Philosophical Discussions on Government

[starlord]

Well yes. The question is where the specific contents of those rules come from. I contend that the rule to not murder comes from our innate morality, whereas the rule for driving on a certain side of the road does not.

id say they both stem from convenience. both make life easier on everyone.

[Adam Jensen]

Maybe not so much innate desires, but rather the natural morality that exists in our species (which in the case of murder, flows from the innate desire to live). What I mean is, as I said earlier, that these innate morality forms natural rights, some of which the government protects in law as legal rights. But yes I agree with you here that the ones we chose to protect are the ones we need for society to function properly.

---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 06:26 AM ----------


Well yes. The question is where the specific contents of those rules come from. I contend that the rule to not murder comes from our innate morality, whereas the rule for driving on a certain side of the road does not.

We evolved to be a social animal and as such our instincts developed in that manner. It's a product of evolution. Tribes that could organize and had effective leaders, tribes that cooperated with each other and worked together, were the tribes that survived and reproduced. Thus humans with innate traits that lead to a more organized social structure passed their genes on. And those who did not, died off.

[Powerogue]

The government is generally conceived for the people, by the people. The majority gets fed up with the old government, installs a new one, which inevitably gets leaders who control what people can and can't do. It's about the only way we can have some form of stability, but is either very inefficient or very prone to corruption, generally sacrificing one for the other.

At the end of the day it's an unfortunate necessity that no one can agree on, mainly because the government controls how people should act, and everyone has a different moral code. Getting everyone to agree on one government and one law would require some serious brainwashing, but would presumably eliminate crime.

[Deleted]

I think the nature of government and the origins of human "rights" are not specifically related, but I think they both stem from the innate characteristics of our species.

We're group animals, it's natural for groups to have leaders (and beneficial if those leaders are somewhat competent), we're just a species that, in many parts of the world, has developed beyond the base "might is right" practice and we now elect the people to lead us through choice of the majority (not perfect, but, by and large, it's better than Fascism).

The fact that we are group animals also has a bearing on what kind of routine interaction and exchange between each other is most mutually beneficial and advantageous to the species. It's in our own interest to be nice to those around us because, if you are kind and helpful towards others, it is more likely that they will choose to reciprocate that kindness. So, we articulate that by concluding that it is wrong to kill each other, steal from each other, make others suffer, expose the young to danger or trauma etc.
Our "rights" are just a refined reiteration of the things most of us feel or know innately. To behave badly to one another is likely to be to the detriment of all, so our development of "rights" is an inevitability for our species, being the reasoning animals that we are.
Richard Dawkins does a good study of the benefits of altruism and positive group interaction in his works for The Selfish Gene. I recommend checking out some videos on him talking about it or just getting the book.

[GennGreymane]

our governments are a natural body

why? humans even other animals of similar origins have a pack system. one individual/group is always above the rest and set rules for the rest that follow in some way. government is just a more refined version of that old tribal system that even other animals have.

our rights are not natural. they are provided by the government. if the government left tomorrow you have no rights. since no one is there to enforce/protect/create them

---------- Post added 2012-12-30 at 01:48 PM ----------

just to throw my 2 cents on that humans thinking others have the right to live thing

it depends on the situation. pre society. it was either kill to gain more hunting ground if you needed it, or not invoke the wrath of a stronger group who didnt even see you as a threat to their hunting grounds.

there are many excuses in many cultures for killing.

there is no real aversion to murder, look at all the wars and other acts of mass murders

[Deadvolcanoes]

I think the answer depends on whether or not you believe in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient deity.

It seems pretty clear to me that our right are man made, just as government is man made. We no more derive our rights from nature than we do our government.

[GennGreymane]

I really dont like the natural law talk, because it assumed what was unknown. there never really was a natural man. a man with out government. even before modern humans as we know it, our ancestors always had some form of a tribal system, a pack.

as for this man alone in nature example Voltaire used.... scientifically wrong

[ovm33]

As of this post 20% of the people responded that governments are natural, but rights aren't.

To those people, you scare the hell out of me.

[GennGreymane]

As of this post 20% of the people responded that governments are natural, but rights aren't.

