Here's a second thought for all you guys to think about. Since ancient times, groups of people, most likely leaders, came up with a system of rules and regulations for everyone to abide by, called "law". Overtime, we build up on our current laws and have new laws added, or old laws removed.
The question is, what possibly makes one want to add, change, or remove laws in society? Their own moral thoughts and feelings? Then how could this possibly be known as law, unless many other people agree with it on the same thing? I guess now we know why monarchies aren't such a good idea anymore. Would only the leaders have to agree, or the common masses as well, to make sure that the law is morally ethical? If only the first, then this means that the masses would have no say, no power in the consideration of the changing of laws, and they are bound to it without so much as a single shrug to it, while their leaders would have all the power in making any such laws that they please, hence communism. What phenomenons, events, or other strong ties would have such power to influence the minds of the leaders/masses that would make them want to change the laws?
So I leave you with these questions, with my guidance/views about them:
1. What makes someone/people want to change laws?
For me, the answer would obviously be a persons' morals. What they deem to be correct or incorrect would be considered or suitable for being passed as law. If the law is already there, and enough of the leaders die and others replace them, then if they see that law as immoral, then they could very well change the law to fit their needs, or remove it completely.
Another certain condition would be: something so tragic, so powerful, that it would change the minds of people and leaders to forcibly change the law to fit that condition: let's say.... equal rights for the minorities. If something so horrible that it would touch the hearts and minds of the masses happened, based on the facts that they were the minority and the majority would abuse their "rivilege", then when enough of those events would pass, then a law giving the minority equal rights would be passed, and there would be no such thing as a "majority".
2. What phenomenons, events, or other strong ties would have such power to influence the minds of the leaders/masses that would make them want to change the laws?
Religion.
The masses, convinced that they are being ruled and watched over by a supernatural deity, would have no choice but to have laws erected in order to be on good terms with it. Ancient societies were completely influenced and formed by religious views, back then, while to make sure that they would abide by the rules, they would implement a punishment, strong enough to force them to abide by the laws and to create order in that society.
Ok, you know I'm going to pull this one out... let's say Christianity for instance? There are certain codes to follow in this religion, that if you break the rule(s), or "sin", then you would be punished. How? Well, in this religion's case, you would go to Hell, whether people believe it or not. You see, the religion is so strong, it influenced ancient laws back then, and in my opinion... held us back a smidgen. You see, without this religion to hold us back, we could have built a little MORE on our laws, maybe enough to the point where laws didn't get pulled out of a moral brain, but since in religion's terms "the law is absolute", it has failed to surface to such a degree. Which brings me to my last question:
3: Is the law really absolute?
Here are my two cents about this one: The law isn't absolute ; it's filled with contradictions. The law is the end product of many years of human civilization and history, the entire legacy of human knowledge. It is like an experiment, tried and true, through many trials and errors. It is the experiment we receive through our ancestors for us to face in our lifetimes and for us to build on ourselves, based on our interpretations of "law". It is always changing, growing, and it will always change, so long as law still exists. Building up on it is our "job" as human beings, "in order to create a more perfect society". We can only hope to build to it so EVERYONE is included in law, equally. So will we achieve "erfect equality"? Or will there always be exceptions in our thousands-of-years law?
Well, if you're still with this thread and not in a state of Tl;dr-ism, then what's your opinion of these three (four) questions? *opinions needed*
ShintetsuWA before I answer your question may I ask what made you start thinking about this? I read some of your other posts and I respect you as an intelligent person. Can you please add me as one of your friends? Any way to the topic at hand.
1. What makes someone/people want to change laws?
People want to change laws for two reasons: to better the current status of the nation, or out of pure greed to better the leaders/leader of that nation. An example of the first instance is that an old law in California was that all peoples of Japanese decent were required to be relocated in interment camps. After WW2 the law was repealed. Why? Because it severed no purpose than needless suffering. It was making the state seem like a horrible place so the logical thing was to get rid of this. The other instance is something less pleasant. Humans are flawed. We all desire power. Some people lie to the people/congress about this new law that will "help" them, but in reality it will only give the government more power. An example is the Patriot Act. The last sentence probably put me on the governments watch list. Any way All governments want to be Facsit or communist. it is human nature.
