RE: Week 6 debate topic - Spirit vs Letter of the law
Since I feel I have no say in the creation of the laws... and I see they create laws that clearly violate what is right... This article by @larkenrose perfectly addresses this issue.
I would say doing what is right is the true spirit of anything, I would argue that we can always discover what is right and that we only need one rule.
"Do what you will as long as you don't violate another's will."
I believe we could be discussing this to more fruitful gains. I'm not saying it would always be simple, but I do think we could have discussion, much like a Isaac Asimov book, that we discuss the logical nature of what it means to violate another's free will, how far it extends, and what is agreeable to all those involved. I don't think we should have a 'jury of our peers' as we do now, a jury of strangers who absolutely don't know us at all, but a jury of true peers, people that do know us. Seems to me right now, we get a jury of people that are ignorant and easily manipulated by lawyers... what a strange system we have.
I totally agree with @shai-hulud's comment about lawyers vacillating between spirit and letter of the law based upon whatever serves them best. And I totally believe that is against what is right, to fight so hard just to win..
So in the end, the letter of the law versus the intent skips the foundation of what is right, and ultimately will end up violating peoples rights.
And you know, I speak from experience, in which a disagreement came up with my rent against my renter and found the courts cared about one thing, and one thing only, that I owed them money. It didn't matter the circumstances or the violations that existed, that was irrelevant for them, it was only and only about had the money been paid, they took no argument, no discussion. That is when I learned, that unless I spent thousands on a lawyer, I could not recoup the hundreds lost, and the courts just followed the law to the letter, and no it was not about what was right, and they didn't care at all...
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." - Aleister Crowley self proclaimed evilest man in the word.
Now to be clear I personally think do as tho wilt is already the law but not including the magical power of being able to mind read the will of others.
Take the story of the good Samaritan who finds a man beaten half to death bandages his wounds and took care of him.
Lovely story of compassion right? So having come across the man who being half dead and fair to say probably unconscious with no knowledge of the cause the good Samaritan may already have broken the law.
"Do what you will as long as you don't violate another's will."
First he may have violated the will of the robbers who's will it may have been that the man die.
Second since the has no knowledge of the cause he cannot know the man didn't injure himself and by helping him violates his will to death.
Even applying the golden rule "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is flawed If your a man the gets pleasure from recieving pain the golden rule would have you inflict it that others might do unto you.
Ah, see this is where the Asimov type debate enters. The robber already violated the will of another's right to life.
There is no 'right of the robber' because he violated the first law, by attacking a man.
If a man has lost the ability to speak, to save his life is no crime, you have no obligation to do so either, but I would say that all beings choose to live, and if you want to die at least do it right and don't leave yourself half-dead.
yes, it is flawed, because how you treat yourself may not be how I want to be treated.
You are correct. but it would be right for two people that like pain to inflict it upon each other if that be their will. but as soon as they step on another's will then they have violated the law.
A man dishevelled in appearance looking just like your vision of a psychopath declares his intent to harm or murder you and proceeds to walk towards with a knife in his hand as any sane man would you restrain him before the implied attack can happen in order to protect yourself.
Now you have broken the law you have used your will to remove his despite that no actual attack was made merely words spoken.
When we argue that the robber no longer has a right to his will because he first violated the law we are making an amendment to the law and this is the birth of legislation and government.
THE LAW: Do as tho will so long as you don't violate the will of another.
First Amendment: Where a man exercises his will in violation of an others his right to will shall be forfeit.
Second Amendment: Where a man exercises his will in violation of an others for the purpose of defence of body or person that man shall be considered just in his actions and not in violation of the law.
Is this conversation not the perfect example of letter vs spirit?
Yes, it is the perfect example. I feel as long as the first law is understood in spirit and applied fully we could find a solution. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to make amendments, but this type of discussion would be what was discussed should such thing need to judged by an outside party.
Seems to me as soon as we make amendments than people will try and use the words to get around the spirit, so in the end I believe it is the spirit of the law that must be followed/understood. If we begin to think in terms of letter of the law, injustices will be committed.
In the end it is only as good as those that choose to uphold it. If people have not faith in good will and choose to violate it, it will be violated, as the laws today do not do justice.
I too think that this is a great example of the difference between the 'letter' and 'spirit'. You both argued that the following passage has flaws and came up with great arguments to demonstrate those flaws:
It has flaws because when we look at the letter of it, we can always punch holes in what ever we read. However, the spirit of this passage requires that we read into it with love in our hearts. The spirit of this message is founded on love and if we love ourselves then we would only do unto others with love. Of course there are psychopaths out there. How can we apply this passage to them? If we do, then that would justify psychopathic behaviour towards them as that is what they do to others. But that violates the spirit of what this passage is trying to tell us. The spirit of the passage is to do good, be loving, caring, compassionate, peaceful, patient and all those other qualities that we all strive to achieve in our lives DESPITE the evil works of man. That is, in my view, the spirit of the passage and only each individual is responsible for making that determination within their own life. It can never be granted to another to determine, despite the efforts of most people to give that responsibility to legislators.
When we start trying to codify the meaning by outlining the exceptions, are we not missing the point of spirit and getting caught up in the letter of what is being said?
I absolutely believe this to be true.
Thanks for commenting and upvoting. I appreciate how you handle this blog, it provides thought provoking conversations, and gives me a chance to see how my ideas hold up ; )
You are welcome. I am grateful that you appreciate my efforts and see the spirit of my actions. peace to you.