Universal law?

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Universal law?

I think there are costs incurred in the private sector as much as the public sector, and law is one of them. The main cause is in its complexity, basically less complexity could equate as less learning required and hence potentially cheaper representation.

With that and aside from the cost issue, could law be massively simplified?
And would it be fairer if it were?

  1. If two parties have an issue which neither agree on, then a third party is required to make the decision.
    1b. If two parties agree, then a third party I.e. the law is not required. [I.e. should not intervene]
    1c. Same applies to single parties [where the effect does not extend beyond their individual sphere]

  2. If three parties have an issue, and two agree, then to protect the third [in disagreement] a third party should be involved.

  3. Third parties may not be an individual nor given group [e.g. a race, culture or politik], no agendas may be involved.

  4. Cultural directives; where there is a conflict between law and culture then the cultural aspect in question must come second to the law [given that here the law is not already culture based].

  5. The law must itself not be the law e.g. as with sharia law, and has to be flexible to a given situation.

  6. All parties must be considered equal, all individuals and for the individual VS the group or government, and to any manner of over-power such as banks, corporations and other institutions.

This is just a rough idea and based upon the transient nature of the world and morality within it, in an attempt to bypass the decision maker itself being the law, or of moral absolute as the impersonal version of that. Note that I am not seeing the term ‘universal’ in the context of having an all imposing law as such, but a model which delivers impartiality.

Somewhere in my mind I have the idea that a truly universal law could surpass many areas of politics also.

All ideas welcome.

2

Dear Quetz… still too complex. Must simplify. Try this one on for size, assuming that any species evolved enough to comprehend “give and take law” would also be able to accept personal responsibility. First, what is the purpose of law? Seems to me, to resolve conflict between those who disagree. “If” one exercises complete responsibility for one’s thoughts and acts, “then” that one will understand that a proper universal law can be stated as follows: “You shall consciously cause no harm to come to any other.” In the new testament (the Christian appendage to the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures or Bible) is states somewhere that it is better to take whatever harm upon oneself rather than seek revenge, etc. I have found, as difficult as it is to practice, that that is, indeed how a universal law must express. When we learn to live thus and develop fortitude so that we can accept the consequences of living thus, we will discover to our amazement and joy that we no longer need gods, governments, bankers, lawyers, judges, bosses and all that oppressive, expensive clap-trap. No more lies, exploitation, wars. Imagine the resources freed up to truly serve a world… in dignity!

3

The idea of universalism is rather presumptuous and naive.

4

Sha Tara hi

It may have to be complex in order to be precise and dextrous.

that’s fair enough but if we took it as a universal law, then one could say e.g; my boss has caused me harm by not paying me a fair share of profits, or that a starving child could say that traders in derivatives cause them harm by making food prices go up.
There are probably thousands of ways in which we can and do harm consciously though inadvertently.
So now already we have to change the original law to include that, and by adding a feature which contradicts the original statement somewhat!
In my view there becomes a language to how one can phrase things, the effort then is to not be vague nor dualistic.

Care to expand on that; why? [this is not ‘universalism’ btw, as that attempts to make everone the same]

5

I should further point out how important law is, more so than politics in my view [which are largely selections of rules in a group].

We see above how a simple biblical law can change the way we do things - if we adhere to them. Much of modern capitalism would be annihilated by just one simple law like that.

6

Would not any universal law have a basis in universalism?

7

They could do, but they don’t have to. You could say have a universal law concerning fair cultural/racial distribution [I wouldn’t want that, its just to make the point], where universalism would have no culture nor race. Hence totally different things in such a case.

8

[quote]
Somewhere in my mind I have the idea that a truly universal law could surpass many areas of politics also.
{sorry, long reply here}
I think that “universal law” as used here applies only to planet earth. OK, but it should state “Earthian law” not universal. There is a universe out there, all around, and unfortunately we don’t seem to know much about it. We’re like the goldfish in a fishbowl lowered down in the ocean. We still think only in terms of the inside of the fishbowl and those “things” moving out there don’t really mean anything to us. That is, not until those things reach inside our bowl or break it. But we don’t believe that will ever happen. Anyway, if we were to think “universally” when dealing with “law” we must bring it down to self. I don’t want to make a law that forces someone else to do what they don’t want to do, or stops them from doing what they want to do. Immediate problem: what if that other is a psychopath or child molester and etc., etc. What shall I do if my child is being molested at school and there is no suppressive law to end the molestation? I “believe” in law, in justice, so I go to the authorities and demand justice. In most cases I get some justice, though that is extremely subjective. In a state of war, for example, a soldier can brutally abuse, rape and slaughter helpless civilians (such a case now pending in the States re: a soldier in Afghanistan for example) and were I the mother of the raped girl or slaughtered son, would get no justice, not that “justice” would do any good now in any case.

Law and justice are complete failures in addressing the “human” condition. No law can be developed, written, and enforced, that will bring justice in an essentially evil world or context (if the word “evil” bothers you, think predatory). At best our laws have all been stop-gap measures to curb some of the grossest violations of human against human perpetrated over the ages, and they have done nothing to CHANGE the essential nature of man to cause harm to others, including those of his own species. Still, if we would develop a kind of “universal” or planetary law that would serve this purpose, it goes back to the individual making a completely individual choice to “do no harm unto any other” and then to go and practice such a thing. Of course she will soon discover how difficult that is. This law makes no distinction between people, animals, insects, plants, water, rocks, air - environment! Buddhists have been struggling with this for thousands of years and what have they accomplished? I don’t know because that is not the point. The point of any “universal law” must be that it will change me. It will cause me to change my mind about everything I think about, everything I think I know, including who I think I am. What is needed is some innate program that triggers a moral law of change. Life is change and our problem is that we don’t like real change. We like games. Moral change demands self-control and self sacrifice. We live (actually nor really live, more like exist) in a dying hedonistic society, the disease spreading cancerously world-wide, with our sense of morality and outrage against evil behavior all but dead within. We think, “If it feels good, do it.” We want to blame others for our problems, not look at ourselves as the cause. We support or accept wars of aggression against complete strangers knowing it’s done to control their resources, resources we would still have had we not squandered them heedlessly. Basically we insist that as predators, we have a legitimate right to act as we do. And that’s an unresolvable contradiction if we would speak of “universal law” and equally “universal justice.” So I repeat, nothing will come of any law if we insist on remaining predators in our dealing with others - and I mean that in an inclusive way: all others, not just people. Thought: what we need is to develop our innate sense of empathy, as painful as that must be at first.

9

I don’t see why universal law would not resolve such a problem? I am not saying there should be no law, just that it should be truly unbiased. A child has not reached an age where they can make decisions about who they can have sex with, or if they should have sex at all. Equally if they did have sex [e.g. like in some arab countries] then get pregnant before their bodies are ready for giving birth, there is a good chance they may die giving birth [as does happen].

I’d say there is every reason in the world to stop such things from occurring if we can. Naturally if a culture accepts young marriage etc, then that needs to change, one cannot just accept a wrongdoing because wrongdoers have contrived their law.