Zanket said:
“ Originally Posted by teguy
According to my theory, whatever the very initial foundation of a nation determines the charactor of a nation virtually forever. ”
No doubt. The US would be different today had its Constitution been different from the beginning. Like the butterfly effect in chaos theory. A small change then could have developed into big differences by now.
Yes, but furthermore - By 'initial fundation of a nation' I meant not only her constitution/laws, but many other factors which contribute towards forming the constitution/laws, such as a nation's natural resources, topographical circumstances, climate, language, etc.
“ In the UK or US, freedom equals to merely economic/social freedom (e.g., Mills, Hobbs - or so-called English Utilitarianism); while the Continental notion of freedom supposes, with Hegel, et al, 'freedom of individual mind/spirit and it is very personal and self-reflective. ”
Can you give an example of the difference?
One's morality (or a collective morality of a nation) is a manifestation of various external factors I mentioned above, in that, reasons why people in the UK behave differently from the Germans are precisely due to their distinct, usually material/physical circumstnances.
There are many examples (both qualitiative and quantitative) to justify this. In 1845, for instance, when Karl Marx encapsulated the general distinctions between how Anglo-Saxons and the Germans perceive 'History', he said "The English. . . have nevertheless made the first attempts to give the writing of history a
materialistic basis by being the first to write histories of civil society, of commerce and industry." (from "German Ideology" -1845 by Karl Marx) [Italics added]
The notion of 'History' for the Germans, on the other hand, had been categorised in the realm of 'speculative philosophy' (like Hegel) rather than 'materialist conception of history' as in England. Marx (and Engels) in fact was the first one to abide by the materialist conception of history in Germany; before them, the notion of materialism was virtually non-existent in the academic descipline in Germany.
The decisive reason why the Germans had needed not to torlarate the materialist notion of history is due precisely to her abandant natural resources there. The UK, on the contrary, was not - and still isn't - a 'rich' nation in terms of natural resources. Thus it is more than plausable that the UK - rather than resoruce-rich-continentals - first underwent the industrial revolution, also she was the first to use her colonies for supporting the mainland economy (e.g., India, US, SW Asia, etc).
Now, given that the desperate material circumstances have been persistant thoughout the history of England, people, accordingly, think in terms of those material circumstances as the default condition against which everything is to be measured - including the notion of freedom.
The notion of happiness/pleasure is basically equivalent to that of freedom for the English: All those words presuppose the notion that one is content with his circumstnaces. But since her very default circustances are defined in terms of poor natural resources (food included) in the mateial sense of the word alone, she naturally tries to get rid of the shortcomings not by seeking solutions internally (for there isn't much resources there), instead, she will find it outside - by externalising them. This might be a trivial example but if you'd ask anyone in England what are the best food in the UK, people usually say 'Indian' of some sort. At any rate, freedom for the English people - given the desparate material/physical circumstances is contingent upon her material status.
Unlike the English obsession with material freedom, Hegelian notion of freedom supposes the advancement of individual mind through history, in that, unlike Marx, the economic factors of freedom are to be of secondary. In that, for Hegel, freedom as such isn't simply of material advancement (i.e., survival as its minimal requirment) but the essence of what was distinctively human. In this sense, freedom and material 'needs' are diametrically opposed. Freedom doesn't mean the freedom to live in nature or according to nature from the stand point of survival in the biological sense; rather, freedom begins only where nature ends. Human freedom emerges only when man is able to transcend his natural, animal existence, and to creat a new self 'for himself'. The emblematic starting point for this process of self-creation is the struggle to the death for pure prestige, etc. That is, 'recognition' - rather than survival - is to be the pinnacle of Hegel's notion of freedom.
“ Let's face it, not many people in the States (esp, if you were born and raised in the States) are able to find and enquire about the possible flaw of the existing system as such; instead, the majoriy would blind-faithedly accept/suppose it as the default measurement by which all of their moral actions are measured. ”
I say that by doing nothing about a flaw they condone it. For instance, it is well known that rape is common in US prisons but I think many Americans believe that rape is a just punishment on top of the loss of freedom for an inmate. It’s an extra punishment.
Exactly. I have remarked before that the pure limitation of Human freedom is set by laws of a nation [de facto laws included]. If indeed the majority of (or at least many of) Americans think along this line, it confirms the notion that the degree of punishment is in proportion to the people's notion of what is a justifiable punishment. That is, if your account of what 'many Americans believe' is ture (which I think it is), American people are preoccupied by the notion of revenge/vengeance rather than a respect for laws.
