So what if laws are a ruleset created by men?

[Junkhead]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests) that laws are only rulesets made by mankind, and in the State of Nature, they don't mean anything.

There were some instances I have come to argue with hopeless people that constantly think that mankind are just another group of animals. Just because we are biologically animals doesn't mean we still are. Humans are actually supposed to think about their actions before doing them, and not go with their instincts.

So what if it is a ruleset made by mankind? That is certainly true. But does that somehow make them invalid because of that? Laws are there for a reason, it's because mankind have to work together to not destroy themselves any more than they would if they weren't there. If you don't like it, go live with the animals- Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals, go live with uncivilized. In those arguements I had, the people who tried to argue against me had the crazy idea that they could somehow make the laws invalid because they aren't "natural", or something like that. That's what they all say.

I really don't know how to express this any further. I'll try to answer some questions if you ask me. I am in no way a humanitarian. I am kind of cynical myself, but I will not tolerate that kind of mindset towards our kind.

I myself don't believe in a deity, and yet, I don't fall for that kind of mindset. And no offense to the people that have this mindset- I just don't tolerate it because of how demeaning it is.

[Raven]

Laws are different in nearly every country in the world, so right there there is debate for what is "right" and "wrong". Laws exist to help life live as peaceful as possible, and so we can advance into civilised communities. Things such as murder and rape are a given - you're taking life, and a person's free will, respectively, in these situations, and so they have been written into many laws so it is "illegal" to do so.

The law is pretty subjective. One day in the UK's past, a person, or a group of people, huddled up in a room and said, "Right, we're going to make the age of consent 16", while other countries had their ages of consent set at 12, 14, and some as high as 18. This law expands on to other laws, such as sex with a child etc., however, who has the right to stop two people who may be 15 - a year younger than the written age of consent - from having sex when they both want to do it? That's a personal decision for the two people to make where laws shouldn't interfere, or even have a bearing on their decision to have sex or not. Some countries have exemptions for people who are under the age of consent to have sex, which I feel is the right way to go.

[Original Alear]

Humans are actually supposed to think about their actions before doing them, and not go with their instincts.

What do you mean by that? Who requires it of us that we have to think about our actions before doing them?

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

If people don't want to use reason, then that's fine.

Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals, go live with uncivilized.

Biologically, humans are animals, and there is nothing we have done to separate ourselves from that kingdom yet.

Laws are there for a reason, it's because mankind have to work together to not destroy themselves any more than they would if they weren't there.

No, we don't have to do that. It's a prevailing choice.

[Rehab]

Atheists believe that laws are only rules made by mankind, and therefore don't mean anything? well, shit

Lifting ideas from Francis Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order, I assume that rule of law and centralized enforcement of that law are necessary for the formation of a state. I kinda take for granted that a society needs rules created by its people, because that obviously plays a large part in defining how they want to live their lives. It's true that the worlds humans have made for themselves are often very different from the state of nature, and speaking for myself, I wouldn't argue that it's often necessarily so.

But people ain't perfect, and neither are the laws we make and live by, necessarily. Laws can play favorites, laws can guard power jealously, laws can be downright stupid. See Jim Crow. They can become less effective and more unnecessarily restrictive with time, they can fail to cover every situation where they'd be useful, and they can be corrupted or circumvented by the people enforcing them (and/or the people under them).

Since they're imperfect, I think it's necessary for laws to be open to challenge. Which doesn't mean I'm going to disregard every law I don't like, I just want to keep my civil disobedience options open.

[Phoenix Wright]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests) that laws are only rulesets made by mankind, and in the State of Nature, they don't mean anything.

I think you may be misinterpreting what atheists mean. What do you mean the "State of Nature"? If it concerns animals, no, our man-made laws do not apply. If you mean universal, human laws, they do not exist as concretely as you imply here, if at all.

Laws are individual to the country that makes them--why would they have authority elsewhere?

There were some instances I have come to argue with hopeless people that constantly think that mankind are just another group of animals. Just because we are biologically animals doesn't mean we still are. Humans are actually supposed to think about their actions before doing them, and not go with their instincts.

