robeaie, jill and others of a philosophical bent

[William Haskins]

re: new orleans... response, aftermath, looting, fingerpointing,.

hobbes had it right.

discuss...

[BradyH1861]

I would discuss, but my philosophicals are bent.

Brady H.

[William Haskins]

that's what happens when you wear pants to the mall.

[Cabinscribe]

I would discuss also, but I don't want the thread to become nasty, brutish, or short!

[William Haskins]

well played

[robeiae]

hobbes had it right.
Of course he did.

Unfortunately, most readers and so-called scholars have misunderstood Hobbes. The Hobbesian state of nature, the "war of all against all," wherein life is "nasty, brutish, and short," is not supposed to be the original state of man's existence. That is, of course, how it is most often presented (wrongly).

In actuality, Hobbes' state of nature represented that state of affairs that would exist if all authority were suddenly ripped from society, as was momentarily the case, it would seem, in New Orleans. Now some might question why this doesn't happen more often (the looting, the lawlessness, etc.); but, it really does happen quite frequently. A better question is: what are the pre-existing conditions that make such occurences most likely?

I would suggest that societies or segments thereof which lack social constraints in the form of recognized authorities outside of governments represent the existence of such conditions.

Rob :)

[rhymegirl]

Um William, Jill and Rob are busy howling at the moon.

[William Haskins]

the moon is nothing but hollywood special effects. it was filmed on a sound stage and projected into the sky by one of those big spotlights like they have at used car blowouts.

[William Haskins]

I would suggest that societies or segments thereof which lack social constraints in the form of recognized authorities outside of governments represent the existence of such conditions.

inasmuch as humankind depends on external influences to shape morality, yes, i agree.

there is also the human capacity for blind revenge, which can lie dormant in the psyche until opportunity arises.

there is, however, a great deal of altruism being displayed, which can only be seen as progress in a historical sense.

[paprikapink]

If we add Rob's Hobbes analysis to his Goethe quote, do we get that folks who's society has lost its order have lost their freedom? Certainly they haven't the 'freedom of the most free' -- at least in my view, if you're locked in a struggle for basic survival, you haven't any freedom at all. If your basic choice at any given moment is between fight or flight or hide and starve... are you free?

Uh-oh, am I implying that we need social constraints to be free? I didn't mean too. It's Rob's fault for having such a provocative signature.

[rhymegirl]

the moon is nothing but hollywood special effects. it was filmed on a sound stage and projected into the sky by one of those big spotlights like they have at used car blowouts.

Well, man, I'm disappointed then. I'm a romantic and I like to think it got there some other way.

[robeiae]

there is, however, a great deal of altruism being displayed, which can only be seen as progress in a historical sense.
Maybe, but this requires an assumption that individual acts can be positively identified as altruistic. Certainly, this is not universally true, i.e. not every act of giving is a product og altruism. Given that fact, how can we seperate each act and know what caused it? How many truly altruisitc acts (or what percentage, if you prefer) are sufficient to represent progress?

I would argue that every calamity in human history was followed by some amount of altruism. Can we actually rank them with the consequence of showing a definitive trend over time?

Rob :)

[robeiae]

If we add Rob's Hobbes analysis to his Goethe quote, do we get that folks who's society has lost its order have lost their freedom? Certainly they haven't the 'freedom of the most free' -- at least in my view, if you're locked in a struggle for basic survival, you haven't any freedom at all.
The two are not incompatible, in my view, though Hobbesian freedom is not what Goethe is talking about. Nonetheless, the freedom of the most free=the capibility to act with fairness and honesty, with honor. If you are forced to take food and other things for your own survival (things which you know are the property of another), can you apologize or leave a note explaining your actions?

Rob :)

[William Haskins]

rob,

i certainly wasn't arguing universal altruism, and most definitely wouldn't presume the purity of every altruistic act.

i am saying that perhaps our standard of living, our instantaneous communication and our (relative) intelligence has created a more conducive mental state for both empathy and generosity in more people than was previously the case.

i think there's at least some anecdotal support for that.

[robeiae]

i am saying that perhaps our standard of living, our instantaneous communication and our (relative) intelligence has created a more conducive mental state for both empathy and generosity in more people than was previously the case.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but ponder these:

1) There are more people now
2) Re: Communication--we have the opportunity to know more about the actions of others now
3) Re: Standard of living--remember the "giving study." Who really gives the most? Those with the highest standard of living or not?
4) Re: Intelligence--"all philosophy is a footnote to Plato" (Whitehead)

Rob :)

[William Haskins]

great post, but just to clarify... i think you might have misunderstood my intended meaning:

3) Re: Standard of living--remember the "giving study." Who really gives the most? Those with the highest standard of living or not?

i meant the standard of living of modern society in general. that a lawyer, a burger flipper, or even a ditch-digger—who eats regularly, can get to the dentist once in a while and knows something of creature comforts—can look outward with more empathy than, say a dirt farmer of the 1840s with a dead baby in a fresh grave, a wife with cholera and drought-riddled crops.

[robeiae]

Gotcha, but (yes, I have one, but only one...wait, that makes two) the 1840's dirt farmer has nothing in common with the 1 AD Roman bazaar peddler (or the 900 AD Byzantine weaver).

Rob :)

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

except for, if we are to believe in Hobbes for this moment, if all authority were removed in a moment, they would be on the same level.

I'm off for a few days, but this is my kind of thread. i'm all over it. hopefully i can find it then.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

quite a few scholars do get Hobbes wrong, true. I think thats a consequence of how Hobbes has been brought to many contemporary scholars through more recent thinkers (!Hobhouse!) appropriating without appreciating.

its like a game of generational chinese whispers.

[NeuroFizz]

Altruism means different things to different people. Would you consider Robin Hood to be altruistic? Would everyone? How about a looter who risks arrest, or worst, to snatch diapers and formula for a sequestered group of friends and relatives?

[robeiae]

Altruism means different things to different people. Would you consider Robin Hood to be altruistic? Would everyone? How about a looter who risks arrest, or worst, to snatch diapers and formula for a sequestered group of friends and relatives?
I think william and I are talking about altruism in the sense of actions that are undertaken by one to benefit others with no regard for recognition or reward.

Subjectivism is, to me, a flawed world view. In that light, I would say this:

I think both examples you give are not altruistic because in both cases, the actions are products of personal attachments. It does not follow, however, that both are necassarily indefensible or unjustifiable; that is a different discussion.

Rob :)

[DeniseK]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

this article describes our decade as Hobbesian.

[robeiae]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html

this article describes our decade as Hobbesian.
Interesting, but his causal analysis is dead wrong. What created the Hobbesian character he identifies is the continued expansion of dependence on government as a replacement for personal responsibility coupled with the continued promotion of dissent as a means of creating a sense of individuality.

Rob :)

[DeniseK]

And, isn't that exactly what's happened? I don't use big words and I'm no intellectual, so if I speak in layman's terms, please humor me. We became lazy, self indulgent and greedy. We thought we were invisible and that our government could be relied on. It was easier that way. Now we have been forced by circumstances to see that that was all an illusion and that we have to take responsibility back, take charge of our lives. With this attitude from enough people, our government will hopefully head back in the direction of 'for the people, by the people.'

[paprikapink]

Interesting, but his causal analysis is dead wrong. What created the Hobbesian character he identifies is the continued expansion of dependence on government as a replacement for personal responsibility coupled with the continued promotion of dissent as a means of creating a sense of individuality.

Rob :)

Look out, Rob's rockin' now! Thems a lotta two dollar words.

Do I hafta read that article?

Just, I'm thinking if you're increasing your dependence on government these days, you're pretty likely to be left swinging. Or swimming. Or even sinking, to bring us back to Haskins's original prompt.

[NeuroFizz]

I think william and I are talking about altruism in the sense of actions that are undertaken by one to benefit others with no regard for recognition or reward.

Subjectivism is, to me, a flawed world view. In that light, I would say this:

I think both examples you give are not altruistic because in both cases, the actions are products of personal attachments. It does not follow, however, that both are necassarily indefensible or unjustifiable; that is a different discussion.

Rob :)

Your examples are also products of personal attachments, but on the societal level instead of on the level of a small segment of that society--one's personal sphere of interaction. But that doesn't make one altruism and one not, particularly in a strict biological sense, and also based on your own definition. Now, your discussion here is about altruism at a much higher level, and I don't want to derail that. So, I'll let this one go since, as you say, that is a different discussion. But, thanks for responding.

Cheers, Rich

[Pat~]

I would suggest that societies or segments thereof which lack social constraints in the form of recognized authorities outside of governments represent the existence of such conditions.

Rob :)

I would agree with this. Something to consider...a personal religious faith not only supplies "social constraints in the form of [a] recognized [Authority] outside of government," but also can supply the genuine altruism referred to in this thread. (But that would be true only if the motive was out of love, not legalism as it occurs in some religious faiths, with their emphasis on reward and punishment.)

[robeiae]

In a nutshell:

Over the past few years, we have seen intelligence failures in the inability to prevent Sept. 11 and find W.M.D.'s in Iraq. We have seen incompetent postwar planning. We have seen the collapse of Enron and corruption scandals on Wall Street. We have seen scandals at our leading magazines and newspapers, steroids in baseball, the horror of Abu Ghraib.

Public confidence has been shaken too by the steady rain of suicide bombings, the grisly horror of Beslan and the world's inability to do anything about rising oil prices.

Each institutional failure and sign of helplessness is another blow to national morale. The sour mood builds on itself, the outraged and defensive reaction to one event serving as the emotional groundwork for the next.

This is what the author sees as the cause of the Hobbesian state. He sees the situation as potentially avoidable, IMO, had the government done a better job. I see the situation he decribes as a product of this very expectation. That is, his very article is symptomatic of the problem. And no, I don't think his labeling of this situation as "Hobbesian" is correct, insofar as the Hobbesian state of nature is theoretical--it is only approached, never realized--and Hobbes is not the doom and gloomer he is often protrayed as.

Sarah, you fault us for our failures (as do I); his article implies that the state is more at fault.

Rob :)

[robeiae]

Your examples are also products of personal attachments, but on the societal level instead of on the level of a small segment of that society--one's personal sphere of interaction. But that doesn't make one altruism and one not, particularly in a strict biological sense, and also based on your own definition. Now, your discussion here is about altruism at a much higher level, and I don't want to derail that. So, I'll let this one go since, as you say, that is a different discussion. But, thanks for responding.

Cheers, Rich

Don't feel like you need to let me off any hooks! To be honest, I am not prepared to discuss altruism in a strict biological sense.

I will say, however, that altruism at the highest level, wherein it is perceived as a duty necassitated by existence, has been argued as unavoidably leading to misery over time (by Ayn Rand). I share her position to some extent--altruism taken to an extreme is not progress, so I guess there is a flaw in my reasoning at some point, probably with regard to definitions as you noted (but I apparently misread, based on your last post).

Rob :)

[DeniseK]

I see what you mean. But I have always been an individualist, never trusted big government, a residue of growing up in the 70's, I guess. However, I fear the majority of Americans think like he does.

[robeiae]

However, I fear the majority of Americans think like he does.
I am fairly certain this is the case.

Incidently, with regard to individuality and distrust in big government (sounds a little like Jefferson, Madison, et la...hmmm), I would guess that your distrust is a product of your individuality. The current problems are, IMO (I have to put these letters in once and a while, 'else Mac will chastise me for acting like I know I'm right all the time), partly a consequence of people who preach/believe exactly the opposite: distrust in government/blaming government agents create or prove your individuality...utter nonsense.