2. What phenomenons, events, or other strong ties would have such power to influence the minds of the leaders/masses that would make them want to change the laws?
As I said before the tie to greed is a strong one. Also if an event that disrupts a normal routine occurs, it causes panic. Panic and fear are very big motivators. These feelings cause confusion and disorder. Because humans want and need order order, they will try to fix the disturbance to bring order into their world. That means they will try to change the laws in order to fix the problem. Religion is also a strong possibility.
3: Is the law really absolute?
No it isn't. With every law there is an exception to it. One of the commandments in the Bible say that you shouldn't murder, but murder is acceptable on self defense and in war. Also the king of the nation is excused from his laws. I hope I answered your question! - desertegale
An example of the first instance is that an old law in California was that all peoples of Japanese decent were required to be relocated in interment camps. After WW2 the law was repealed. Why? Because it severed no purpose than needless suffering. It was making the state seem like a horrible place so the logical thing was to get rid of this.
And the questions to this is: what started this "law"? Why did people find it acceptable? Was it the fear of the Japanese when we became allies to the communists, enemies to the other side? Or was it hate of the Japanese when we took something from the Americans? Even so, this was barely a half a decade ago, any common man would think that the citizens that were Japanese- born were innocent of the event and as such, shouldn't have to be punished for it.
This whole thing is linked to my previous thread, The American Dream, where in some cases, they are isolated in conflict until they get something taken away from them, and when that happens, they tweak the laws and the judicial system to the point where "the enemy is the minority", out of sheer fear. But is this law ethical, or in American cases "constitutional", since there were rights equal, no matter what your race, color, religion, sex, or cultures are? If so, then when the Internment Act was passed, those that approved have been dubbed hypocrites from the very beginning, since they were bound by the current laws, but tweaked it to form a loophole inside.
To explain myself did read my last post about a disturbance. WW2 was quite a disturbance to every one. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor it was a shock to the US. In panic and fear of Japanese-American citizens betraying the US Congress did pass this. Also consider that this was in the 1940s, people were pretty racist towards everyone. Now thanks to the civil rights movement, people have gradual more tolerant to people different than themselves which is reflected today. But to counter that since the US is engaged in a war with the Middle East, kids don't trust Arabic kids. In my high school, kids usually make fun of them and call them terrorists. So yes,in a sense ShintetsuWA this whole is like your American Dream thread.
In answer to Shintetsu's original questions I shall quote my own post regarding legality/morality from the pornography thread:
If you believe we have some agreement with the state so that we are bound to observe its laws, then doing something illegal can be wrong because it violates some sense of trust between you and the state, and that could certainly be an argument for why some illegal act is wrong to do, but it doesn't really address whether the act itself is wrong or not or why it is wrong/illegal in the first place; it adresses whether the act is wrong or not when perfprmed by a person in a particular relationship to the state.
I think most people would find some instance of applying that argument ''x is right/wrong because it is legal/illegal'' where it is very unsatisfactory. Just apply it to drugs use, homosexual marriage, various racist laws from the past, etc., and we can quickly end any debates on those topics. Or, for example ''animal porn is wrong because it is illegal'', which seems to fail to capture anything about what animal porn actually is. If society magically collapsed and all law disappeared, would animal porn still be wrong? If so, then there's some other underlying reason for what makes it wrong.
2. What phenomenons, events, or other strong ties would have such power to influence the minds of the leaders/masses that would make them want to change the laws?
The question is, what possibly makes one want to add, change, or remove laws in society?
There are two basic thoughts on law. First is that culture dictates law. This is the progressive form of law. It says we need to realize that culture changes and the laws need to change with it. (ex. legalize gay marriage because it is widely accepted now)
The other thought is that law dictates culture. This is used by conservatives saying that we need to keep our culture the same and conserve our values. (ex. ban gay marriage because it will destroy our basic values).