Depends. I have argued here before that humans have lost instincts where they have gained intelligence--but contemporary instincts exist for a reason. We're supposed to think, yes, but I still don't see where you think these laws should apply and who will enforce them.

So what if it is a ruleset made by mankind? That is certainly true. But does that somehow make them invalid because of that? Laws are there for a reason, it's because mankind have to work together to not destroy themselves any more than they would if they weren't there. If you don't like it, go live with the animals- Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals, go live with uncivilized. In those arguements I had, the people who tried to argue against me had the crazy idea that they could somehow make the laws invalid because they aren't "natural", or something like that. That's what they all say.

Unfair use of "(un)civilized" here. Who are you to say what group of people is civilized or not? What are the boundaries?

Government, law, culture, all man-made, all natural because they happened naturally . At least in my opinion. I see the creation of government as I see how other animals group together--it's all for protection.

I really don't know how to express this any further. I'll try to answer some questions if you ask me. I am in no way a humanitarian. I am kind of cynical myself, but I will not tolerate that kind of mindset towards our kind.

The anarchistic mindset, or a whole other group of people?

I myself don't believe in a deity, and yet, I don't fall for that kind of mindset. And no offense to the people that have this mindset- I just don't tolerate it because of how demeaning it is.

I don't think religion can be logically correlated here. I think that the people you argue with are anarchists, who are generally atheists for somewhat obvious reasons. Religion doesn't exactly matter, though.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Original Alear]

Atheists believe that laws are only rules made by mankind, and therefore don't mean anything? well, shit

I think Soul was saying that most of the people who think this way are atheists, not that most people who are atheists think this. For my own part, I don't have any idea how dominant any pro-anarchy (in this case, anarchy being a lack of centralized enforcement of laws) viewpoints are or what the religious beliefs of those who follow it are. There are apparently Christian anarchists who don't like rendering unto Caesar, but I don't know how many of them there are.

Unfair use of "(un)civilized" here. Who are you to say what group of people is civilized or not? What are the boundaries?

If they don't play Fire Emblem, they aren't civilized. Come to think of it, I have never interacted with a civilized person IRL.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Jet Black Gunner

[Junkhead]

I think you may be misinterpreting what atheists mean. What do you mean the "State of Nature"? If it concerns animals, no, our man-made laws do not apply. If you mean universal, human laws, they do not exist as concretely as you imply here, if at all.

State of Nature. You know, nature itself. Just because it's not "natural" it's apparently invalid to reign over our lives. The only reason they don't "exist as concretely" as I imply is because alot of humans in the world think they can do they want.

Laws are individual to the country that makes them--why would they have authority elsewhere?

I don't understand what you mean by this, sorry. I am talking about laws in the human world in general. The common laws that serve as brakes.

Depends. I have argued here before that humans have lost instincts where they have gained intelligence--but contemporary instincts exist for a reason. We're supposed to think, yes, but I still don't see where you think these laws should apply and who will enforce them.

That there, was a statement I made stating the main, or one of the main differences we have that seperates us from other animals.

Unfair use of "(un)civilized" here. Who are you to say what group of people is civilized or not? What are the boundaries?

Excuse my mistake there. What I meant to say was, " If you don't like it, go live with the animals- Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals already, go live away from society with beasts. I'm sure you'll love the kind of lifestyle they have"

I didn't mean to call other humans uncivilized.

Government, law, culture, all man-made, all natural because they happened naturally . At least in my opinion. I see the creation of government as I see how other animals group together--it's all for protection.

That is a good arguement against them [the people who argue laws aren't "natural", honestly.

The anarchistic mindset, or a whole other group of people?

The people with that anarchistic mindset, yes.

[Lord Raven]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests)

Wasn't aware I had an anarchistic mindset. Edited March 1, 2012 by Mercenary Raven

[Anouleth]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests) that laws are only rulesets made by mankind, and in the State of Nature, they don't mean anything.

There were some instances I have come to argue with hopeless people that constantly think that mankind are just another group of animals. Just because we are biologically animals doesn't mean we still are. Humans are actually supposed to think about their actions before doing them, and not go with their instincts.

