About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 4:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser."
The Code of Hammurabi

Jon Letendre wrote:

“The topic is objective law, as in modern medicine, not as in whther one law is objective or whether a certain medicine is modern. Institutions, not single instance.” [Ted]

I’ll go slow because I can see you are having trouble following. The topic of the poll is “invention.” Invention means first instance and not institutions as you comically and goal post movingly assert above. (Therefore “powered flight” means a Wright brother on a certain day, a “single instance.” It does not mean the establishment in the early twentieth century of American Airlines.)

Likewise, the poll option “objective law” means first instance, not “Institutions.”

Therefore objective law, invented prior to cities, is an invalid option for a poll that is about inventions by civilized man.

Now bring on the pics of thunderbolt-casting wizards!

Jon, your continued ignorance astounds me. Did you not read any of the many posts above, talking about such things as a system of law based on explicit principles and procedure, and rules of evidence? Did you not read the Rand excerpts? Did you not read the Isabel Paterson? The Romans had a system of law essentially the same as ours prior at the time of the American Revolution, the Assyrians and Babylonians did not. Your entire ludicrous argument consists of the notion that it is written down, so it is objective. That does not follow, soviet law was written down, would you call its show trials objective? Hammurabi's code had force of law not because it was based on principles, but because it was his word as king of Babylon. There were many other such codes, each promulgated by other kings as their word when they took office. And would you even call a code that says that if you kill a woman, your daughter gets the death penalty or that if you float when you jump in the river it proves your innocence objective? Have you done any research at all besides reading that one post by John Armaos? Feel free to declare "victory" since that seems to be what you think you have achieved. Your contribution is beneath the minimum requirement of rational discourse.

Post 41

Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
continued from "Rome Discovers Political Structure"

The value of the idea of law in its primary use of framing
legislation is clear. It sets moral sanctions above force, while
recognizing human fallibility. Men made the statutes; and
it was understood that a statute might be inequitable or ill-
advised, but a bad law reflected on the legislators; statutes
were open to change, without impairing the majesty of the
law in principle. The means of repeal or alteration were
provided, without recourse to violence. Thus the idea of law
answered to reason though it was superior to expediency.
Finally, the idea of law posited that a man had rights which
must be respected, and which he could forfeit only by his
own act. Though not all men were free, the condition of a
free man had been defined. And since freedom was found
to be inherent in the order of the universe, logic must ask
in time why all men were not free.

The practical use of the concept of law in founding the
empire began with international relations. Their habit of
mind made the Romans more reliable in keeping treaties and
more steadfast against reverses, and therefore made their
alliance desired. Legal clarity likewise served to specify
bearable terms. Citizenship being formulated as a legal con-
dition rather than an accident of birth, Rome could bestow
it on the people of another nation. A general grant took
effect on individuals; the orbital attraction first exerted on
the mass thus acted on the particles separately. The result
was a true fusion or welding, a chemical compound rather
than a simple mixture or binding together. The former local
governments could be left with subsidiary authority 5 no
change of custom was forced upon the people 5 and the risk
of revolt was minimized. Under stress, the citizens as indi-
viduals would cling to Rome for protection against local
tyranny, as Paul did; for Roman law was super-territorial,
like canon law in the Middle Ages.

Post 42

Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 5:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hong, can you or can anyone else comment on Chinese law?

from wikipedia:

Early development

The laws of the aristocratic societies of early China put substantial emphasis on maintaining the distinct ranks and orders among the nobles, in addition to controlling the populace. As a result, li (禮), meaning ritual and etiquette, governed the conduct of the nobles whilst xing (刑), rules of punishment, governed the commoners and slaves. The early rulers of the Zhou Dynasty issued or enforced laws that already exemplified the values of a primogeniture regime, most notable of which is filial piety. The earliest document on law in China that is generally regarded as authentic is the Kang Gao (康誥), a set of instructions issued by King Wu of Zhou to a younger prince for the government of a fief.