Zanket, you have written this
If my daughter were brutally raped and killed as you described I think life in prison without the possibility of parole would be sufficient justice. Rather than revenge I’d want the murderer removed from society to protect others.
in this thread:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=16955&page=1&pp=20
Now, I beleive our shared goal is not of punishment of a rapist, but of a respect for laws, but the means by which to achieve the supposedly same goal differ significantly between you and I. In my opinion, your proposal of "a life in prison without the possibility of parole" is in fact too much of a price to pay, even (or especially) if your goal is that of a respect of laws. In fact, I am not sure wheather it is an appropriate/humane measure to have the rapist spend a life in prison without the possibility of parole if indeed your goal
is that of a respect of laws: In this case, I almost don't see any distinction beween your means and ends.
But, you see, I can assume the reason why you think this is a 'humane' option given that you are American. Like anything else, you always get to compare to what is worst; and what is worst is to be the absolute standard of your judgement. In America, you still have a death penalty I heard. Now, compare to the death penalty, I suppose 'a life in prison without the possibility of parole' might be more 'humane' - Hence, the pure limitation of Human freedom is set by laws of a nation.
“ only after [somebody from a more civilised nation] experienced the US's judicial system, does he get to know the validity of your position (such as I did) in the dialectic sense. ”
What could a hit & stay driver expect to happen legally in a more civilized nation, that is significantly different than what typically happens in the US? Wouldn't their car be impounded without compensation during the investigation, just like in the US?
I don't have a particular example of how a hit and stay driver gets treated in a more civilised nation (heh, I am leaving at 9:00am for mountain climbing tomorow at Mt. Washington, so pardon my lack of resource). But I think this would tell you how people in two nations think differently in accordance with their peculiar judicial systems:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article668885.ece
In Norway, a 13-year-prison-sentence is well adequate for a brutal teenage rapist provided that the goal of Norwegian criminal system is that of 'a respect for laws' rather than revenge/vengeance: The American father of the victim, however, thinks otherwise.
“ Indeed, people are willing to break the law provided that - this is the tricky part - the law itself justifies the very breakage of the law. ”
Isn’t that the same thing as an unjust or unfair law? It’s clear to a person that a law is unjust when they are punished for nothing they did wrong.
The way I see it is that the law is ever-evolving. To evolve it depends not only on voters and their representatives but also on lawbreakers, who sometimes effect sweeping changes. For example, Rosa Parks kicked off the civil rights movement here in the US when she refused to sit in the back of the bus as blacks were then required by law to do.
Yes they are the same - But I have yet to see a 'fair law' or 'just law' within the context of any judicial system in any nation: whether a law is just or unjust is determined by laws of a particualr time and place. In that, there is no 'pure' notion of justice as such. Only our 'morality' (i.e., history) is able to make such a value judgement of 'just' or 'unjust' within the constraint of particular time and place: Your example of Rosa Parks confirms the validity of my point here.
“ Not only does it justify the breakage of the law, but it also ensures the alleged-criminal's future circumstnaces by guranteeing and recognising his normal social status by means of laws (you see, all those 'options' I referred to in my previous post are not possible unless guranteed by laws, otherwise I won't have "highly quality of life"). It implies the fact that people are still thinking in terms of the framework of laws. ”
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. A person can have a higher quality of life than in prison even if they are on the lamb on the outside. When a person breaks an unjust or unfair law without consequence they are technically on the run from the law.
What I am getting at is this. In your initial post, you wrote:
One day you have an opportunity to escape. It’s a given that if you choose to escape you will get away with it, live just as long, and your life will be of much higher quality than you had in prison. Escaping prison is a felony even if you’re innocent of the crime that put you there. Do you escape?
Your notion of 'higher quality of life' is contingent upon the condition that my future is guranteed by laws: The above italicised sentence would not be materialised unless guranteed by laws. As such you rightly said "
t's a given" (here I cannot think of any authority which gives this condition other than via laws).
I could be wrong in saying this but I can almost gurantee you that without these sentences:
It’s a given that barring escape you will die in prison. . .
and,
It’s a given that if you choose to escape you will get away with it, live just as long, and your life will be of much higher quality than you had in prison.
- you would have gotten an exact opposite result on your pole. Those sentences assume too much 'rights' for an escaped-prisoner; and, again, those rights are only guranteed by laws in a developed nation.
kind regards,