Rob :)

[paprikapink]

What if you take the word "big" out of government? Is there some curve of size/reliability?

So we've got all these noble individuals, who have the moral fortitude to take such good care of themselves that they needn't rely on social constructs....and then we have groups of people who just aren't that wonderful? I'm thinking some of these groups, for instance, might include severely handicapped people, people who've grown old without the foresight of raising kids to be wealthy enough to provide care for them, or even the individual formerly known as rugged who has since married, has three charming, well-behaved children, though, sadly, their mom died in childbirth, and then his SUV rolled over and over and over a few times and though he was able to drag himself out of the wreckage even with both of his arms broken, he won't be able to work for quite a long time. And I'm thinking these groups just need some external support -- or maybe society is just too bogged down by this kind of deadweight? Wouldn't humanity be further evolved if we just didn't have to waste so much time caring for these needy whiners?

This is depressing. I'm reading your angle Rob as being along the lines of "if people know that there's help, they'll just rely on the help. Cuz people who need help really just want to get help, and if the strong organize to provide it, (like, form a government?) those weaklings will just put their feet up and wave their hands for the next mai tai to get there sooner."

A bit over-simplified? Okay, I think what I don't get is what makes government support/interference/regulation bad? and religious support, for instance, acceptable?

[robeiae]

A bit over-simplified? Okay, I think what I don't get is what makes government support/interference/regulation bad? and religious support, for instance, acceptable?
The support is not bad, nor are the individuals who rely on it. As you point out, many have no choice in this regard. What is bad is the ideological construct of government as being necassarily responsible for that support, as if the government were a seperate entity unconnected to the citizenry at large. In other words, telling people that they have a right to rely on government is bad. What is even worse is telling people that when the government does not provide some ideal level of support, the government is failing and its agents are intentionally depriving people of things that are rightfully theirs.

Governments are not formed to serve the needs of the poor; they are formed to provide security and establish/enforce equatable laws (in the best cases) or to merely exercise power and control (in the worst).

Rob :)

[DeniseK]

I don't know why you threw that religious reference in there at the very end, but as far as your post, you are talking about a small minority. I think this discussion is about society in general.

But as far as government aid, it becomes bad when those who are not in that disabled minority you speak of, people who are able bodied, start expecting to be taken care of too. That goes back to individual responsibility.

[robeiae]

So we've got all these noble individuals, who have the moral fortitude to take such good care of themselves that they needn't rely on social constructs...
Different point:

Social constructs like communities and peer groups and churches and other voluntary associations are the bread and butter of a healthy society, IMO. These are the things that enable individuals to help themselves. I think you misread me or I wasn't clear about this. Increased reliance on government and the promotion of such reliance as justified and a "good thing" is what breaks down such constructs.

ETA:
And I'm thinking these groups just need some external support -- or maybe society is just too bogged down by this kind of deadweight? Wouldn't humanity be further evolved if we just didn't have to waste so much time caring for these needy whiners?

You see me as claiming that life is something along the lines of "watch out for no.1" and "only the strong can survive." This is incorrect. I am all for helping others, all for giving to those in need. That is too say, I believe in charity, not as some mindset or belief system, but as a day-to-day practice that should be encouraged. But charity is only such when it is freely given. When it is demanded (either by potential recepients or by an entity empowered to dispense it to those it deems are "worthy"), it is no longer charity, it is something else. I would cal it tribute.



Rob :)

[pconsidine]

When it comes to the optimal size of a government, according to Hobbes, there must be such a thing. He says that, since man's state in the absence of some sort of authority is "nasty, brutish and short," man must then create a social contract among himself to look after the common good. It's clear to me, then, that such a social contract is only effective so long as its members continue to agree to be bound by it. From that perspective, the more distant a member of the society feels from his governing body, the less likely he is to feel bound by the social contract. In the case of New Orleans, I tend to think that the violence was a result of the fact that the local society no longer felt that the social contract that existed before the disaster was the one that they agreed to be bound by. I would call that a failure of the local government, which would be the only form of social contract that an individual could reasonably feel beholden to in such a stressful time.

On the matter of Altruism - I probably would say that there is no such thing as true altruism. At the worst, it's an attempt to make someone else indebted to you. At best, it's an optimistic hope that what goes around really does come around (that tends to be my flavor, anyway). But rather than condemn the practice, there are probably some circumstances (like the current ones) where one is better served taking a more pragmatic approach - if someone feeds the hungry in an effort to gain recognition or some sort of spiritual recompense, isn't at least as important that the hungry are fed?

[robeiae]

It's clear to me, then, that such a social contract is only effective so long as its members continue to agree to be bound by it. From that perspective, the more distant a member of the society feels from his governing body, the less likely he is to feel bound by the social contract.
Good points, all. But from the standpoint of Hobbes, the above is not consistent with his position (this is not to say it must be). For Hobbes, the social contract is a one time event; it is an agreement between people to create and empower a Sovereign authority and it is irrevocable. The instituted authority has the power to compel obediance. Yes, this is very harsh and yes, it means citizens bound by a proper contract cannot rightfully overthrow their Sovereign or refuse to keep the terms of the contract.

Rob :)

[paprikapink]

So it's about the definition of "government." That'd explain me getting a way different sense of what you're saying than the sense you intended. You probably don't even intend it to be about the definition of government, but it is your explanation of what goverment shoudl and shouldn do, at the end there, that gels your perspective for me. Me, I was lumping government in there will all the things that humans do to support themselves as a group - er, I mean to support their group selves. I mean, in my imagination, if we really lived every man for himself, like tigers or something, we'da been extinct long ago. We're much more like chimps and wolves and even bees -- we've gotta hang together tribe-style.

Sarah, I dropped religion in there as a random example of one of those other instances of humans hangin' together tribe-style is cuz in my own personal evolution I had sortuvan ah-ha with religion early in my life. I felt that I was relying on religion in a way similar to the way Rob is describing society relies on government. In lieu of confronting the tuffer moral dilemmas of life, I could just get into my religion and follow the rules. I had a profound sense of that being a cop-out. My moral muscles, I felt, needed more exercise than following the teachings any particular religion would give them. But that's just me! Anyway, my experience let me to wonder why this argument would focus on government, when so many of these tribal entities can have similar aspects.

[NeuroFizz]

The support is not bad, nor are the individuals who rely on it. As you point out, many have no choice in this regard. What is bad is the ideological construct of government as being necassarily responsible for that support, as if the government were a seperate entity unconnected to the citizenry at large. In other words, telling people that they have a right to rely on government is bad. What is even worse is telling people that when the government does not provide some ideal level of support, the government is failing and its agents are intentionally depriving people of things that are rightfully theirs.

Rob :)

Here's being devil's advocate. The government has the right to take 20-30% of our annual salary every year, and to put us in jail if we don't give it up. What should be expect in return? The majority of taxpayers certainly don't get healthcare for their families, or daycare for their children. We also pay into a Social Security system that is on the verge of failing those who've paid into it for the past 30 or 40 years. Just what should we expect of government for the pay-or-go-to-jail ultimatum? We pay gasoline taxes, and we have a right to expect that some of that money goes into maintenance of roadways. We pay property taxes, and we have a right to expect that some of that money goes to educate our children. We do have a right to expect certain things of government because we finance it. End of advocacy.

[paprikapink]

I don't know why you threw that religious reference in there at the very end, but as far as your post, you are talking about a small minority. I think this discussion is about society in general.

But as far as government aid, it becomes bad when those who are not in that disabled minority you speak of, people who are able bodied, start expecting to be taken care of too. That goes back to individual responsibility.

The "disabled minority" is just the able-bodied who've already met their "Katrina." We may be walking around and supporting ourselves today, but there's at least one Katrina in everyone's life.

The minority, I think, would be the people who can go their whole lives and not ever need the support of their society at one point or another. That's a very small minority considering how few of us are born ready to shelter and feed ourselves. Let alone change our own diapers.

It's just as bad for folks with problems, disabled, what-have-you, to expect to be taken care of, as it is for able-bodied folks. Everyone's got to do what they can for themselves in life, absolutely. I'd say that what is bad is when those able-bodied souls believe that they aren't expected to care for those weaker ones.

Not that I know what I'm talking about. This is just what I thought of in response to Sarah's post.

[DeniseK]

"I had sortuvan ah-ha with religion early in my life. I felt that I was relying on religion in a way similar to the way Rob is describing society relies on government. In lieu of confronting the tuffer moral dilemmas of life, I could just get into my religion and follow the rules. I had a profound sense of that being a cop-out. My moral muscles, I felt, needed more exercise than following the teachings any particular religion would give them."

Paprikapink, me too.

[robeiae]

Ha-ha! I can deal with that (course now we're into particulars about a government, not theory):
The government has the right to take 20-30% of our annual salary every year, and to put us in jail if we don't give it up. What should be expect in return?
The government has no such right. It has been authorized to do so because of a certain ammendment I would like to see repealed. Regardless, we should expect to pay for services rendered. What are the proper extents of such services? That is really the question. My answer: it's all in the Constitution and should go no farther.

The majority of taxpayers certainly don't get healthcare for their families, or daycare for their children.
No.

We also pay into a Social Security system that is on the verge of failing those who've paid into it for the past 30 or 40 years.
No.

We pay gasoline taxes, and we have a right to expect that some of that money goes into maintenance of roadways.
Yes.
We pay property taxes, and we have a right to expect that some of that money goes to educate our children.
Yes, but from State and local governments.

We do have a right to expect certain things of government because we finance it. End of advocacy.
Unfortunately, this leads to two conclusions:
1) Only those who actually finance a government have a right to these things.
2) Those who finance a greater portion should have a right to more of these things.

I reject both, but I also reject the notion that expectations of services are rights.

Rob:)

[paprikapink]

Sometimes, you help someone out with something, and they take that help and use it and they're off. Sometimes they take that help and, still feeling helpless, they ask for more. It's sortuva gut thing that you have to decide for yourself -- am I helping this person, or just contributing to their weakness? On an individual scale, I've had to answer this question many times.

On a global scale, it's not as easy to go by gut. That, I reckon, is the good reason why we have all these labels like "charity," or "tribute," or "expectation of services," or "rights" ... of course it's also because poor Hobbes and his brethern, born as they were before TV, spent too much time thinking.

[pconsidine]

For Hobbes, the social contract is a one time event; it is an agreement between people to create and empower a Sovereign authority and it is irrevocable.

Hmmm... I believe you are correct in your reading of Hobbes. Which brings up an interesting point to me: Does Hobbes feel that the Sovereign authority has any responsiblity to the people by whom it was created? I know that he was against democracy in general, but did he really support a government that was in no way beholden to the governed?

I would find that interesting, because even Machiavelli himself thought that the Prince had certain duties to his subjects (though for Machiavelli's Prince, they were more matters of self-preservation and economy of force than altruism).

To answer Haskins's original question, though - I don't think Hobbes has it entirely right. There may be evidence that elements of his philosophy are correct, but I think he underestimates people's desire for at least some degree of order. The uncertainty of such an undisciplined culture would ultimately create such stress on its members that they would have to resort to some form of self-regulation if only as a matter of survival. In that respect, Hobbe's is correct about the need for Sovereign Authority. However, his interpretation of the necessary qualities for such an Authority are drastic, at least, and draconian, at worst. Mankind can make do with much less - and in fact does every day.