During the 6th century BC, several of the independent states into which the Zhou kingdom had fragmented codified their penal laws and inscribed them on bronze cauldrons. For example, at least two codifications from the state of Zheng survive, from 536 BC and 504 BC - the first on cauldrons and the second on bamboo. The codes of Wei, drafted by Li Kui, are also notable. Such codification was part of the process by which rulers attempted to make more effective the central administration of the state. They attracted criticism from orthodox statesmen, including Confucius, on the basis that they eroded the distinction between the "noble" and the "base".
[edit] Legalism and Qin

In 221 BC, the state of Qin finally obtained supremacy over its rivals and founded the Qin Dynasty. One of the reasons for its success was the adoption, on the advice of Lord Shang Yang, of far-reaching penal and administrative codes in the 4th century BC. The laws imposed severe punishments for failure to comply with duties imposed by the state and on the whole punished all alike. During this stage, law was marked by a purely Legalist spirit, hostile to the moral values advocated by the Confucian school.

The Legalist school, as represented by such thinkers as Han Fei Zi, insisted that the ruler must always rely on penal law and the imposition of heavy punishments as the main instrument of government. At the same time, moral considerations and social standing should be rigorously excluded. Another hallmark of Legalist thinking was that there should be equality before the law. On the question of legislative technique, the Legalists stressed that the rules enacted by the ruler for punishment of offences should be clear, intelligible to the ordinary people, and properly communicated to them.
[edit] Imperial law

Legalism survived in a diluted form after the Han Dynasty succeeded the Qin. It was recognised that there was a need for complex penal and administrative codes that enabled the emperor to govern the country through a hierarchy of ministers and officials, all ultimately responsible to him. Imperial legal systems all retained the original Legalist insistence that the powers of officials be defined in detail and that punishments be prescribed for transgressions, whether inadvertent or not. Han law-makers took account of Confucian values and introduced rules designed to implement them.

This seems to imply that there was concern with maintaining the existing order, rather than a concern with moral justice in the individualist sense.

Post 43

Thursday, October 8, 2009 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ius

From wikipedia:

"Law" in the abstract as distinguished from any specific enactment, the domain of learning, or any personified factor in human history/conduct/social development. Often contrasted with lex or leges, which are the laws. Ius is the law in its broadest sense or its ideal state, above and unaffected by the contingent decrees that the state happens to enact, the leges -- hence the distinction between the English terms “justice” and “legislation.” This division persisted into various regimes not only of civil law regime, and even in the law of the United States, as in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which distinguishes “due process of law” (singular, as in ius) from “equal protection of the laws” (plural, as in leges).

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 44

Friday, October 9, 2009 - 8:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We studied Shang Yang in the mid 70s in school. Near the end of Cultural Revolution, Legalism became Mao's favorite as opposed to the traditional Confucianism, perhaps in an attempt to justify his harsh and brutal treatment of his opponents.

But Legalism was never popular in China. It was useful for the first Qin Emperor in his quest to unify China. But soon after the Emperor's death, Shang Yang himself met a gruesome end (drawn by four horses. *shudder*). If there was a system of objective law in China, then I am completely ignorant of it. Well, perhaps in China the law was always thought to be embodied in the persons of Emperor and the hierarchy of officials. In other words, it is largely arbitrary except in the primitive biblical sense (an eye for an eye, a life for a life, etc.). That’s why Chinese people particular revere wise and just officials. There is a saying that in China, the country was ruled by men, not by law.

In PRC, there are various levels of courts, but they are largely tools of the Party instead of an independent legal institution. They'll do whatever Party asks them to do and prosecute whomever Party wants to prosecute. There was no due process. Punishments are quite arbitrary depending on the mood of the day of the Party. You probably have heard of some executions of drug traffickers and embezzlers. In my younger days, petty thieves had been executed when they were unlucky enough to be caught in some particular anti-crime movements.

I don't know if and how things have improved today. Common people would not go to the court for minor injustices. Things are still handled largely by relationships (guanxi), or whom you know.

Perhaps that's why I am particularly impressed by Magna Carta, where even King could not be exempt from the law. It was such a new concept. ;)

(Edit to correct the use of "persecute" in place of "prosecute". Perhaps a subconsciously intentional mistake?)

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 10/09, 2:20pm)


Post 45

Friday, October 9, 2009 - 8:47amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Agree - and it was something Roman Law not had...