So what if it is a ruleset made by mankind? That is certainly true. But does that somehow make them invalid because of that? Laws are there for a reason, it's because mankind have to work together to not destroy themselves any more than they would if they weren't there. If you don't like it, go live with the animals- Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals, go live with uncivilized. In those arguements I had, the people who tried to argue against me had the crazy idea that they could somehow make the laws invalid because they aren't "natural", or something like that. That's what they all say.

I think their point is rather that laws are undesirable and unnecessary rather than "invalid" (whatever that means). And it's not always true that laws have good reason to be there. Some laws are to disenfranchise some groups, such as Jim Crow laws. And there was a time before laws when people lived and didn't all murder or rape one another.

I don't agree with anarchists, however. Anarchism can work in a small group, but in large, modern societies, interaction between people has to be regulated.

[Junkhead]

Alot of things are "unnecessary" in the law system. That doesn't mean they don't benefit us more than their absence.

For example, school is unecessary, but it helps build better future citizens.

[Anouleth]

Alot of things are "unnecessary" in the law system. That doesn't mean they don't benefit us more than their absence.

Don't be so pedantic, I obviously meant that they think the law system is not necessary to prevent people from committing crimes. What the fuck else could I mean?

[Phoenix Wright]

State of Nature. You know, nature itself. Just because it's not "natural" it's apparently invalid to reign over our lives. The only reason they don't "exist as concretely" as I imply is because alot of humans in the world think they can do they want.

Well, it is more because no country wants another to rule over it. We have made treaties and such in the United Nations, but so far no nation has opted to be ruled by another nation's set of laws. The laws, in general, are fairly similar when comparing countries. :P

We're in agreement here (law is natural), though.

That there, was a statement I made stating the main, or one of the main differences we have that seperates us from other animals.

Well, you said we should "not" act within instinct, to which I replied, "sometimes it is necessary."

That is a good arguement against them [the people who argue laws aren't "natural", honestly.

The people with that anarchistic mindset, yes.

Anarchism, as far as I can tell, doesn't work. Humans are social creatures--to take away government, the institution that draws people together, and forcing them to fend for themselves will only bring about chaos. I'm doubtful of the existence of altruism.

---

You know, even if laws weren't natural, your friends would still be incorrect in their assumption that the laws don't apply to them. If I am correct, they live in the same country as you do, and in order to continue to live in said country, they must abide by the laws everyone else has chosen to abide by. So naturally constructed or not, the law still applies.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Phoenix Wright

[Anti-Social Meta Knight]

You know, even if laws weren't natural, your friends would still be incorrect in their assumption that the laws don't apply to them. If I am correct, they live in the same country as you do, and in order to continue to live in said country, they must abide by the laws everyone else has chosen to abide by. So naturally constructed or not, the law still applies.

This is the point people don't really get IMO. The contract that government fundamentally is implies that, in exchange for your rights (living on their land, benefiting from their public services), you play by that government's rules. You ignore the rules, you forfeit the rights. That's how systems of law work.

So yes, you CAN ignore the laws of your nation. Just be prepared for what follows.

[Othin]

This is the point people don't really get IMO. The contract that government fundamentally is implies that, in exchange for your rights (living on their land, benefiting from their public services), you play by that government's rules. You ignore the rules, you forfeit the rights. That's how systems of law work.

So yes, you CAN ignore the laws of your nation. Just be prepared for what follows.

No, it isn't. Laws aren't a method of payment; they don't benefit the government or anyone simply by existing. They benefit society if the laws have a net positive effect, and they hurt society if they have a net negative effect.

People give money to the government, and unless the government is very shitty, it gives services to the people in exchange, such as organizing a military and enforcing positive laws. And of course, the best governments will recognize when people are less or more able to pay, and when they're less or more in need of services, and adjust things accordingly, to be benevolent in a way that will give the most benefit to people as a whole.

[Rehab]

I'm doubtful of the existence of altruism.

For the record, do you mean you're doubting the existence of a force of benevolence in human nature that would ensure everything would be a-ok if we embraced anarchy, or are you picking a fight with Richard Dawkins?

[Lord Raven]

I'm doubtful of the existence of altruism.