[sellthepharm]

Sometimes, you help someone out with something, and they take that help and use it and they're off



I think we've all experienced this at least once in our lives. How we respond to it gives a glimpse into our individual mettle and character. Doing what is right and just and good, call it altruism or charity or social conscience, is it's own reward. What the recipient does with such a gift is beyond my control and if they use it in a manner inconsistent with it's intended purpose, shame on them. Regardless, I've still done the right thing.


Now, a comment on this whole Hobbes thing. It was always my personal opinion that Calvin did all the intellectual heavy lifting. Hobbes merely played the straight man, a "hangers-on" at best.

[robeiae]

Hmmm... I believe you are correct in your reading of Hobbes. Which brings up an interesting point to me: Does Hobbes feel that the Sovereign authority has any responsiblity to the people by whom it was created? I know that he was against democracy in general, but did he really support a government that was in no way beholden to the governed?
The Sovereign, for Hobbes, is empowered to order society in the way he (the sovereign does not have to be just one individual, but I use 'he' for brevity) sees fit. The sovereign is obligated to provide security for the people, but this includes security of their property, as well. The sovereign's principle purpose is the accumulation of power (read wealth). But since a wealthy and productive populace creates more wealth, this is a desired state of affairs. Hobbes was opposed to democracy because of it's inability to function effectively (from his point of view). Hobbes was very much in favor of 'commonwealths' in the classical sense of the word. The power exercised by the sovereign was merely a necassary condition of order and security. Hobbes was also a firm believer in keeping promises, fulfilling contracts, etc. The citizens were expected to not only do these things with reference to the sovereign, but also with reference to other citizens.

He was also a big fan of personal honour, but that is another story...

I would find that interesting, because even Machiavelli himself thought that the Prince had certain duties to his subjects (though for Machiavelli's Prince, they were more matters of self-preservation and economy of force than altruism).
Most professors/educators who discuss Machiavelli base their lessons on The Prince, mostly because it is so provocative. But this book was written for a specific reason. Machiavell's true views are expressed in the Discourses (mostly about Sparta), wherein he reveals himself to be a raving small 'r' republican, complete with a fully armed citizenry to act as both army and militia.

However, his interpretation of the necessary qualities for such an Authority are drastic, at least, and draconian, at worst.
I know this is the generally accepted view, but I prefer that of Hannah Arendt, who noted that Hobbes was "the first philosopher the bourgeoisie could rightly call their own." (my quote may be off a word or two)

Rob :)

[pconsidine]

In the end, I'm loath to subscribe to much philosophy from the 1600s and early 1700s. It always struck me as primarily politically motivated (depending on how one felt about the virtues and vices of authoritarianism). While responding to current events isn't a bad use for philosophy, having those current events be 350 years old does diminish my enthusiasm for the results of them.

Of course, I was never much of a philosophy student to begin with.

[robeiae]

In the end, I'm loath to subscribe to much philosophy from the 1600s and early 1700s. It always struck me as primarily politically motivated (depending on how one felt about the virtues and vices of authoritarianism). While responding to current events isn't a bad use for philosophy, having those current events be 350 years old does diminish my enthusiasm for the results of them.
Well, let me just say that there is a certain amount of truth in what you say about political motivations here. But, I think we are far too consumed by are technological superiority to the past; from the standpoint of exploring right and wrong, of decribing governments and their proper extent, and even of wondering about the nature of existence, thinkers of the past were as capable of these things as anyone today; in my opinion, many were far more capable.

Rob :)

[pconsidine]

That's very true, Rob. Although one could just as easily say that thinkers of the past had a much more receptive audience for their work than modern philosophers do. Historically, having a philosophical basis for the decisions of one's government was seen as much more valuable than it is today (though it was interesting to see how methodically the first George Bush stuck to St. Augustine's Just War principles in conducting the first Gulf War).

Clearly the ground for philosophy was far more fertile than it is today. That's what makes this thread so much fun.

[Nateskate]

I'll play.

It's hard not to see this through eyes of sadness, but I'll look at it philosophically. Mankind has some fundamental weaknesses. One is the love of money, another is the love of ease and play. Now, I'm not saying I'm against money, ease or play. Money should be a tool. Play is fun, and ease makes it more fun.

However, when you put love of money, and ease, and play-ahead of wisdom and love for people, then shortsightedness rules the day.

I'm for a higherarchy of values. love comes first, responsibility comes second, and play comes in much further to the back of the line. But we've reversed things.

We don't control nature, we only have a degree of control over our natures. We can't stop hurricanes, and if we got smart enough to try, we'd be foolish enough to create a new destructive force. Since we can't stop the beasts, we can only prepare for them.

But in the higherarchy of placing wisdom above love of play, ease, and love of money, we wouldn't have permitted all of these playgrounds to have built in a disaster zone, simply gambling that it would never be hit by a nasty hurricane.

A measure of this disaster was unavoidable. There are industries that need to be on the water. But a good deal of the suffering was multiplied by the fact that people in the know knew what to do, and didn't do it, because it interfered with love of money, love of play, and love of ease. They could have zoned areas better. They could have forced construction companies to raise the land they developed to above sea level before building on them, but that interferes with love of money and drives up cost. Or they could have forced them to move further inland to build- that would interefer with ease.

It's too late to throw stones, but we have thousands more disasters waiting to happen in this country, where dykes and other things are inadequate. And we can learn from this. They had the means to strengthen the levee systems, which would have spared much of New Orleans. Now, I hope we approach building and codes with a little more wisdom, and invest in the future instead of gambling on the chances of dodging a bullet.

I don't throw blame at individuals, because unfortunately the problem lies deep inside of human nature. It's not like nobody knew this could happen. In fact, they had tv specials showing how it would happen. But again, wrong priorities wound up turning a city into a soup bowl.

[robeiae]

It's hard not to see this through eyes of sadness, but I'll look at it philosophically. Mankind has some fundamental weaknesses. One is the love of money, another is the love of ease and play. Now, I'm not saying I'm against money, ease or play. Money should be a tool. Play is fun, and ease makes it more fun.

However, when you put love of money, and ease, and play-ahead of wisdom and love for people, then shortsightedness rules the day.

I'm for a higherarchy of values. love comes first, responsibility comes second, and play comes in much further to the back of the line. But we've reversed things.
Are you talking about people in general, or the government? I don't think you'll ever be able to have a government whose primary motivation is love for the people. Why? Because government is a product and a response to the very weakness that man has. Man wants to "have," and it is through government that he can do so with some measure of assurance (the better forms of government providing better/more assurance).

For people to be ruled by love runs counter to their nature, IMO. Some will overcome this nature (hats off to them), but most will not. But regardless, it was the harnessing of man's flaws that created what we know as progress. While suffering is sometimes a consequence of progress, a better life for everyone is the long term result.

Thus, you have to accept the evil of some and the greed of others. The ideal society, ruled by love, withers on the vine.

A measure of this disaster was unavoidable. There are industries that need to be on the water. But a good deal of the suffering was multiplied by the fact that people in the know knew what to do, and didn't do it, because it interfered with love of money, love of play, and love of ease. They could have zoned areas better. They could have forced construction companies to raise the land they developed to above sea level before building on them, but that interferes with love of money and drives up cost. Or they could have forced them to move further inland to build- that would interefer with ease.
Freedom remains the most essential component of progress and a resovoir of hope, always. Mistakes will always be made, but people must sometimes be free to make those mistakes. In the other direction lies misery and serfdom.

I don't throw blame at individuals, because unfortunately the problem lies deep inside of human nature. It's not like nobody knew this could happen. In fact, they had tv specials showing how it would happen. But again, wrong priorities wound up turning a city into a soup bowl.
Well said, and I agree completely. (that makes two of us)

Rob :)

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

For people to be ruled by love runs counter to their nature, IMO. Some will overcome this nature (hats off to them), but most will not. But regardless, it was the harnessing of man's flaws that created what we know as progress. While suffering is sometimes a consequence of progress, a better life for everyone is the long term result.


Rob, got a question for you on this one.
Kant and Hegel loved this harnessing of man's flaws that created 'progress'. I gotta say, I think its a quality idea - like a sweeping trick made on mankind in his own story.
this is my question - who harnesses man's flaws for progress? is it god? is it man?
i'm not having a go, i am genuinely interested in this idea.

THIS IS THE BALANCE PART -
i am going to say that i don't think that human nature is evil. i think evil is a social construct. if we eat eachother, people say 'oooh, thats evil.' if lions do it, its nature. if some tribe in Oslo do it, within their tribe its not evil.
i think that evil is a context idea, which changes according to its setting.

i wouldn't say that humans are naturally evil as i don't think evil exists naturally in an absolute sense.
but then i'm not sure - its not a set opinion i have, not that i have one set opinion at all really.

You guys are swell to talk to.

[robeiae]

this is my question - who harnesses man's flaws for progress? is it god? is it man?
i'm not having a go, i am genuinely interested in this idea.
Read what I recently posted in Thread Killer. It's a bit by a musty British Doctor (he's musty because he's dead) named Bernard Mandeville.

It is man. Man's flaws are the basis of civil society (Hobbes and Rousseau agree on this, though the latter refused to admit it).

THIS IS THE BALANCE PART -
i am going to say that i don't think that human nature is evil. i think evil is a social construct. if we eat eachother, people say 'oooh, thats evil.' if lions do it, its nature. if some tribe in Oslo do it, within their tribe its not evil.
i think that evil is a context idea, which changes according to its setting.
Once you have civil society, you have the basis for defining good and evil. But there has always been civil society of some kind--it is the defining construct of mankind. Thus, in the theoretical Hobbesian State of Nature, man is fundamentally evil, because he acts from self-interest, alone.

Rob :)

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

what if there is not a civil society of some kind.

Jean-Jacque Rousseau was, me thinks, the first to say this. he thought that if we are to judge human nature, we must consider what man is. that is man, individual, outside of rules and civlisations.
a man. a nude man. he will act from self-interest yes, but is it not our current climate that tells us that may be wrong (in 1980s wall street wasn't that good - wasn't greed good?).

yes, once u have civil society you have the base for judging good and bad. but, now that we have seen so many different civil societies with so many different goods and bads, and we know that our current good/bad dichotomy may change at any moment - doesnt it take away any absolute good and evil that we may think we have?

of course JJR would refuse to admit it. bit of a dreamer that one.

if it is man who pushes progress through his badness then isn't man made good by his bad?

thanks for the mandy, i'll be moseying on over later.

[robeiae]

what if there is not a civil society of some kind.
There always is

Jean-Jacque Rousseau was, me thinks, the first to say this. he thought that if we are to judge human nature, we must consider what man is. that is man, individual, outside of rules and civlisations.
Well, I think Hobbes beat him to this; pretty much every political thinker in the hundred years after Hobbes wanted to prove they were smarter and/or Hobbes was wrong, but I won't quibble.
a man. a nude man. he will act from self-interest yes, but is it not our current climate that tells us that may be wrong (in 1980s wall street wasn't that good - wasn't greed good?).
There is a problem with definitions here, I think. There is the dichotomy of good/evil and that of beneficial/detrimental. They are not the same. The first references the actions of the individual; the second references the conseguences of multiple actions to society as a whole. Charity is good; complete altruism is detrimental.

yes, once u have civil society you have the base for judging good and bad. but, now that we have seen so many different civil societies with so many different goods and bads, and we know that our current good/bad dichotomy may change at any moment - doesnt it take away any absolute good and evil that we may think we have?
I disgree completely with a subjective view of good and evil. Civil society is a reality. We can think freely on what man's limits should be. Some conclusions are always right, some are always wrong. In other words, there is a knowable and definable ethical system based on the reality of man's nature and existence. Kant, I think, knew this (though he knew little else), as did Hegel.