Post 46

Friday, October 9, 2009 - 9:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Hong.

from Shang Yang, wikipedia:

Deeply despised by the Qin nobility, Shang could not survive Qin Xiaogong's death. The next ruler, King Huiwen, ordered the execution of Shang and his family, on grounds of rebellion; Shang had previously humiliated the new Duke "by causing him to be punished for an offense as though he were an ordinary citizen."[2] Shang went into hiding and tried to stay at a hotel. Ironically, the hotel owner refused because it was against Shang's laws to admit a guest without proper identification. Shang is said to have been executed by being fastened to four chariots and pulled apart. Despite his death, King Huiwen kept the reforms enacted by Yang.

Confucian scholars were highly opposed to Shang's legalist approach.

The Classical Chinese era reminds me of the Greek era of the Seven Sages, among whom were counted Solon and Thales. These were revered for their aphoristic wisdom sayings, but they were not systematizers.

Solon of Athens "Nothing in excess".
Chilon of Sparta "Know thyself".
Thales of Miletus "To bring surety brings ruin".
Bias of Priene "Too many workers spoil the work".
Cleobulus of Lindos "Moderation is the chief good".
Pittacus of Mitylene "Know thine opportunity".
Periander of Corinth "Forethought in all things".

In his highly recommended From the Origins to Socrates, the scholar Giovanni Reale lists the known sayings of each of the sages, which you can read here.

Post 47

Saturday, October 10, 2009 - 3:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Suppose a primitive hominid who was the first to catch a fish with a forked stick was emulated by another Hominid, Would this be considered plagiarism?
Suppose another Hominid,unfortunately nearsighted, cut themselves with a piece of flint. Then demonstrated this property to a hunter of greater skill on a kill in exchange for a portion of flesh. Has not a fair trade between the two parties been established?  
With out an established ethic or objective law ,civilization could not have come into existence in the first place. Teacher is student, Student is teacher. 
 I enjoyed all posts. With out skepticism no progress is possible. Thales' quote."If you wish to govern.First be subject to discipline, yourself. " This quote is very similar to The iron rule of responsibility. Which is basically if you talk the talk then walk the walk. Thanks for adding the links.


Post 48

Monday, October 12, 2009 - 12:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I went with modern medicine. Doubling life expectancy over the last century has to be near if not at the top of any such list of things contributing to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". If you don't have the first of those, the other two are moot. I would be dead without modern medicine.

I'd rate the printing press as #2 on the list.

Post 49

Monday, October 12, 2009 - 12:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wouldn't place merely extending mechanistic life as a higher value than a eudemonic life. There's no point to extending life unless you have the freedom to pursue happiness.

Post 50

Monday, October 12, 2009 - 3:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I agree with life and pursuit of happiness. Not so much on liberty.

Post 51

Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The Eleventh Option

I said above that there was another candidate for civilized man's greatest invention which had not been mentioned. It is the scientific method. Roger Bacon is widely credited with the explicit identification of the scientific method in the 1260's. Aristotle, with his careful biological observations is widely viewed as having used the scientific method. He says that one must identify causes to understand a thing in his Posterior Analytics. Various Arabic scholars are credited with using scientific methods of research, and even the ancient Egyptians are credited with having scientific knowledge of medicine and astronomy. (Although footnotes at Wikipedia explaining the supposed Egyptian contribution to the development of the scientific method amount to special pleading.) None of these earlier sources is credited with having explicitly identified the scientific method, even though they may be said in different ways to have used it.

Post 52

Friday, October 16, 2009 - 3:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Define "civilized." 

The greatest invention would be either the one fundamental to all others, or else the one that subsumes and includes all others.

Would Objectivism be a candidate for the latter?

The greatest invention of humanity since the last ice age, i.e, post-neolithic "civilized" humanity, could be writing.

The invention of literacy is synchronous with the invention of numeracy.  Writing made "large" numbers such as 5, 6, and 7 possible.  The earliest writing is inventories of goods.  Poetry -- the Gilgamesh -- came 1000 years later. For all of this see the works of Denise Schmandt-Besserat.

