This is a concrete, and not a theoretical question, but it is theoretically possible to bring the total down to three. Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not give false testimony. The rest of the commandments are either simple advice or seem political vanity. I am convinced that in the animal kingdom these basic laws do often apply, in the case of somewhat equal distribution of forces. The process of establishing guilt would be anarchic, empirical and rhetorical (‘philosophical’ or ‘natural’). But the agreement is like a natural law; if someone did this, this brings upon him a negative value. The moment will decide the rest. The rest of the ten commandments were just to keep the story juicy.
The fourth law would be a law that limits the number of laws to four. A god with a more concise ego.
Many if not most laws exist to bloc the execution of other laws. But then again this is precisely how the body works - functions to designate functions…
It could be brought down to one;
“Thou shalt obey.”
But then, we all know where that goes.
But another single law that could even be enforced that avoids tyranny and leads to the resolution of ALL problems is; Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
The number of laws required for order will be inversely proportional to the strength of the shared moral convictions and traditions of the people you’re governing with the laws. If every single person has the same convictions, you wouldn’t need any laws. In a truly multicultural society, no amount of laws would suffice.
Don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie mean nothing if you’re talking to people who can’t agree on what property is, what counts as life, or the nature of truth.
People may have shared convictions, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who has them will always live and act in accordance with them. Laws don’t guarantee compliance either, but they do help to keep people in line by reinforcing some of the convictions they already hold.
In any case, i actually agree with the thrust of your comment here (and comments elsewhere) on multiculturalism. The wider and more disparate the array of beliefs and convictions different people in a society hold, the more difficult and complicated it becomes to maintain social order.
Yeah, I guess I was doing a kind of Aristotelian thing there were I was assuming that people always do what they believe is right, and if it seems otherwise, they don’t truly believe what they profess. But I don’t actually think that’s true, so you are right.
Right, that’s why relativism is dangerous bullshit. Property, life, and truth actually mean something, and advocating that they don’t, or that that meaning is up to the individual is not only false, it undermines the very cohesiveness of society.
I’d say doing things intentionally to inflict harm upon another or living things in general. But then again they can just say “Well what is harm?”, that’s just playing stupid though i’d say.
To try and intentionally cause dissatisfaction/pain/fear and the like to another living being. I suppose it doesn’t always have to be intentional either. For example someone stealing from someone else because they need it may cause dissatisfaction to one but not the thief because the thief needed it, this can count as still causing dissatisfaction for one and it is wrong because the thief still intentionally stole regardless of needing. They could perhaps ask.
Noted, let’s keep this scale in mind.
Let’s say we are working with an average diversion of values.
The three laws I proposed to keep, still apply to this situation. Only if indeed the values pertaining to living together are completely coherent, it is possible to live orderly without laws.
If there are such people, they never have seemed to speak out that I know of.
One thing I like about ILP is that there are very few relativists here.
Let’s assume that humans are very real and specific phenomena, that much has been learned about them though far less accepted.
We know that humans do not want to be trapped away from what they can do best. It matters little what that is, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not figure in there much. It’s a/certain type/s, that empathize/s with others automatically and stimulatingly. “Nurturers” - people who live in Seattle.
Not here, anyway.
Ah, there is the justification of the commandment about having only one God. It helps minimize the number of laws, and makes the ones that do exist more efficient and easy to execute. But there is no god who dictates us here so we need to follow reason. We can have a law that all laws should stand up to rational scrutiny, based on some premises we apparently need.
Practically we should probably extend the no murder commandment to no inflicting of physical damage except if agreed on on record. “Do not bring physical harm when not so requested.”
It is, but I think that will be the hardest thing of all to implement.
i suppose i should take offense to this statement, but i don’t, because i’m a relativist.
Yeah, but you can’t in practice get everyone to actually believe in a single God. Or version of God.
Premises we agree we need, that is. Substituting reason for the divine is a mistake. Reason serves certain purposes, but not all. Rational scrutiny is essential, but it won’t always reveal the best or truest answer.
And not necessarily desirable was the point i was trying to make. Say you have a certain club that has a clubhouse, you might want to have a rule that states that members need to take away garbage with them, unless you don’t want the clubhouse to be clean(what society you want…) or you think people will clean up voluntarily (what the circumstances are…).
Good question.
But, i do not think that one can either avoid philosophical aspect of it or restrict that in three numbers.
Basically, only one law is required, what Lord Krishna asked Arjuna in Gita and i pointed out in the other thread.
One should do what he is supposed to do under the given circumstances.
That is enough. All other laws are merely interpretation of this premise for different persons in different circumstances. Furthermore, more importantly, it also keeps the right balance between subjectivity and objectivity.
Your proposed three laws will not be justified in all conditions because relative circumstances may step in exceptional cases. The premise of what one is supposed to do, depends on the intention and the desired result, thus may vary in some circumstances from the general line.
Like, thou shalt not kill was wrong in the case of Arjuna. Thou shalt not lie will also be wrong if a murderar would be asking you about a hideout of an innocent child to get hold of his property by killing him. One is not supposed to speak the truth in that case.
That is common Hindu and Buddhistic thought, but has a problem - “should”.
The distinction between a mature person and the immature is made when they start being more concerned with what needs to be done rather than what they should do. “Should” implies a pre-known source of law or justness after which one can merely say, “just do everything rightly and everything will become right”. It is a somewhat vacuous answer to the question. “What is the right thing to do?” is always the question.
Perhaps if the squirrels in the park were to obey one particular law, they would be far better off, live longer, and happier. But how do you communicate that law to them? Should one ask the squirrels? Asking such questions concerning best action to take does little to no good if the answer cannot be comprehended by the ones requiring it.
Would you (anyone) know the exact best law if you heard it?
There are ways to evaluate laws… it’s offcourse a very complex matter, but you can try to figure out if laws are effective in producing the behaviours and society we want. It ultimately comes down to what we value. Reëvalution of values is the more important question.
There is no need to ask those who are not worthy enough either to understand the question or give the answer. The same is for the implication of the laws. If some are unable to comprehend, the laws should be enforced upon, whether they like it or not. Unwise consent is not necessary.
I do not think that there can be any single perfect law for everyone in every circumstances. Yes, there can some general guidelines. Like-
Try to come out of the ignorance and be wise. If you are unable to do that, find help. Do not assume that you know everything to the last detail.