Rob :)

[Nateskate]

Are you talking about people in general, or the government? I don't think you'll ever be able to have a government whose primary motivation is love for the people. Why? Because government is a product and a response to the very weakness that man has. Man wants to "have," and it is through government that he can do so with some measure of assurance (the better forms of government providing better/more assurance).

For people to be ruled by love runs counter to their nature, IMO. Some will overcome this nature (hats off to them), but most will not. But regardless, it was the harnessing of man's flaws that created what we know as progress. While suffering is sometimes a consequence of progress, a better life for everyone is the long term result.

Thus, you have to accept the evil of some and the greed of others. The ideal society, ruled by love, withers on the vine.


Freedom remains the most essential component of progress and a resovoir of hope, always. Mistakes will always be made, but people must sometimes be free to make those mistakes. In the other direction lies misery and serfdom.


Well said, and I agree completely. (that makes two of us)

Rob :)

The point is philosophical. Can society survive without people that rise above? Will people who rise above attempt to influence society or retreat?

The government is over-rated. We get what we tollerate. And I'm not saying this as a political statement, but more as a moral responcibility. The issue is no less than people are willing to vote for convenience, and don't exact higher expectations from leaders and haven't for so long now that we ended up with parties who think elections first, not what is best for our country first. Do you think either party really offered the best of the best? The best aren't electable because people weren't looking for a person with a strong conscience and humble heart. So, the end result is you find that the best of the best are not even in the system, let alone rising to the top.

Far too long our number one priority as a society has been, "What do I get out of this?" That seems like a valid survival question. But the higher question is, "What impact will this have on society? What impact is there to having a "play now and pay later" strategy?"

What we see is that people are willing to tollerate arrogance, and self-serving people who are willing to do anything to get elected, or their man elected. Why? -I, My, me, mine comes first. If I can get my bone, I'll sell my vote. There is a plus side to having a government like ours, but there is a minus side as well. The entire system banks upon the basic goodness of the people, not the system itself. Individuals can sell out the states, and states can sell out the nation as a whole. But we've always hoped they would never do that. When you find that happen, there are real major integrity issues. We can blame the system, but honestly, unless we realize the problem isn't the system but the people in the system-us, the system is and stays what it is.

The system wasn't the problem. People of integrity can make the worst system work if they are willing. But people with lack of integrity can screw up the very best system.

However, what we see is that over the years, "I, me, mine" has taken first place over what is best for the nation as a whole.

I'll step out further on the limb. Government is not a cause of a fallen people, it is a symptom of a fallen people that have out of balance priorities. People can effect change if enough people want it. People can be educated if people want it. However, if people aren't educated, aren't wise, aren't willing to lay down and sacrifice for anything, the government isn't going to save them, because the government is going to reflect them.

We are suffering from a crises of wisdom. And that isn't because wisdom isn't available, it's because it was never much of a priority. In 1999 people were saying, "How high can we fly? How rich can we get?" It was like a selfishness feeding frenzy. Bigger better toys seemed like a wise investment until someone pulled the plug and we realized energy is a luxury we can't afford to waste. Again, pay now and play longer or play now and pay forever.

And we are finding Wisdom is something we want lots of in the bank, because when you go to make a withdrawel, it's a pity when there isn't anything there. This disaster was multiplied. We couldn't have stopped the winds, that is beyond us, but we could have built smarter, prepared better, and organized well ahead of time. "What went wrong?" is a question individuals are asking the counties, and counties are asking the state, and states are asking the feds. The real answer is, "What went wrong with us? Why are we as a people in the place we are in? Why are we shortsighted?"

I'm grateful I've been given this chance to speak. And honestly, I ask myself this question more and more. "Am I a part of the problem?" Not in the self-whipping fruitless mode, but in the, "What things can I do as a citizen," and "How far will I go for what I believe in and what matters to me?" And to some degree, the answer is yes. I am a part of the problem. So, I'm low on slinging stones.

[pconsidine]

I disgree completely with a subjective view of good and evil. Civil society is a reality. We can think freely on what man's limits should be. Some conclusions are always right, some are always wrong. In other words, there is a knowable and definable ethical system based on the reality of man's nature and existence. Kant, I think, knew this (though he knew little else), as did Hegel.

Amen. The overwhelming belief in Moral Relativism has got to be one of the worst ethical disasters of the 20th Century.

I took a class in college called The Philosophy of War and Peace and I was constantly amazed at the difficulty the other students had with the idea that, just because murder may be the lesser of two evils in a given situation, that doesn't make it good. They just couldn't grasp that one could start from the position that "Murder is ALWAYS Wrong" and still wind up with a just cause for war.

That inability to parse the finer nuances of reasoning scares me more than most other things these days.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

Amen. The overwhelming belief in Moral Relativism has got to be one of the worst ethical disasters of the 20th Century.

moral absolutism has also been a bit of a problem and not just in the 20th c.
in terms of disasters (not just ethical) the abolsutism of Hitler and Stalin. And then the many others that came before.

seems bad might just come out of everything. maybe man does have a flawed nature....



I took a class in college called The Philosophy of War and Peace and I was constantly amazed at the difficulty the other students had with the idea that, just because murder may be the lesser of two evils in a given situation, that doesn't make it good.


Yeah, sounds familar to some politics classes over here.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

Well, I think Hobbes beat him to this; pretty much every political thinker in the hundred years after Hobbes wanted to prove they were smarter and/or Hobbes was wrong, but I won't quibble.


I wouldn't limit it to 100years Rob, lets open the curtains a bit! JJ's main argument against Hobby there was that Hobby had taken socially constructed terms and put them in human nature, JJ was trying to ignore all socially constructed terms himself but fell a bit on his face when he spoke about caves and rabbits. lets not go there.
trying to look at human nature on its own is usually a waste of time. there are much more deserving things for us to concentrate our times on, of that we can all agree.

There is a problem with definitions here, I think. There is the dichotomy of good/evil and that of beneficial/detrimental. They are not the same. The first references the actions of the individual; the second references the conseguences of multiple actions to society as a whole.

yes, that the correct problem to highlight certainly.


I disgree completely with a subjective view of good and evil.

if society is ever modelled on that, then we are all doomed. its that simple.

Civil society is a reality.

and thank the skies for that. we would be further doomed without it and the free institutions that make it.

We can think freely on what man's limits should be. Some conclusions are always right, some are always wrong. In other words, there is a knowable and definable ethical system based on the reality of man's nature and existence. Kant, I think, knew this (though he knew little else), as did Hegel.

I think that knowable system does exist and Kant went for it didn't he? lovely idea with the kingdom stuff. i just don't think its my place to know what that system is, and when men usually think they have found it, alot of bad SeenHimInTown goes down.

[robeiae]

I'll step out further on the limb. Government is not a cause of a fallen people, it is a symptom of a fallen people that have out of balance priorities. People can effect change if enough people want it. People can be educated if people want it. However, if people aren't educated, aren't wise, aren't willing to lay down and sacrifice for anything, the government isn't going to save them, because the government is going to reflect them.
Noble sentiments, indeed...but unattainable IMO. While I confess to a certain idealism when it comes to myself, my family, and my friends (I always expect the best, though I don't always get, not even from myself), I don't believe it is realistic to expect change in this regard. All we can hope for is the status quo--sometimes we are fortunate to improve upon it some, other times, we fall back from it some.

Government is necassary--the trick is to make it necassary as infrequently as possible.

Rob :)

[Nateskate]

Noble sentiments, indeed...but unattainable IMO. While I confess to a certain idealism when it comes to myself, my family, and my friends (I always expect the best, though I don't always get, not even from myself), I don't believe it is realistic to expect change in this regard. All we can hope for is the status quo--sometimes we are fortunate to improve upon it some, other times, we fall back from it some.

Government is necassary--the trick is to make it necassary as infrequently as possible.

Rob :)

Actually, I think you are right. And the point of that overlong post wasn't, "You can change the world." At this point I have lower expectations. People can influence whom they can if so inclined, but I doubt most people will be so inclined.

The point was made because so many fingers are wagging in anger, looking for someone to blame here. And there is reason to feel sad, and angry. But I'm saying in effect, there is no point in blame, and if we blame, we can spread it around. But it is the nature of people to want to find a bad guy to pin this on. It gives the anger a target, which I think is a bad thing. But it is a natural thing.

It may not diffuse the anger, but the government didn't make the disaster. In some respects, the government became what we allowed it to become. That didn't matter much until now, but now that it matters, the more important thing is do we get angry or learn. I think it's healthier to approach it from, "What are we learning from this mess?"

Some would rather imply, "Dems or Repubs" caused this. If people want a real fix, the answer is a change in the way we approach life.

[robeiae]

The point was made because so many fingers are wagging in anger, looking for someone to blame here. And there is reason to feel sad, and angry. But I'm saying in effect, there is no point in blame, and if we blame, we can spread it around. But it is the nature of people to want to find a bad guy to pin this on. It gives the anger a target, which I think is a bad thing. But it is a natural thing.

It may not diffuse the anger, but the government didn't make the disaster. In some respects, the government became what we allowed it to become. That didn't matter much until now, but now that it matters, the more important thing is do we get angry or learn. I think it's healthier to approach it from, "What are we learning from this mess?"
And I still agree whole-heartedly. But I still say "that makes two of us"!! This is worth noting, I think, becuase it seems to me we approach things from very different perspectives, yet still come to the same conclusion. I find that not only significant, but also somewhat hopeful.

Rob :)

[robeiae]

I think that knowable system does exist and Kant went for it didn't he? lovely idea with the kingdom stuff. i just don't think its my place to know what that system is, and when men usually think they have found it, alot of bad SeenHimInTown goes down.
Well, I think that's a consequence of expectations for government to actually operate within such a system, i.e. be consistent with it. This is wrong and very dangerous--it's what leads to ideologies of hate and totalitarian governments (as I think Hannah Arendt effectively demonstrated). It's a fine line, to be sure, but a line you must be able to spot and know when you've gone too far.

Rob :)

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

thats precisely what i was talking about earlier.
about believing something being 100% absolute - thats when humans start to cause probs for each other. if i may make a bold statement

its free press, free associations and free peeople that can tell the govt when they are about to cross it
and there must be chances to make them pay for going to far or prevent such tragedy

[Nateskate]

And I still agree whole-heartedly. But I still say "that makes two of us"!! This is worth noting, I think, becuase it seems to me we approach things from very different perspectives, yet still come to the same conclusion. I find that not only significant, but also somewhat hopeful.

Rob :)

It is hopeful. Luke and Vadar (you can be either one) eventually fought on the same side. Not that we are on different sides, but if you say we have different perspectives, I'll accept that at face value. We want the world to get better and people to be safe and happy. I think that is the main objective.

[pconsidine]

thats precisely what i was talking about earlier.
about believing something being 100% absolute - thats when humans start to cause probs for each other.

Where Ethical Relitavism goes wrong is in saying that nothing is absolute. Just as a matter of human nature (or what some people call Natural Law) there ought to be some absolutes. For example, murder. At the most basic level, murder is wrong because, if it isn't, then it's okay for someone to murder me. That violates the most basic tenet of Natural Law: self-preservation.