Books by Denise Schmandt Besserat
How Writing Came about - 1996 - 218 pages
The History of Counting - 1999 - 48 pages
books.google.com

Morever, Julian Jaynes suggested that like other animals, humans had bicameral minds with left and right brain hemispheres nearly symmetirical, until the invention of writing.  Citing differences in expression found in the Iliad versus the Odyssey, Jayne theorized that we have egos because of writing

Finally, do not fall into the taxonomic fallacy and assume that all featherless bipeds are volitional beings.  Have you ever driven home from work with your mind "someplace else" and found youself safe at home and not remembered having driven there?  All people lived like that before writing -- and many people still do today.  It is a consequential tautology that egoism cannot make sense to a person who has no ego... even if that person is an electrician, a bus driver, or an organizational manager.  Gilgamesh taught the people to build city walls by chanting to them the motions to perform: they could not visualize themselves performing the actions in the future: they had to be told what to do in the present.

The greatest invention of civilized man is the one fundamental to and yet including all others: EGO.


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 9:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You could define "objective law" so as to exclude laws not based upon individual rights, or your definition might require a system of laws - not just one or more individual laws, or your definition might go beyond laws themselves and imply or require a certain kind of government to provide enforcement.

What is required to be a law is simple: An edict enforced by an understood structure with jurisdiction over a given area.  We can say some primitive tribes had law.  'Objective' in this context would refer to the formulation of a law as being a rationally derived means of achieving fairness and/or a rationally derived means of maintaining a desired state. 

There are levels of "invention" relative to objective law - which one should we be discussing?
  • There is the almost accidental recognition of the value in enforcing a rule that no one can take the stuff belonging to  another.  The recognition that certain kinds of laws make for more peaceful times, and are fair.  With a primitive tribe there would have been many unfair laws, like that of ancient Hawaiians where it was a capital offense to let your shadow fall on royalty.  Most laws would not have been objective, but others were. 
  • The other level of invention was when an someone began to write or teach about the principle of objective law - when principles of law were crafted to guide in the creation of laws.  The first wise leader of a group that recognized the value of this gets my vote for inventing objective law.
  • And there is the invention of objective law where it has reached the level of understanding that all law must logically arise from individual rights to be objective.


(Edit: cleaned up my wording a little - mostly the 1st paragraph)
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 10/17, 2:34pm)


Post 54

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What Steve said.

Ed


Post 55

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Steve didn’t just say, Ed—he asked.

My answer is bullet number one because it matches the meaning of “invention.”

Unfortunately it came prior to cities and therefore prior to civilization—all of which makes “objective law” an ineligible response to this poll.


Post 56

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"If anyone brings an accusation against a man, and the accused goes to the river and leaps into the river, if he sinks in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river proves that the accused is not guilty, and he escapes unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser."
The Code of Hammurabi

"Objective law" refers to a system of law, not just the proposition of one single law, just as modern medicine refers not to one single drug, "a modern medicine" but to the entire discipline.

The repeated assertion that objective law existed before civilization is an arbitrary joke. No definition is offered to clarify what this assertion means. Hammurabi's code was offered as an example, simply because it was written down, but how, exactly, his actual laws are just, no explanation is offered, let alone any explanation of how he had a system of objective law. On the other hand, long relevant quotes of Paterson and Rand have been offered, but apparently these are inconveniently above the second grade reading level.

As with most of what has been written on this thread, Jon Letendre obviously didn't bother to read all of what Steve Wolfer actually said: "The other level of invention was when an someone began to write or teach about the principle of objective law - when principles of law were crafted to guide in the creation of laws. The first wise leader of a group that recognized the value of this gets my vote for inventing objective law."

The Romans had a full vocabulary of legal theory. They invented it. Thinkers like Cicero expounded upon it. No such vocabulary existed beforehand. How exactly a system of objective law could exist without an abstract vocabulary to embody it is unclear. Maybe cavemen also possessed theories of astrophysics and quantum mechanics? No one who asserts that objective law existed before the Greco-Roman era has offered any evidence whatsoever to prove it. Not that evidence matters.



Post 57

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

“The repeated assertion that objective law existed before civilization is an arbitrary joke.” [Ted]

I don’t see how cities could have risen in the absence. Must not they have understood ‘this is mine, not yours?’ Is that understanding not a usage of objective law?

I think you focus excessively on what was written at later points to the neglect of what was obviously understood and used much earlier.




