Socratic Questioning Session #2

Remove all ads!

What is a law?

 

please be more specific. So far it sounds like the rules set by the government (whatever that might be).
If so.. then there's not much more to it, is there?

 

(Of course there is more to it)
And force is the opposite of law right?

 

Force, the opposite of law? How?

A law is any directive which prescribes consequences (good or bad) for a given action. Natural laws rely on nature's power - e.g., the law of gravity. Moral laws usually rely on divine consequences - e.g., honoring your parents brings divine favor, dishonoring them brings divine retribution - but can also depend on social or traditional powers. Legal laws rely on the power of men.

Law always assumes some kind of force, but force need not assume law. If you jump off a cliff, then the law of gravity "forces" you to the ground. Nature is always watching! And if you violate a moral law, although you may evade legal penalties, you still poison your soul. God is always watching, too! But legal laws are inconsistently enforced because they are enforced by people. The enforcers can't witness every occurrence, and lack the wisdom to ensure that justice is done with each perceived violation.

But you can use force in an unlawful (or nonlawful) way. If I see a spider on my floor, I can forcefully crush it - there's no law to protect spiders, or to require that I squish spidery trespassers. There, force is used and law is completely absent. Or, if I mug my neighbor, then I violate the state law against assault. I use force against the law, and risk having force used lawfully against me.

Erebus, what do you mean, exactly, by opposing law and force? You're only interested in legal law, like Lokken writes, yes?

 

Erebus, of course there is more to.. what?

More important than answers is asking the right questions, so what are you asking precisely?

Is force the opposite the law? I would say not, though please prove me wrong and explain what makes you say it is.

 

Law is just the way you do it. Or the way it goes. It's a compendium of habits. And the way you do it, is the right way to do it. So people get used to the way somethings done and then it's the way it "always" (normally not, because "always" mostly means the last 50-60 years, depends on life-expectancy and the aviabilty of people who remember how it actually was done) was done and should be always done.

Our ancestors did it and now we are expected to do it. And usually law has nothing to do with force, because most people agree on the "rationality" or "tradition" of the ways it's done.

 

(Do any of you know the way Socrates teaches at all?)

 

How ironic that you should ask us if we understand how Socrates teaches - given that Socrates taught by asking questions!

But seriously, occasionally Socrates was merciful to his particularly slow pupils and came right out to explain his point. Since we're full-time RPGers and only part-time philosophers, you can safely consider us slow. Maybe you could clarify your question - not give us a statement, exactly, but just a more precise question.

Thanks, Erebus!

 

I know perfectly well the way Socrates teaches, he proves that wrong points are wrong, and right points are right. Not that what you say is incorrect, but revealing the truth.

And I'm still waiting on your explanation of why force is opposite law, Erebus, since I still don't get it.

 

Would you say a land ruled by an army, where one man can only do one thing a law, opposed to social guidlines set up by the people, a law?

 

er.. try rephrase, what's the law aspect of this? Is it a law that you can only do one thing that the army states?

now the point of that sentence totally alludes me. When you say a law, do you mean law (without the a)?

 

That was an example of Force verses Law...

 

I still don't understand it.

I consider law and force more alike than different.

I believe law (as it understood in this country) the rules all the citizens play by. Force, is usually what holds the law alive, in terms of punishment, police, order etc.

I cannot see how force could be the opposite of law. I would consider free will the opposite law, but not force.

 

Think of law as guidlines for society, they are made by the people, and can be bent depending on the circumstances. It's just one big grey patch.

And think as force as rules, either you do it their way, or you can die, it's just black and white.

 

I think you're way off in your idea of a law. That which you call force I call law.

Laws are rules, be it the law of democracy, monarchi, theocracy, despotism etc.

Force is used to enforce the law. Law is the guidelines for society (the rules we live by, or face consequences), but who are the people?
The people are those in power. No matter if the case is a single person, a group or everyone.

 

You say what I call force is law, and it is force that enforces laws, so it is rules enforcing rules, please explain.