It's more a matter of observing the barest minimum of absolutes (probably summed up in the last seven of the 10 Commandments) and acknowledging the comparative nuances of dealing with absolutes (that the lesser of two wrongs is still wrong) than saying that there are no absolutes at all.

[Nateskate]

Where Ethical Relitavism goes wrong is in saying that nothing is absolute. Just as a matter of human nature (or what some people call Natural Law) there ought to be some absolutes. For example, murder. At the most basic level, murder is wrong because, if it isn't, then it's okay for someone to murder me. That violates the most basic tenet of Natural Law: self-preservation.

It's more a matter of observing the barest minimum of absolutes (probably summed up in the last seven of the 10 Commandments) and acknowledging the comparative nuances of dealing with absolutes (that the lesser of two wrongs is still wrong) than saying that there are no absolutes at all.

The important thing is to remember laws are for mankind, mankind is not for the law. It doesn't work that way, but the "spirit" of the law and the "letter" of the law sometimes conflict.

Of course, that is a preface to the point. The point is that ambiguity is a problem just as much as having a rigid system is a problem. A "fluid" law which has no foundation is easy to exploit, and has turned the American system of justice into a game of outfoxing the law. And so, the power is no longer in the law, but in the lawyer's ability to give a sales pitch rather than determining guilt or innocence.

But a rigid law kills. In a sense, if you look at New Orleans as an example, you had police guarding food markets (laws) in a town where people were starving. There is always a "Higher" law, and a hierarchy of laws. Justice and Mercy sit at the top of the hierarchy. And although people can't seem to grasp this, but "Love" and "Mercy" which are hard to legislate, should be the highest laws. The Cops should have understood that saving these people's lives in a crises superceded all laws of commerce. Taking a docked boat to go rescue someone drowning was not stealing.

The police should have been the first to blast open the doors and create an order by which people could take what they needed. In a sense, it would be akin to the Good Samaratan law, as well as the right for them to use a citizens car during an emergency.

[pconsidine]

Taking a docked boat to go rescue someone drowning was not stealing.

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Taking a docked boat to rescue someone who is drowning is stealing. It's just that in that case, stealing is a lesser crime than allowing someone to die. That might just be semantics, but I think it's an important distinction to make. (I'm tempted to go into how language influences thought, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

To me, the merit of absolutes is that it removes the question of whether something is right or wrong from the equation and allows us to decide in the cold light of day whether we're going to do it anyway. I think it's far better for someone to say, "I broke the law and here's the reason why" rather than say, "I didn't do anything wrong." The second case can lead people to contort ethics into unrecognizable pretzels just so they can arrive at that answer.

[Nicholas S.H.J.M Woodhouse]

It's more a matter of observing the barest minimum of absolutes (probably summed up in the last seven of the 10 Commandments) and acknowledging the comparative nuances of dealing with absolutes (that the lesser of two wrongs is still wrong) than saying that there are no absolutes at all.

For me, the barest minimum of absolutes is just to not be a hypocrite, to be critical of everything I do and hold every action up to the court of my morals, and always to try to do the right thing and make the world better in what I do, which makes me what I am.

I agree with the last half of your sentence. I'm afraid I cant comment on the commandments, as I have no idea what they are (and certainly not in order).
would anyone be so kind as to list them for me?

[Nateskate]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Taking a docked boat to rescue someone who is drowning is stealing. It's just that in that case, stealing is a lesser crime than allowing someone to die. That might just be semantics, but I think it's an important distinction to make. (I'm tempted to go into how language influences thought, but that's a whole other can of worms.)

To me, the merit of absolutes is that it removes the question of whether something is right or wrong from the equation and allows us to decide in the cold light of day whether we're going to do it anyway. I think it's far better for someone to say, "I broke the law and here's the reason why" rather than say, "I didn't do anything wrong." The second case can lead people to contort ethics into unrecognizable pretzels just so they can arrive at that answer.

If a policeman flags down a car in a crises, he can take the car even though he doesn't own the car. The law tries to acknowlege special circumstances, but the law has flaws. If a man attempts to save a man and shoots a bear coming to attack him, and accidently hits the man, he has taken a life, but hasn't committed murder. If a man attempts to kill a man and accidently shoots the bear trying to kill him, he isn't a hero. However, in both cases, justice might not be served.

The law acknowledges intent. Even moral law acknowledges intentions of the heart. And this has always been a problem with laws. Jesus purposely healed on the Sabbath, which in a legalistic mind was breaking one of the ten commandments to keep the Sabbath holy. Was he breaking a moral law? No, in fact, he quotes the law to prove a point. "Which of you having a beast that has fallen into a well..."- which is actually in the Mosaic Law, becomes the basis for the exception. He wasn't just arguing, he was pointing out that "Mercy" was built into the law. And Mercy was a higher law than tithing. In fact, tithing is subject to that law, because the intentions of tithes and alms is mercy.

He rebuked this mindset, saying, "You tithe dill and mint- and you ought to do this... but you neglect the WEIGHTIER issues of the law...justice and mercy." In effect he was saying there is a hierarchy of laws. All laws are not equal. No one stops an amulance going through a traffic light. Likewise when a policeman learns a private citizen sped through a traffic light to carry someone to the hospital, the law of mercy supercedes the speed limit. The law said, "Stone her", but if you understand that the higher intention was "Mercy", and that if we stone her we stone ourselves, then people lay down their stones.

The law was intended to do two things, and one of them was to provide social order, and within that was the idea that it was to "Protect" society. The "intention" is actually the highest part of the law. The words are an attempt to codify intentions. When the law works in reverse of the intentions, and stops protecting and starts being the basis that causes lives to be lost, then the intention itself is wronged. That which was meant to save has actually killed.

The words were only the attempt to codify the intention. And unfortunately you will never find pure words that apply to all situations and circumstances. If a baby is dying next to me for lack of food, and the only food available is the food in the store, and there are no MAC machines, banks, or open stores, a higher moral code goes into effect because society does not want that child to die. Every judge in the world knows that society would codify a law on the spot to provide for that child. In effect, the one who gets the food has done the will of "The People", which is the intention of the law in the first place.

So, he did not break the intention of the law, because the highest intention of the law is to provide, protect and provide order. The crises placed people into situations and circumstances that forced people to act outside of normal boundaries, but within them a higher law was working.

And obviously, I'm talking about people whose intentions were to promote survival, not mayhem or to take advantage of the situation.

[pconsidine]

If a policeman flags down a car in a crises, he can take the car even though he doesn't own the car. The law tries to acknowlege special circumstances [...]

If a baby is dying next to me for lack of food, and the only food available is the food in the store, and there are no MAC machines, banks, or open stores, a higher moral code goes into effect because society does not want that child to die.

Nate,

I don't disgree with you at all. All I am trying to point out is that, in the cases you've pointed out, the choice is not between Right and Wrong - it's between Wrong and More Wrong. In the case of stealing food to feed a starving baby, it's a matter of being justified in breaking the law. That doesn't mean that breaking the law is Right. It just means that it was better than the alternative.

[Nateskate]

Nate,

I don't disgree with you at all. All I am trying to point out is that, in the cases you've pointed out, the choice is not between Right and Wrong - it's between Wrong and More Wrong. In the case of stealing food to feed a starving baby, it's a matter of being justified in breaking the law. That doesn't mean that breaking the law is Right. It just means that it was better than the alternative.

Law is not meant to be an Archetype, but quickly becomes one. "We the people..." is the core.

"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..."

It was understood that words could not fully capture the essence of the law. So, the Supreme court was founded with the intention of weighing in on situations where the words were not adequate. And the number one creed is the opening sentence. And they bicker over, "The intentions of the founding fathers..."

This is the root, and the rest is the branch. :"Common defence, secure blessings...posterity...ensure domestic tranguility."

You start with the absolute goals of law, and then move to the best way to achieve those laws. If the goal is "the common defence" of citizens, but for a reason, applying that law harms citizens, then there is a conflict between the application of the law and the intention of the law, and the intention is not the lesser. There is a way of looking at the law rigidly.

When you look at the Constitution, a great deal of it was adopted from Mosaic Law despite what is called a separation of church and state. The Law of Moses forbid land owners from gleaning their fields, so that the poor passing through always had something to eat. The poor having something to eat was a higher law than owning the field. The later served the former. According to the Mosaic law, if you took a pledge for a loan, and that pledge caused the person who gave the pledge to suffer hunger or exposure, the one who took the pledge had to give it back, lest in their need they cry out to God, and bring guilt on the lender. The law forbids despising a man who steals bread because he is hungry.

However, since the dawn of time, Archetypical thinking has prevailed, and people tend to put the wagon before the horse. The horse is that justice and mercy demand that the poor should be fed. That law is higher than land ownership. If the two laws collide, then the greater law has to be applied.

This was why "loopholes" were built into the law, because the founders of the law didn't want to have a legalistic rigid system that was applied to them in Europe. So, Life, Liberty...were built in. Allowing people to starve because of rules is against life, the most important law.

In fact, here is a good and easy way to learn about English Law. Read Mark Twain's the Prince and the Pauper. It was a not so subtle criticism of the stiff rule of law of Old England. And Twain was brilliant in studying the matter. The Law is meant to serve the needs of the people, not the reverse. "Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man."

[pconsidine]

Nate,

I'm not sure where we're at odds here. From reading your last post, it sounds like you think I'm recommending a blind adherence to The Law, no matter what the circumstances demand. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm merely saying that one ought to at least be cognizant that one is breaking the law when one does it. Naturally, the Law in practice is a flexible beast and at a certain point, there may be reason to evaluate changing it. But until such a time, it's still the law.

Is Law an archetype? I'm not sure that it isn't, if you define Law as an attempt to execute principles that lead to Justice, which I'd say is an archetype. (I would further say that the concept of Mercy is less a unique archetype of its own than an element of the concept of Justice.) In that case, Law is more of a second-order Archetype (an archetypal result of a first-order Archetype) than a unique archetype of its own (much like Mercy and Justice relate).

[RumBucuresti]

But that's exactly what I'm talking about. Taking a docked boat to rescue someone who is drowning is stealing. It's just that in that case, stealing is a lesser crime than allowing someone to die.

. . . and if i shot you dead for stealing my boat regardless of knowing your reason for stealing it?

The ends never, ever justify the means.

[robeiae]

"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..."
Not to break into the discussion of Archetypes, but the Preamble is perhaps the most misunderstood portion of the Constitution. This statement is very clear: the only action "we the people" is taking is ordaining/establishing the Constitution. All the words in bold are the goals of this action. In other words, the hope was that the Constitution would help to form a more perfect Union, would help to establish Justice, would help to promote the general Welfare, etc.

Thus, the Constitution, proper, contains the means and limitations placed on Government to accomplish these things. But it is not a question of law that is being addressed, it is one of power and the exercise thereof.

It is true that the Constitution is often designated as "the law of the land," but this is a misnomer. The Constitution is the authority or sovereign of the land. The system of laws that was subsequently created (and is still being created) is bound by the Constitution insofar as these laws must be consistent with the actual Constitution and its Amendments.

Now this is not to say that Law was not a primary concern to these men; it was. And as you say, Nate, it is the "spirit" of the law that was most important. That said, the principle goal of law in their minds was the preservation of private property at all costs.