(Edited by Jon Letendre on 10/17, 8:24pm)


Post 58

Saturday, October 17, 2009 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Jon seems right. Natural (objective) law existed before civilization did -- it was the precursor to civilization. We were noble savages like Locke said -- not nasty, brutish savages like Hobbes said. Here's James A. Donald on the matter (emphasis added):

************************
I have used several different definitions of natural law, often without indicating which definition I was using, often without knowing or caring which definition I was using. Among the definitions that I use are:
  • The medieval/legal definition: Natural law cannot be defined in the way that positive law is defined, and to attempt to do so plays into the hands of the enemies of freedom. Natural law is best defined by pointing at particular examples, as a biologist defines a species by pointing at a particular animal, a type specimen preserved in formalin. (This definition is the most widely used, and is probably the most useful definition for lawyers)
  • The historical state of nature definition: Natural law is that law which corresponds to a spontaneous order in the absence of a state and which is enforced, (in the absence of better methods), by individual unorganized violence, in particular the law that historically existed (in so far as any law existed) during the dark ages among the mingled barbarians that overran the Roman Empire.
  • The medieval / philosophical definition: Natural law is that law, which it is proper to uphold by unorganized individual violence, whether a state is present or absent, and for which, in the absence of orderly society, it is proper to punish violators by unorganized individual violence. Locke gives the example of Cain, in the absence of orderly society, and the example of a mugger, where the state exists, but is not present at the crime. Note Locke's important distinction between the state and society. For example trial by jury originated in places and times where there was no state power, or where the state was violently hostile to due process and the rule of law but was too weak and distant to entirely suppress it.
  • The scientific/ sociobiological/ game theoretic/ evolutionary definition: Natural law is, or follows from, an ESS for the use of force: Conduct which violates natural law is conduct such that, if a man were to use individual unorganized violence to prevent such conduct, or, in the absence of orderly society, use individual unorganized violence to punish such conduct, then such violence would not indicate that the person using such violence, (violence in accord with natural law) is a danger to a reasonable man. This definition is equivalent to the definition that comes from the game theory of iterated three or more player non zero sum games, applied to evolutionary theory. The idea of law, of actions being lawful or unlawful, has the emotional significance that it does have, because this ESS [evolutionary stable strategy] for the use of force is part of our nature.
************************

Adapted from:
http://jim.com/rights.html

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/17, 10:56pm)


Post 59

Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Ed, you should actually read the entirety of all the posts in this thread, and the articles to which they link. Have you done that? I am not quite sure what to make of your citation of "individual unorganized violence" as proof that objective law in the sense of Rand existed in savage societies. Do you really mean to offer lynching as evidence of the rule of law? Please read this entire thread and then let me know if you don't understand the distinction being made.

As for Jon, he simply doesn't know what he's talking about. Again, read this entire thread in detail. If he wants to make up his own meaning for things, and conflate the mere existence of laws with the qualified and distinct concept of objective law, that's his prerogative. His sort of evidence-free rationalism (complete with comic logical fallacies, see above) is the bread and butter of bar stool Objectivism. He has picked an a priori position, defended it with non sequitur after non sequitur, said that Hammurabi's law is "objective" (what the hell does he mean by objective?) and refused to define his terms or produce any historical examples as if to do so would kill him.

It was the Romans who invented contract law and who codified such things as the use of evidence and the right to appeal, not Hammurabi. It was the Romans who subordinated the whim of the ruler (whether the magistrate or the jury) to the rule of law, not Hammurabi. Of course their may have been instances of good laws prior to Rome, just as there are instances of medicines, like willow tea, before modern medicine. But having one medicine (one drug) does not make up the institution of modern (scientific) medicine nor does having any one law make up a system of principled evidentiary legal process.

Do you not see an essential difference between Rome and what went before it?

The Roman accomplishment was unique. It consisted of a large new vocabulary for a science that did not exist before. We have inherited dozens of legal concepts from Rome. (Objectivists are supposed to understand the significance of conceptual innovation.) And its effects were the growth of an empire paralleled in history by only one nation, the United States. If that accomplishment doesn't count as one of the greatest achievements of civilized man, I don't know what does.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.