To those people, you scare the hell out of me.

explain your opinion then instead of saying I scare you

governments are natural if you consider them to be another form of the communal/tribal system humans and human ancestors have had going very far back.

rights are a very new concept. the kings of Europe for example could have arrested anyone they wanted, no evidence, no right to know who accused u or why. this was reality in many places for thousands of years.

[Catta]

I don't the concept itself it's new. I think the human rights we have now are relatively new, but the concept that as a human you have certain rights ought to have been an intuitive one from the dawn of our species. Murder is universally outlawed, for instance, even if ancient peoples sees a large variety of excuses for committing murder.

Murder of your own group is - murder of other "different" groups not so much.

[semaphore]

Murder of your own group is - murder of other "different" groups not so much.

Not really on a personal level. Studies of wars show that soldiers are very averse to shooting at their enemies (when they are not behind cover) too. A large part of military training is to train this out of recruits.

But on an abstract level, yeah we're much less caring of other people dying if we don't perceive them to be part of our group.

[GennGreymane]

freedom of speech also was non existent for centuries

freedom of religion

these are brand new compared to how long government had existed.


what rights did the romans have? games, food, water. they gave out bread, let them see games, and water was plentiful to prevent uprisings, not to protect human rights

1/3 of the population of the roman empire was slaves afterall

[slime]

Strange seems obvious that if there was no government society would be in chaos and the strong would always take from the weak. People with guns would be telling people without guns what to do. If no one was there to tell you killing someone for there stuff is wrong would you see that more often? You still see it today when it is "illegal" imagine how much more this attitude would prevail if there was no punishment or penalty for it.

[Deleted]

In the Iron Age, Imperialism became more widespread, with Empires spreading and taking others territories and extorting from the populaces, compared to the Bronze Age where many kingdoms and territories were generally more self-contained. However, soon after the end of the Iron Age, Athens became the first democratic state in which a majority of (male) citizens had a stake in the running of the government. Governance and imperialism are constructs which reflect the types of societies that emerge.

I don't believe in a natural order, as I believe nature is chaotic, and humans have simply created constructs to manage power and governance. So if we tried to dispense with government we would likely end up with corporatism and imperialism, or the formation of a new oligarchy.

[Catta]

Not really on a personal level. Studies of wars show that soldiers are very averse to shooting at their enemies (when they are not behind cover) too. A large part of military training is to train this out of recruits.

But on an abstract level, yeah we're much less caring of other people dying if we don't perceive them to be part of our group.

Somehow i do not think it is indicative of all wars.

Anecdote here: One of my female friends traveled Africa and helped at hospitals and the likes. She saw a group of the people where she lived yelling they had caught a thief, the proceeded to bash his brains in in the middle of the road with clubs.

[Deleted]

my only problem is the lack of scientists in governments. 90% of the seats are taken by bankers, lawyers, accountants, etc... aka nutjobs.
we don't need that many people who bought their diploma's with their daddy's money.

[semaphore]

Somehow i do not think it is indicative of all wars.

Somehow I don't think human nature changes from one war to the next.

Anecdote

Yeah but we know psychopaths exists.

[ovm33]

explain your opinion then instead of saying I scare you

governments are natural if you consider them to be another form of the communal/tribal system humans and human ancestors have had going very far back.

rights are a very new concept. the kings of Europe for example could have arrested anyone they wanted, no evidence, no right to know who accused u or why. this was reality in many places for thousands of years.

Just because something was someway for thousands of years doesn't make it morally right.

Are you saying what those kings did was morally right? Even in their own time it was considered wrong to murder. They could just get away with it due to their power. The oldest recorded laws in the world, The Ur-Nammu, say it's wrong to murder or steal.

The argument seems to be that since we are sentient we choose what is right or wrong. Then why has it always, inb4 some esoteric example, been considered wrong to murder someone? Does this not lead us to conclude, that at the very least, we have the right to live? Are you seriously saying that the only reason we have the right to live is because a government says so?

[Catta]

Somehow I don't think human nature changes from one war to the next.


Yeah but we know psychopaths exists.

According to her these were not psychopaths. Just ordinary people in the town.

[semaphore]

According to her these were not psychopaths. Just ordinary people in the town.

How would she know? It's not like psychopaths have green glowing eyes due to fel addiction or something.

Also some cultures that accepts this kind of violence to be normal would be more inclined to do it, probably, but generally speaking no. Humans are not very fond of killing other humans.