 

I have to agree with Lokken here. State laws are the rules set by the rulers, and force is used to, literally, "enforce" them. That's why, in America, we call our policemen "the police force" - law implies that there's some force behind it to back it up.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Erebus, but I've three ideas - let me know if any of these are what you're thinking of.

1) Maybe you're thinking of above-and-beyond force - the right to selectively go beyond a law to enforce a law. For example, for a policeman to pull over someone for speeding, the policeman himself has to speed. To punish a murderer for killing someone, the murderer himself is killed. In both these instances, the legal authority acts as if the rules apply to you but not to themselves.

But in one sense, such above-and-beyond behavior is still lawful, because the actors (policemen, judges, jailors, executioners, etc.) are lawfully entitled to act in defense of the law in these specified ways.

2) Maybe you're thinking of arbitrary authority - like tyrants and dictators, who can do whatever they wanted simply because they're the ones in charge. Yesterday he wanted one thing, today another, and tomorrow something else.

But even here, we've really condensed law to one single lawgiver - the tyrant - whose word is law. His commands are obeyed by his instruments (army, police, etc.) because they recognize (for good or ill) the tyrant's legal authority to be...his own legal authority!

3) Maybe you're thinking of laws that contradict each other and can only be settled by force. On a purely hypothetical example - not to reference anything from the Creativity Surge board - suppose we have an international law against preemptive strikes, but another country legally authorizes its leader to carry out a preemptive strike.

But again, even here, force is not standing "against" law - it is supporting one law against another. In, say, the Iraq situation, force was used to uphold American law, even if it stood against UN regulations.

Most of the "force" we see in life has no legal basis. We pick up a box - that requires physical force. We squish a bug - that also requires force. We take a child's hand to lead him across a street - again, force is used. So force is perfectly capable of surviving without law. But law requires some kind of force, else it is only a "strong recommendation". (And, not to go off-topic, but that's one reason why the UN is a lousy arbiter of international law - they have no independent military force.)

Have I totally missed your point, Erebus? Please be patient with us!

 

Law and force have nothing to do with eachother(or at leat only a marginal relation). Law is just a couple of behaviour patterns, that one feels oneself and others should follow. So, people act and behave as they feel right and expect (rightly so and the expectation usually is fulfilled) others to do the same.

It would be a sad, soon financially poor and surely not long lasting society, in which laws would have to be enforced. That means enforcment as rule and not as exception.

 

I have to disagree strongly (but not forcefully!) with you, Yago. You've described custom, not law. Custom is anything which is socially expected that people do just because "that's the way we do it here" - like, for example, political correctness in American society. (I'm not bashing political correctness, I'm just pointing out that you don't get thrown into jail for violating even its strictest strictures.)

Law always has force behind it, even if the force is not consistently applied. You're right, Yago - any country would indeed be sad and poor if it had to pour all its resources into law enforcement. But even a partially enforced law is still backed up by force, and any time I violate a law, I risk falling foul of that force. The threat of force may not be carried out, but it still depends upon the very real possibility of force. (Enforcement is expensive and threats are cheap, but empty threats are the most expensive in the long run.)

An example: suppose a hypothetical society found it offensive to call someone a Bluetooth. ("Hey, buzz off, ya stupid Bluetooth!") If I drink too much at a party and start rambling about "those darn Blueteeth", I'll rightfully earn social penalties - shunning, sneering, etc. - but no one can take me outside and legally beat me up. But suppose our hypothetical society decided to make it illegal to call someone a Bluetooth. Then the consequences of my drunken Bluetooth-bashing are quite different. Maybe I'd be ignored; maybe I'd be reported, but not prosecuted; maybe I'd be prosecuted and found guilty. Who knows? But force lurks in the background for all of these.

So whether custom or law, I face possible penalties for crossing the Bluetooth line. But only one involves force.

(And incidentally, custom is different from morality, too, because morality - traditionally - implied divine force.)

 

let's keep the statement easy, law is made by the stronger