hit. I would pull the hit into the chamber, let the choke go, and watch the candy roll in. That was so sweet.
Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7719#ixzz1SrIeZlPi
AY:
here is Ripple:
Roco,
I would be very careful if I were you when I drove….If you drive like how you writing….they could very well pick you up for being impaired….It probably would be best to get a designated driver….as your thinking and actions appeared to be clearly impaired….but then again….it might just be a state of consciousnesses that you are able to deal with life as you see it….
I know what a fiver is…aka fin….etc…but what is ripple? Help me here with that term…it has so many meaning….
I am familiar with Ripple as defined by these guys…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVdTQ3OPtGY
Ripple is the more common name for a capillary wave in fluid dynamics.
Ripple can also refer to:
Ripple (charitable organisation), a non-profit click-to-donate internet site and search engine
Ripple effect, the socio-educational phenomenon
Ripple (electrical), residual unwanted variations following ac to dc conversion
Frequency domain ripple, the ripple of a filter’s insertion loss
Ripple marks, as identified in sediments and sedimentary rocks
Ripple monetary system, an open-source software project for developing and implementing a protocol for an open decentralized payment network.
USS Ripple, the name of more than one United States Navy ship
Ripple was a well-known brand of Low-end fortified wine…..
Or the most familiar definition….
To cause to form small waves or undulations.
n.
1. A small wave.
2. A wavelike motion; an undulation: the ripple of a flag.
3. A sound like that made by rippling water: a ripple of laughter.
AY:
I am concerned for your well being. If you tell me what street corner you work, I will make sure when I drive by to have a 5 dollar bill and a bottle of ripple at the ready. Otherwise you would use the fiver for ripple and pass on a meal.
kderosa
>certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.
Man, a living organism, has needs, among them, state protection of rights. States, being mere abstractions from concrete reality, have no needs. The Constitution’s unenumerated, implicit, Enlightenment rights are found in Ayn Rand’s _Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, in the context of a systematic philosophy based on metaphysical fundamentals. Utilitarianism, postmodernism, Pragmatism, Kant and all the rest of modern superficialities and nihilisms are not a basis for rights but of the political chaos developing around us and in modern man’s mind (see certain posters here) as explained by Plato and Aristotle in their unrefuted condemnation of democracy.
Roco,
How charming of you to be concerned with my well being….It is truly touching and amazing….I trust you know something about me…which makes it all the more touching and amusing….I am touched by your kindred concern….
Now, if kind sir….you would go back to your glass pipe once it cools down you can finish the last rock you have…
I hope that you don’t live in the same neighborhood that I do….but suffice it to say…even the best of parents can raise a failure…Do you feel like you are looking in a mirror very often? Does what you do control the remainder of your choices…..if you want..tell us where you are at am I am sure someone will obtain the requisite and necessary help for you…medical or otherwise…From what I hear…it is ok to ask for help….But you have to be willing to take the necessary steps on your own…that would be a start….regardless if you are successful in your first attempt….
@GeneH, why did you haev to read that thread, did you forget all the comments you posted on that thread already?
AY:
what are you the idle rich? I have been up since 7 am toiling away. Go get a job and make something of yourself, you cant live on yo daddies or grandaddies trust fund your entire life. One of them actually had to work hard to make that money. I imagine they wouldn’t be too happy seeing you drinking at 10 am and posting on a blog with nothing substantive to say.
Kind of like the Greek chorus in a progressive tragedy. Although the chorus of old did add something to the play. You however do not.