So, if you steal a boat to save a life, are you breaking the law. You bet. Suppose, in the course of your actions, you damage the boat; are you responsible for restitution? Yes. Of course, the party you have wronged has a say in this, as well. The role of the police is to enforce the laws as they are written, and the role of executive officers (like mayors) is the same. Is this harsh? Yes it is, but as pconsidine as said, it is a choice between two wrongs, not one between right and wrong, form the standpoint of civil society.

From the standpoint of personal morality, however, it is a choice between right and wrong. But the law cannot be the realization of morality, since it's goal is the mundane protection of property (including the property of one's self). This is not to say the intentions of laws cannot be the promotion of moral behavior, only that their construction cannot be grounded in such.

Law, in short, is positive law. Coming back full circle, this is also Hobbesian law. In fact, the Hobbesian world-view has been termed by some as the "triumph of positive law." Laws are the will of the sovereign (in our case, the Constitution), though this does suggest that laws in the U.S. should be reflective of a fully egalitarian society to some extent. That does not, however, mean that laws are as a rule open to interpetations of intent. Judicial authorites have often assumed they are, however, leading to a subjective notion of Justice.

Rob :)

[robeiae]

. . . and if i shot you dead for stealing my boat regardless of knowing your reason for stealing it?

The ends never, ever justify the means.
This is absolutely correct.

Rob :)

[Nateskate]

Nate,

I'm not sure where we're at odds here. From reading your last post, it sounds like you think I'm recommending a blind adherence to The Law, no matter what the circumstances demand. That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm merely saying that one ought to at least be cognizant that one is breaking the law when one does it. Naturally, the Law in practice is a flexible beast and at a certain point, there may be reason to evaluate changing it. But until such a time, it's still the law.

Is Law an archetype? I'm not sure that it isn't, if you define Law as an attempt to execute principles that lead to Justice, which I'd say is an archetype. (I would further say that the concept of Mercy is less a unique archetype of its own than an element of the concept of Justice.) In that case, Law is more of a second-order Archetype (an archetypal result of a first-order Archetype) than a unique archetype of its own (much like Mercy and Justice relate).

I'm not sure we disagree, but I'm clarrifying something. I see a cold legalism (not here) but I've seen it with some news stations. "They are looters..." They say this without knowing the circumstances. In a sense, it is looking at outward circumstances without knowing specifics. For instance, a doctor broke into a pharmacy to get medicines to treat patients there. That medicine would have been tossed anyway, but from a legalistic way of thinking, he was breaking and entering and stealing. He was actually risking his life to save lives. We have seen throughout history where the Archetype or "Strong Rigid Inflexible Mindset" became a monster instead of a blessing, because the jot and tittle became more important than mercy or justice. Justice says, "When a man risks his life to save others, he is not doing wrong." Mercy says, "When someone steals food because he will starve, and therefore should not be treated like someone who steals for gain."

There is a balance in the hands of Justice. And the balance weighs between mercy and justice. If you have someone in your car who will die if you don't speed to go to the hospital, but you decide to go five miles under the speed limit, you can be prosecuted for criminal negligence. Courts do believe there is an obligation to save life where possible.

This is where we discuss "the spirit of the Law". Law is meant to promote good and hinder evil. That is in general, "The spirit of the law". However, there are some who see the spirit of the law- why the law was made- as less important than the code. This is why ammendments to law are made. And they are made after people come to a crossroads like this and see that the "letter of the law" failed. However, facing this never before in my lifetime, level crisis, laws and rules and ways of doing things got in the way and caused deaths.

Law is a "tool", not an "ends". If the ends is to serve the law, then we are slaves. The ends of the law is to serve societies needs.

Where there is love there is no need for a law. Well, that is a kind of law, the law of love. In other words, in a world where everyone's motives consider the welfare of others, then rules and regulations are not needed. Laws are primarily an arm of society to prevent people from harming people, and to ensure fairness and provision, because generally speaking, societies have lots of people with bad motives.

When you have a catastrophe, all of the structures which ensure fairness, provision and prevention of harm are errased. Society and the Law could not do its job. And trying to apply law as it was applied before did not work. You had people standing outside of a store dehydrated and starving, with children in their arms and police with guns baring the doors. The police needed to execute an administrative decision, and should have created order, opened the doors and made sure the food was equitably handed out. In some cases that was done. In other's it wasn't. But the police not understanding the situation were locked by Archetypical thinking. Now, you have a real breakdown. Because the people who percieve authority was there to help in their worst time of need, perceived they were being hurt, creating an adversarial situation. The people think, Those who are supposed to help us are hurting us, if we do what they say, we will die!" That led to worsening problems. This is a real situation that happened to a group of people that tried to band together to survive. They were not criminals, but treated as a threat, and pointed back and forth by confused authorities who didn't have a clue what was going on. They were sent one way by authorities, then met by gun toting authorities who told them to turn back. They were told busses would meet them here, and then when they got there and sent up camps, the authorities came in and took their food and their water, and made them leave, because banding together threatened authority which perceived them to be a mob.

Yes, I am against Anarchy. But unjust law or unjust execution of law is a match to the flame of Anarchy. There was such a situation that did occur. And when people went to what they thought were authorities begging for help, guns were drawn on them forcing them back to the water.

What will happen when the soup drains from the field? These authorities will have to go back and re-evaluate how the good guys got in the way of the people trying to save themselves. They will recall, "We the people...the will of the people..." comes before a misplaced jot. They followed what they thought was a jot, and now they are seeing they actually were going against the spirit of the law which was to protect and save.

[pconsidine]

. . . and if i shot you dead for stealing my boat regardless of knowing your reason for stealing it?

The ends never, ever justify the means.

Quite true. However, if you did know my motive for doing so, it might mitigate your need to protect your property in such a fashion. Motive is permissible as evidence in criminal proceedings because the law acknowledges that, while an illegal means pursued to a noble end is still illegal, the intent to do good ought to be weighed in some fashion. It is precisely an effort to measure the Degree of Wrongness in a criminal act.

Of course, I'd still be dead, so maybe it's all moot. ;)

[robeiae]

Law is a "tool", not an "ends". If the ends is to serve the law, then we are slaves. The ends of the law is to serve societies needs.
This is a view of law as natural law or common law, not positive law. As I noted previously, this is not the foundation of our legal system, which is dominated by positive law.

In this sense, law is neither a tool or an end, in itself. Instead, is is the framework around which society functions, when rightly applied. Law (here) does not serve society's needs; it cannot, for who decides what those needs are?

Under the rubric you are describing, there would necassarilly be a "greater good," or a "general will" (Rousseau), or even a "universal will" (Hegel) that is identifiable and realizable. This is a major error, I think, for it leads to utilitarian suppositions about what is Just and what is not. It leads to a structure wherein power can be exercised through law--authoritarianism and totalitarianism--in absolute contradiction to what law is supposed to be, in this formulation.

Positive law, in contrast, is not a means to exercise power, but a framework for limiting how power can be exercised. Whatever the shortcomings of positive law, it prevents the creation of states wherin power is exercised on a personal level. Judges who override laws or treat them as common law (allowing descretion) are exercising personal power. Certainly, they may sometimes be forgiven for doing so (in the name of Compassion and Mercy), but they should never be lauded for doing so or encourged to do so more often.

Rob :)

[RumBucuresti]

Quite true. However, if you did know my motive for doing so, it might mitigate your need to protect your property in such a fashion.;)

yeah, but my motive was i was loading MY family aboard My boat.

[pconsidine]

In that case, since it's your boat, your right to use your own property to preserve your life and the lives of your family would clearly outweigh my desire to use your property to save the life of someone else. That would be much more a case of Right vs. Wrong, not Wrong vs. More Wrong. I would hope, in such a case, that you wouldn't need to resort to killing to defend your right, though, since someone who would steal to save a life could hardly be expected to sacrifice your life and the lives of your family to achieve it.

Of course, that gets into the area of the relative value of a person's life - something those who manage the organ donor list deal with every day.

[mommie4a]

Ok -

First - William - thank you you beautiful human being for including me in this thread's name. I'm humbled and mortified that I'm only just now seeing this thread.

Second - Rob - should you accept the task, write a 250 word summary of what everyone has contributed since this thread started so I can figure out what's been covered. I've read about 60-70% of the thread (all of some posts, some of all posts) but I hate repeating what others have said or otherwise sounding like a fool - well, I hate sounding like a fool, but I know it's gonna happen.

Third - I love how thoughtful, and, generally speaking, how respectful everyone's been. This is the way debate should be. Hopefully folks are learning. I sense some patronizing from time to time but overall, how great it is to see a thread and a forum being used to its best abilities without being flamed.

Fourth - William - I actually have thought about you re: Katrina because I know you're from Louisiana and I was wondering about how this event - as a force of nature (which, I believe has been affected by humans, but that's something else) - has affected you and those you care about and/or know (maybe enemies).

Fifth: Here's what the first post said:

Haskins:re: new orleans... response, aftermath, looting, fingerpointing,.

hobbes had it right.

discuss...


Yeah, well - I wasn't there. With Hobbes or Katrina. That's my very first response and impulse. Like abortion in limited circumstances and homeschooling, I will never say never because until you're faced with certain choices, I don't know what I would do. I have strong tendencies and suspicions, but I refuse to say 100% this is what I know about myself.

I'll work backwards here: Fingerpointing: hate it. Has little value unless you strip the positions of the name of the people connected to those positions and then make an organizational chart - solely for the purpose of learning how to avoid the same mistakes. Sure, you don't want total losers to move on to other positions where they can continue to destroy lives because they're total losers, but for the rest of us - again, fingerpointing in and of itself is hateful and has few redeeming values.

Looting: this is in the never say never category. I heard an interesting story on This American Life last weekend about a woman who'd been at a paramedics convention in N.O. She was out and about trying to make sense in the aftermath for about 4-6 days I believe. She talked about how thugs had gone into Rite Aid or some pharmacy and came back to her group of about 200-400 folks and distributed baby food, water etc. Did the thugs take other stuff for themselves - less necessary? I don't know. But to hear this white woman in her 50s talk about these men as near saviors, well - you know, if I were in her shoes...

Aftermath: An embarassment. From stem to stern. Sure, there are wonderful stories. But in general, it's an embarassment. What George Bush and his cronies have done to erode the sense of shame that people should feel over things like saying the F bomb in front of Congress, pretending that saying "Wilson's wife" isn't the same as breaking the federal law against government employees leaking covert operatives names etc etc etc is itself an embarassment and probably my single largest pet peeve. That he's taking responsibility now - yeah, well and good.

But after the fact. And done far too infrequently. He has no shame and constantly fails to see that the erosion of values he and the Christian right so often refer to is just as much their fault as anyone elses. If in fact such an erosion has occured.

Response: Who can ever be prepared? How many people can't decide whether it's better to watch a loved one fight for years against illness or disability or better to die in an instant? Well - guess what - it doesn't matter. Because accepting someone's death still sucks.

Likewise, so what if there were more blue prints, better blue prints, more people had gotten out? Only doing something to help the levees withstand the storm surge would have saved New Orleans. Period. Because even if all the people were out of there, so long as the levees break, you'll have trouble.

Cultural relativism? Here to stay and has some value. Moral absolutes? Yes, they exist and adherence to them isn't always right or desirable.

IMHO, that's why we have brains AND hearts. Our humanity - as a society and as individuals - relies on our ability to balance those two things - literally and figuratively, and that includes knowing which one rules when.