I disagree. I think it exists, but it's drowned out by a stream of greed and self-interest that others convey.

[Lux Aeterna]

"Civility is just humanity's way of distancing themselves from instinct."

I'm paraphrasing, and I forget who said that, but it's what I think, too.

Laws aren't necessarily to make us "superior" to other animals. And we still are animals--we just have a sense of right and wrong (which is still defined by the individual). We're not limited to the basest of instincts, but the thing is, the only reason for that is because we make laws. Without laws, most of humanity would degenerate into barbaric mayhem.

Humanity, back at the dawn of its era, probably experienced some sort of dissatisfaction with living a basic life, mainly because they were aware that they could create more for themselves. The only way they could accomplish this was some sort of organization--at its least, a consistent method for being able to govern one's self and branch out to more than just what all other animals dealt with.

I'm not trying to sound jaded or disillusioned. Not everyone would degenerate into a mess without law. But there would be no rules to follow, and most people would take advantage of that.

So yeah, law is good. I still think humanity is good at its very core. But we are animals, beyond everything. And I don't think we can be blamed for following instinct if worse comes to worst.

Sorry if I misunderstood the topic.

[Phoenix Wright]

For the record, do you mean you're doubting the existence of a force of benevolence in human nature that would ensure everything would be a-ok if we embraced anarchy, or are you picking a fight with Richard Dawkins?

[Note: I have never read the book. I need to, but for the time being consider my argument one that has been made reading a few pages on the Internet.]

Ah, The Selfish Gene.

The former.

Although--I don't agree with what Dawkins describes as "altruism." The altruism is stemming from the need to carry on the family's genes. So, in effect, it's not really altruism. I do not think "selflessness" actually exists.

For example, I am in Rotary. I did not join Rotary for college apps (you'll just have to believe me there, cynics out there :P), I joined it to help people. I can also tell you that my decision for joining is not a selfless one--for I receive many benefits. The biggest one being a sense of fulfillment for at least attempting to help humanity.

Would I have done this without any perks? No. If it didn't make me feel fulfilled and happy, I wouldn't do it.

If astrophysics, or astronomy I guess, didn't bring me enjoyment, I wouldn't do it.

So, every action, I think, stems out of self-interest. That's fine by me--it's how far one takes that greed that becomes a problem.

Or is this what he would describe as "altruism"? [Again, haven't read the book, unfortunately.]

[Blademaster!]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests)

Wow, with stereotypes like this, no wonder Atheists are the most hated group of people in the U.S.A. Source: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Actually, this is a stereotype about atheists?

[Defeatist Elitist]

So, every action, I think, stems out of self-interest. That's fine by me--it's how far one takes that greed that becomes a problem.

I think what it comes down to is that altruism basically IS enjoying helping other people. I definitely agree with what you're saying, I spend a lot of time trying to improve other people's lives, and I don't think I'd do it if it didn't give me some level of satisfaction, but I'd argue that that's basically what altruism is.

[Zanarkin]

Wow, with stereotypes like this, no wonder Atheists are the most hated group of people in the U.S.A. Source: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Actually, this is a stereotype about atheists?

Wow i must be pretty hated considering i fit into three categories (or used to when i was in the us).

Also, i doubt its a stereotype. I for one am an atheist, yet still think laws are needed for society to work. I think soul is just basing that over the people he has encountered, which also happen to be atheist. I think he meant, most anarchists are atheist but most atheist are not anarchists.

[Junkhead]

Well, you said we should "not" act within instinct, to which I replied, "sometimes it is necessary."

Oh yes, I don't deny that.

Use with moderation.

Anarchism, as far as I can tell, doesn't work. Humans are social creatures--to take away government, the institution that draws people together, and forcing them to fend for themselves will only bring about chaos. I'm doubtful of the existence of altruism.

Not to mention it's rather ironic. A state without laws? Hahahaha. Keep dreaming. Humans are too different and too stupid to live without them. Some bastard will get bored and break out.

Wow, with stereotypes like this, no wonder Atheists are the most hated group of people in the U.S.A. Source: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Actually, this is a stereotype about atheists?