Hobbes? He's dead. He's philosophy. It's a fascinating discussion and engaged me almost as much as some - though only some - of John Roberts' testimony (just cause I'm a lawyer).

But damn there's just so many things that need to be attended to and fixed - in my own life even, that I haven't even seen this thread until now. I can't imagine if I was the Governor of Louisiana, or the President of the U.S. So you can say I know my limitations. I wish some of those folks better understood theirs too.

Ivory towers are entertaining. But in the end, only applying what we learn can help us. Hobbes or no Hobbes.

[Nateskate]

This is a view of law as natural law or common law, not positive law. As I noted previously, this is not the foundation of our legal system, which is dominated by positive law.

In this sense, law is neither a tool or an end, in itself. Instead, is is the framework around which society functions, when rightly applied. Law (here) does not serve society's needs; it cannot, for who decides what those needs are?

Under the rubric you are describing, there would necassarilly be a "greater good," or a "general will" (Rousseau), or even a "universal will" (Hegel) that is identifiable and realizable. This is a major error, I think, for it leads to utilitarian suppositions about what is Just and what is not. It leads to a structure wherein power can be exercised through law--authoritarianism and totalitarianism--in absolute contradiction to what law is supposed to be, in this formulation.

Positive law, in contrast, is not a means to exercise power, but a framework for limiting how power can be exercised. Whatever the shortcomings of positive law, it prevents the creation of states wherin power is exercised on a personal level. Judges who override laws or treat them as common law (allowing descretion) are exercising personal power. Certainly, they may sometimes be forgiven for doing so (in the name of Compassion and Mercy), but they should never be lauded for doing so or encourged to do so more often.

Rob :)

If someone stole my boat I'd be pissed. If someone robbed my store, I'd be upset. If I knew lives were saved because of either, I'd stop being pissed at the people, and I'd realize the storm was the enemy.

My motive for taking this tact is that I see some people-mostly talking heads on tv, who seem to miss the point that this was like the end of the world for people who were in the thick of this. Information was confused. There was a break down at every level of information and distribution and public service. People were watching people drown. People lost everything and some lost everyone important to them.

In light of the issue, I think its just extremely important to be able to put ourselves in the shoes and be more sympathetic than judgmental.

I'm not accusing anyone here of being judgmental at all. This is just a discussion, but my mind is focusing on people who I believe are thinking more concrete than they need to be-specifically people in the media who are looking for a story, who seem to miss the fact that some of the people down there were doing the best they could with what they had.

Yes there were criminals, but I'm saying there is such a thing as criminal intent. That's why children of such an age, or people with mental disabilities are often beyond prosecution, because they could not have "criminal intent". A three year old who shoots his sister playing guns, is never prosecuted. There is no hearing or anything. Of course, the parents leaving a gun will be prosecuted. But the point is that the courts always recognize intent, or malice. It doesn't simply look blindly upon an action.

Some guy saw a bunch of people on a roof pleading for help. He broke into some place and took a boat and went to get them. He's not thinking, "Nice boat, I'd like a freebie!"

So, I'm thinking of real specific issues here. Would someone take him to court over this? If it were me and I were him, and doing such a think would get me arrested, I'd go to jail to save a bunch of people from drowning. However, the law is smarter than that.

I'm talking about something bigger than a set of rules in a book. And in situations like this, thumbing through a law journal for twenty hours to decide if some law of mercy-Good Samaratan Law- applies is a luxury people don't have. The law does consider the common good and common will of the people. Although it would take hours of research to actually thumb through all laws, it would be possible to find laws that would apply to these kinds of situations. But that is the point, the law was meant to have a failsafe for such situations.

[pconsidine]

Nate,

In the down-and-dirty world of last week, you're right. There wasn't a single person out there who was taking the time to measure degrees of illegal or any of the other intellectual fun we've been discussing here. And I would be the last person on earth to fault them for that.

But that's more what this thread is about - call it preventive philosophy. This kind of mental exercise only exists to ingrain certain patterns into people before they're called on to make such a decision. It's what informs our values and those values are the marble that we carve a life's worth of decisions from. The statue of our lives will stand on its own, when all's said and done. All we're doing here is sharpening our chisels.


Edited to add: Sorry for the florid metaphors, but you know how writers can be.

[Nateskate]

Nate,

In the down-and-dirty world of last week, you're right. There wasn't a single person out there who was taking the time to measure degrees of illegal or any of the other intellectual fun we've been discussing here. And I would be the last person on earth to fault them for that.

But that's more what this thread is about - call it preventive philosophy. This kind of mental exercise only exists to ingrain certain patterns into people before they're called on to make such a decision. It's what informs our values and those values are the marble that we carve a life's worth of decisions from. The statue of our lives will stand on its own, when all's said and done. All we're doing here is sharpening our chisels.


Edited to add: Sorry for the florid metaphors, but you know how writers can be.

Sure, and I don't take this personally at all. In fact, if we could read each other's thoughts, we may be striving for the same ends, societal sanity.

I'm pro law, and pro authority, in the sense that when it works, it makes life better. What I'm speaking to is people who are not in what amounts to a hell on earth who (t.v people) were throwing judgemental stones and speaking sanctimoniously without hearing all the facts. (No one here by the way)

Imagine you are on a rooftop, and your neighbor just drowned, or worse you are in your attic and don't know how you are going to break through the roof, because the water is still rising. That's just how you started your week. You pass homes and wonder whether your mother is still alive, or your cousins. But you have no cell phones. Now, you think help is coming, and it gets dark, and you can still hear the rushing water and wonder if you fall asleep and roll over whether you are going to die.

Then you walk five miles in water up to your chest, hoping you don't step on a nail, because you can't sit down, and when you get there, you see a wall of bodies who haven't eaten, and they said people are getting stabbed inside, and no one has come to get them.

So you turn around, and you wade back through the water to get away from an accident waiting to happen, and someone in a truck pulls a gun on you because they think you are a threat.

With two days of this, no one is acting sane. Everyone is near the panic point. They have no job to go to. They still don't know if their mother is alive or how to find out. And they don't even have a t.v or radio telling them what's happening around them.

Now if I had that kind of a beginning to my week, I might snap and act out of character. The guy on t.v has a toilet that flushes, and a fountain, and a bed, and I have nothing. Sure, I'm going to appear a little out of character, and I'm going to wonder why this guy is judging me without walking a block in this water in my shoes.

So, the point is, who is going to throw the first stone and start judging these poor people for behaving out of character? Sure, there has to be a line in the sand, but maybe there needs to be someone drawing in the sand as well.

[pconsidine]

Has anyone else noticed that Haskins dropped this little thought grenade and then bailed out pretty early on?

Hmmm...

[Nateskate]

Has anyone else noticed that Haskins dropped this little thought grenade and then bailed out pretty early on?

Hmmm...

Maybe he was bored or just saw it was a debate and didn't want to get sucked in? Or none of the above?

[pconsidine]

Haskins avoid a debate? I'll go with bored. :)

[robeiae]

Ivory towers are entertaining. But in the end, only applying what we learn can help us. Hobbes or no Hobbes.
Hobbesian philosophy, of course, has no place in the Ivory Towers; that's one of the reasons he's relevant.

Jill, I don't think I could sum up this thread in 250 words--too many ideas have been summoned and/or banished. Sorry. :)

Rob :)

[rhymegirl]

Has anyone else noticed that Haskins dropped this little thought grenade and then bailed out pretty early on?

Hmmm...

He always does that.

[robeiae]

Some guy saw a bunch of people on a roof pleading for help. He broke into some place and took a boat and went to get them. He's not thinking, "Nice boat, I'd like a freebie!"

So, I'm thinking of real specific issues here. Would someone take him to court over this? If it were me and I were him, and doing such a think would get me arrested, I'd go to jail to save a bunch of people from drowning. However, the law is smarter than that.
Nate, I told you we were coming at this from different perspectives.

You are talking specific cases, true enough, but only the momentary specifics of these cases. What amount of responsibility must someone accept with regard to any situation they may find themselves in? Certainly, no one could control the Hurricane, but unfortunately, many situations that followed are not solely a product of the Hurricane and/or chance. Why did someone have no food? Was it because they had no money? Ever? Is it conceivable that some people prefer to spend their money on things like, say, drugs? Alcohol? Cigarettes?

If I have a family and live paycheck to paycheck, but spend any excess funds I might have on things like booze and strippers, then I suddenly find myself in a situation like the one in NO, am I justified in stealing to feed my family or myself? Should I automatically be absolved of responsibility for what I did?

Suppose I hung around a potential disaster area that was evacuated in the hopes of gettin' some freebees. Then I found myself stranded on a rooftop with water rising all around. If one of my buddies (who had chosen to remain for the same reasons as me) steals a boat to save me, is that action justified as well?

Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not saying my examples reflect the reality of NO, by and large. I am quite sure they don't. But they are just the most obvious examples of circumstances surrounding illegal acts that put a wrench in the works, so to speak.

I'm talking about something bigger than a set of rules in a book. And in situations like this, thumbing through a law journal for twenty hours to decide if some law of mercy-Good Samaratan Law- applies is a luxury people don't have. The law does consider the common good and common will of the people. Although it would take hours of research to actually thumb through all laws, it would be possible to find laws that would apply to these kinds of situations. But that is the point, the law was meant to have a failsafe for such situations.
The Law is the law. Again, a properly managed system of positive law does not allow arbitrary use of that law; I understand that you are against that, but it is one of the reasons there is a world with hope, for it is the unemotional, consistent application of law that has alleviated so much suffering and brought so many out of poverty. Quite unintentionally, it is this kind of law that truly serves the common good.

Rob :)

[MacAllister]

The Law is the law. Again, a properly managed system of positive law does not allow arbitrary use of that law; I understand that you are against that, but it is one of the reasons there is a world with hope, for it is the unemotional, consistent application of law that has alleviated so much suffering and brought so many out of poverty. Quite unintentionally, it is this kind of law that truly serves the common good.
To a certain extant, Rob is right. :scared: Built into our system, however, is a certain amount of weight applied to circumstances. We prosecute a battered wife who kills her husband in self defense very differently than we prosecute someone who murders their spouse for the insurance pay-off.

Mitigating Circumstances (http://www.thelawencyclopedia.com/term/mitigating_circumstances): Those which do not constitute a justification or excuse for an offense but which may be considered as reasons for reducing the degree of blame.
However, we need to be terribly careful of starting to partition up concepts, assigning those differering degrees of blame, and attempting to write such into the laws themselves.

This all gets so much easier to discuss, if we couch it in theoretical terms, rather than in light of concrete and specific instances..

[robeiae]

This all gets so much easier to discuss, if we couch it in theoretical terms, rather than in light of concrete and specific instances.
True enough, Mac. To some extent, this is what got Hobbes in so much trouble, not only for Leviathan, but for Behemoth, too.

Yet, one would think that the range of historical examples and depth of social inquiry would allow such a discussion to occur. Why is it, I wonder, that concrete and specific instances are allowable when the topic of discussion is, for instance, the negative consequences of free-market capitalism?

Rob :)

[MacAllister]

I expect what got Hobbes into trouble is failing to consider very human qualities such as empathy, remorse, and altruism--along with the failings such as panic, self-interest, and capacity for violence.

The law is only worth two figs as applied with compassion and a real desire to see justice served. While "legal" certainly is not synonymous with "just"--we can certainly strive to ensure that the spirit of that law considers and serves the question of justice, as well.

[robeiae]

I expect what got Hobbes into trouble is failing to consider very human qualities such as empathy, remorse, and altruism--along with the failings such as panic, self-interest, and capacity for violence.
Hmmm...the members of The Great Tew Circle (Hobbes was one) were concerned primarily with such qualities (and honour) and how to instill them in people. Hobbes was very critical of the Catholic Church for its hypocrisy--a good portion of Leviathan is devoted to this, the portion that few bother to read. Hobbes possessed incredible disdain for Aristotle and all things Aristotelean; why? he thought such philosophy to be based in vanity and the perceived superiority of those who practiced/adopted it, as well as being based on assumptions of the natural superiority of the few. Vainglory--my all-time favorite Hobbesian term--is what he despised most of all.

"That which gives to human actions the relish of justice, is a certain nobleness or gallantness of courage, rarely found, by which a man scorns to be beholden for the contentment of his life, to fraud, or breach of promise."

Rob :)

[Nateskate]

Nate, I told you we were coming at this from different perspectives.

You are talking specific cases, true enough, but only the momentary specifics of these cases. What amount of responsibility must someone accept with regard to any situation they may find themselves in? Certainly, no one could control the Hurricane, but unfortunately, many situations that followed are not solely a product of the Hurricane and/or chance. Why did someone have no food? Was it because they had no money? Ever? Is it conceivable that some people prefer to spend their money on things like, say, drugs? Alcohol? Cigarettes?

If I have a family and live paycheck to paycheck, but spend any excess funds I might have on things like booze and strippers, then I suddenly find myself in a situation like the one in NO, am I justified in stealing to feed my family or myself? Should I automatically be absolved of responsibility for what I did?

Suppose I hung around a potential disaster area that was evacuated in the hopes of gettin' some freebees. Then I found myself stranded on a rooftop with water rising all around. If one of my buddies (who had chosen to remain for the same reasons as me) steals a boat to save me, is that action justified as well?

Now, don't misunderstand me; I am not saying my examples reflect the reality of NO, by and large. I am quite sure they don't. But they are just the most obvious examples of circumstances surrounding illegal acts that put a wrench in the works, so to speak.


The Law is the law. Again, a properly managed system of positive law does not allow arbitrary use of that law; I understand that you are against that, but it is one of the reasons there is a world with hope, for it is the unemotional, consistent application of law that has alleviated so much suffering and brought so many out of poverty. Quite unintentionally, it is this kind of law that truly serves the common good.

Rob :)

Again, you are right. I have specific people to say this to. If they are reading this, I'd say in some ways it's a matter of wisdom. In others it's a matter of compassion. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. The question is not whether any given thing needs to be said, but what time is it? Is it a time for building or a time for tearing down? The right word at the wrong time is the wrong word.

A time for discussing the wisdom of society in general and how people in general have put themselves in harms way needs to be discussed at some point, but I just don't see it as now. To me it's the metaphorical equivalence of giving an expose on jaywalking to someone who was just hit by a bus. You want to bring healing to their lives. And chances are the bus just taught them more lessons than any public service announcement could ever teach them.

We have an entirely wounded segment of society, and I think that some people in the media aren't getting that. It's insulting to too many people to infer they got themselves into this mess. If you've ever read the book of Job which is a pretty insightful book, in chapter six Job pretty much says to these comforters, "If I have bad theology cut me some slack, my life just fell apart."

[DeniseK]

Again, you are right. I have specific people to say this to. If they are reading this, I'd say in some ways it's a matter of wisdom. In others it's a matter of compassion. There is a time for every purpose under heaven. The question is not whether any given thing needs to be said, but what time is it? Is it a time for building or a time for tearing down? The right word at the wrong time is the wrong word.

A time for discussing the wisdom of society in general and how people in general have put themselves in harms way needs to be discussed at some point, but I just don't see it as now. To me it's the metaphorical equivalence of giving an expose on jaywalking to someone who was just hit by a bus. You want to bring healing to their lives. And chances are the bus just taught them more lessons than any public service announcement could ever teach them.

We have an entirely wounded segment of society, and I think that some people in the media aren't getting that. It's insulting to too many people to infer they got themselves into this mess. If you've ever read the book of Job which is a pretty insightful book, in chapter six Job pretty much says to these comforters, "If I have bad theology cut me some slack, my life just fell apart."

Amen brother.

So, Rob, who were these people supposed to pay for the things they took to survive? "Wait, honey, I know you're drowning, but let me track down the guy who owns this boat, see if he'll make me a deal."

[robeiae]

So, Rob, who were these people supposed to pay for the things they took to survive? "Wait, honey, I know you're drowning, but let me track down the guy who owns this boat, see if he'll make me a deal."
Hmmm...Sarah, I don't think you are following my thoughts very well; no doubt all this philosophical head-banging has muddled my position in this regard. I never suggested that in such a situation, one must stop to consider the legalities and technicalities of one's actions. I have a family; I know what I would do to insure their safety.

It does not follow, however, that I should no longer bear responsibility for my actions, if I am called to account for them. Remember, the law is broken daily; not everyone who breaks a law is subjected to criminal prosecution, since most are never even caught (ever broken a speed limit?).

If however, one is prosecuted for breaking a law, their guilt or innocence must be determined independently of their motivations; this is the consistent application of law. Where Justice often resides, however, is in the punishment handed out; it is here that judges can rightly exercise some discretion.

Rob :)

[robeiae]

A time for discussing the wisdom of society in general and how people in general have put themselves in harms way needs to be discussed at some point, but I just don't see it as now. To me it's the metaphorical equivalence of giving an expose on jaywalking to someone who was just hit by a bus. You want to bring healing to their lives. And chances are the bus just taught them more lessons than any public service announcement could ever teach them.
Nate, I tried to move this discussion away from the specifics of Katrina for that very reason. But regardless, someone is always in trouble or experiencing tragedy, always. If not now, when? The tragedy of Katrina encompases the lives of many, many people, but surely we cannot quantify tragedy. After all, tragedy is rightly expperienced by the individual, not the group.

If you are uncomfortable with this discussion in general or anything I have said in particular, I am sorry; I always appreciate your opinions and insights. But I think much of real value and worthy of further consideration has been said here; it's not everday, nor everwhere, that this discusssion can be had.

Rob :)

[Nateskate]

Nate, I tried to move this discussion away from the specifics of Katrina for that very reason. But regardless, someone is always in trouble or experiencing tragedy, always. If not now, when? The tragedy of Katrina encompases the lives of many, many people, but surely we cannot quantify tragedy. After all, tragedy is rightly expperienced by the individual, not the group.

If you are uncomfortable with this discussion in general or anything I have said in particular, I am sorry; I always appreciate your opinions and insights. But I think much of real value and worthy of further consideration has been said here; it's not everday, nor everwhere, that this discusssion can be had.

Rob :)

I'm not uncomfortabe. And perhaps I'm a bit off topic. I did a word association, seeing a discussion of laws as it applies to N.O, in context of the fact that I see something new here. What happens when society breaks down and laws themselves become the obstacle? It may seem like I'm agitated, but I'm far from it.

As far as people putting themselves into a hole, New Orleans was a hole. And it was in more than one way an accident waiting to happen.

But in my mind, the bigger problems are societal. The logistics are a symptom. I had heard that monies given by the federal govt for repairing the levees were diverted toward Mardi Gras, and roads leading to the the casinos, because the locals thought it better for their economy. The biggest problem was that the local government gambled putting all their money on one horse and that horse got stuck in the mud.

[MacAllister]

There are bright spots of hope coming out of the stories of the survivors in New Orleans, too--which contradict an entirely dystopian view of humans regressing to a condition of complete savagery.

Stories about young men bringing formula, diapers, water, and other supplies back to the shelters to distribute. Stories about people banding together and pooling resources. People choosing to put themselves at risk to aid others.

I'm going to have to revisit Rob's beloved Hobbes--it's been a lot of years.

[robeiae]

But in my mind, the bigger problems are societal. The logistics are a symptom. I had heard that monies given by the federal govt for repairing the levees were diverted toward Mardi Gras, and roads leading to the the casinos, because the locals thought it better for their economy. The biggest problem was that the local government gambled putting all their money on one horse and that horse got stuck in the mud.
Yes, I agree. Governments were not created to do what is often now asked and expected of them; this is partly why I suggest that looking to the government for help (as an individual) is, by far, one's last resort.

Rob :)

[pconsidine]

Stories about young men bringing formula, diapers, water, and other supplies back to the shelters to distribute. Stories about people banding together and pooling resources. People choosing to put themselves at risk to aid others.

This was the part that I think drew me away from Hobbes' interpretation. If I understood Rob correctly, he was saying that the creation of the Sovereign is a one-time affair, not subject to alteration by circumstance or popular opinion. But the evidence of people still seeking to create some sort of order out of the chaos seems to say that Hobbes was too limited in his view. Rather than remain nasty and brutish, some of these people sought to recreate the Sovereign Authority to the best of their ability to assure their mutual survival.

That seems somewhat at odds with humans as vile beasts.

Or maybe you can just call me Pollyanna. :)

[Nateskate]

Yes, I agree. Governments were not created to do what is often now asked and expected of them; this is partly why I suggest that looking to the government for help (as an individual) is, by far, one's last resort.

Rob :)

I'm in partial agreement, at least philosophically. The problem with governments is that they they are a tool, and prone to becoming like a down mountain locamotive train without brakes. Once it gets up a head of steam, it tends to take on a life of its own, and coasts until it gets derailed. 99% of the way down the mountain seems like fun and no one is complaining. Then you hit the bottom and say, "What in the #$%#@# were you thinking?"

But it's a fundamental flaw of humanity. People want a benevolent king to take care of their problems. If the king is responcible for the poor, I don't have to be. I just pay the king to take care of things. Of course that's an over-simplification. But at some point there is a lack of accountability. And no one can explain why you need to fill out form 5484. They created 5484 to replace 4789, but two years later the senate abolished 4789, but nobody told 5484. So people are still filling out 5484 and will until the moon falls.

[robeiae]

Bumpity, bump bump...how 'bout a ride to the new forum?

[Mom'sWrite]

I'm mad with pleasure. Is this really a discussion of Hobbesian thought and how it played in the real-life aftermath of Katrina?

This is dessert before vegetables, ice cream before the tonsillectomy, sex before dinner.

Thanks for the bumpity-bump-bump. In a world where I am at the mercy of the needs and interests of the young'uns, I relish deeper thought applied to history and adore the absence of happy, dancing animals.

I've nothing to add. I come merely to savor.

However, I'm more sad than ever that William Haskins has moved on. He's like a photograph of a picture of a beautiful gem as seen through a frosted glass. We who did not know him are so far removed.

[MacAllister]

Haskins is deeply missed, it's true.

But don't sell yourself short, Screenmom. You've got a perfectly good brain. Jump right in. :)

[Mom'sWrite]

Haskins is deeply missed, it's true.

But don't sell yourself short, Screenmom. You've got a perfectly good brain. Jump right in. :)

Thanks, but my brain has been mothballed for the last decade in favor of keeping track that the kids get fed regularly and my copy of Leviathan has been MIA since the late 1980's.

I feel fortunate if I can construct a decent sentence in my writings without injecting screams of "Stop that!" and "No you can't feed your fish to the cat!"

But I hope against hope that my brain hasn't atrophied to the point of tabula rasa by the time they leave for college. It may already be too late.