I did harshly generalize you guys. I apologize.

Their overly simplistic view of life is just rather disturbing.

Nevermind the fact that I could count as an athiest. I, myself don't have a religion and just look at what I am ranting about. ;/

[Anouleth]

I think what it comes down to is that altruism basically IS enjoying helping other people. I definitely agree with what you're saying, I spend a lot of time trying to improve other people's lives, and I don't think I'd do it if it didn't give me some level of satisfaction, but I'd argue that that's basically what altruism is.

Yeah, I think if a person derives pleasure from helping other people, and they help other people, then you can call it altruism. Even if ultimately, they do it because it makes them feel better about themselves, that doesn't change the fact that they feel good about helping other people.

[BK-201]

Today, what I am going to rant about is toward my dislike toward the kind of anarchistic mindset that some people have (mainly athiests) that laws are only rulesets made by mankind, and in the State of Nature, they don't mean anything.

There were some instances I have come to argue with hopeless people that constantly think that mankind are just another group of animals. Just because we are biologically animals doesn't mean we still are. Humans are actually supposed to think about their actions before doing them, and not go with their instincts.

So what if it is a ruleset made by mankind? That is certainly true. But does that somehow make them invalid because of that? Laws are there for a reason, it's because mankind have to work together to not destroy themselves any more than they would if they weren't there. If you don't like it, go live with the animals- Or in your case, the ones that think we are animals, go live with uncivilized. In those arguements I had, the people who tried to argue against me had the crazy idea that they could somehow make the laws invalid because they aren't "natural", or something like that. That's what they all say.

I really don't know how to express this any further. I'll try to answer some questions if you ask me. I am in no way a humanitarian. I am kind of cynical myself, but I will not tolerate that kind of mindset towards our kind.

I myself don't believe in a deity, and yet, I don't fall for that kind of mindset. And no offense to the people that have this mindset- I just don't tolerate it because of how demeaning it is.

:( I don't find that very true. One could argue that atheists have to value life more as they only have one chance at it. I think that's an unsubstantiated claim to say that atheists desire to break down the government. Even if you can prove some atheists aim to do that you have to prove its directly advocated by an atheist's unique beliefs which is simply an absence of god.

It depends on what you're associating with the terminology. Technically we are animals but it's ridiculously simplified to think we are purely reactionary and have no control over our actions if that's what the term 'animal' is associated with.

I don't think I make the choice not to kill someone based off a law that states killing results in punishment. Laws certainly aren't invalid and provide a line for what is punishable I don't think they're essential to humanity. Laws are always going to be restricted by what people are reasonably OK with, people will react(violently in some cases) to laws they disprove of.

I think the main value to law is the system of enforcement that comes behind it, it can function as a deterrent sometimes and also gives us the ability to prosecute those in violation. They're always going to be checked by the general public though.

I don't really see any reason to bring deities into this discussion until you make a logical connection. Also, that very thought is what defines an atheist so that's basically self hatred in one post. The only defining characteristic of atheism is a lack of belief in god, everything else comes from the individual.

Not to mention it's rather ironic. A state without laws? Hahahaha. Keep dreaming. Humans are too different and too stupid to live without them. Some bastard will get bored and break out.

Their overly simplistic view of life is just rather disturbing.

Nevermind the fact that I could count as an athiest. I, myself don't have a religion and just look at what I am ranting about. ;/

You're talking about us being above animals previously. While I guess it's fine by you that superior intellect might require greater restraints I'd like to know how these two factor together.

It's not like laws have been a constant since the existence of humans. Also in some periods of time law became very corrupt yet people still lived on. It's not the law being law that gives it weight.

Even if it's simplistic I'd rather hear arguments about why this simplistic belief is bad rather than it simply not conforming to the complexity you desire to see. You are an atheist yourself. I think even without god, the world can still be complicated enough.

You're ranting against something you believe in, ironically though I guess you could be caught in some sort of existential crisis or whatever. Or you could just be confused about where you fit in terms of groups.

[Aran613]

If man could choose the laws, we would have a near-perfect universe or a horrible one. Unfortunately, man did not have a say in placing the laws of physics.