Philosophy Now Forum

Melchior wrote:'Equality'? Where did you get the idea that this is a good thing?

Maybe from here?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

EDIT: Of course it only says "men" are created equal so I'm sure any attempt by Feminists to replace the word with "people" would be sheer fascism.

Gary Childress wrote:EDIT: Of course it only says "men" are created equal

And of course your founding fathers didn't mean "all" men, did they? They were referring to all men like them, the new aristocracy, not black men or men without property. The notion of universal franchise didn't come into consideration so let's not glamourise the glorious US constitution and Bill of Rights.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:EDIT: Of course it only says "men" are created equal

And of course your founding fathers didn't mean "all" men, did they? They were referring to all men like them, the new aristocracy, not black men or men without property. The notion of universal franchise didn't come into consideration so let's not glamourise the glorious US constitution and Bill of Rights.

As an American I'm sort of bound by the constitution and bill of rights. I mean I think it has its Earthly limitations. But it's not exactly a horrendous document (speaking as a cosmopolitan). I mean progress has been made on it, for example the idea of extending the same rights to all citizens regardless of race, religion or gender. As far as the "founding fathers" meaning what they said, I don't know. Their words have lent themselves to being expanded to be more inclusive of others in society, so that's a good thing. And the notion of all people being "equal" in terms of certain "rights" seems like a good thing.

I'm not very knowledgeable about Australian politics, do you all have a "bill or rights" of some nature in your "Constitution"? Or how does the notion of "rights" or whatever factor into your society? Or is the notion of having "rights" not universally applicable?

No. We have no bill of rights as such. Our system is more akin to the British one of common law and precedent.

Obvious Leo wrote:No. We have no bill of rights as such. Our system is more akin to the British one of common law and precedent.

Interesting. I was reading a little about British Common Law on Wikipedia just now.

Without any codification or "first principles", what prevents your Supreme Court from making a decision that is unjust? Is there a definition of justice or anything like that which overrides or guides Supreme Court decisions? Are judges elected or subject to any sort of feedback from the populace? Or has that never really been a factor that you all have had to deal with (for whatever reason)?

Sorry to hijack my own thread.

Woops hit the "quote" button instead of "edit".

Gary Childress wrote: what prevents your Supreme Court from making a decision that is unjust?

What the hell does this mean? Do you imagine there exist some universal principles of justice?

Gary Childress wrote: Are judges elected or subject to any sort of feedback from the populace?

Absolutely not. The notion of an elected judge strikes Australian as utterly insane.

Obvious Leo wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: what prevents your Supreme Court from making a decision that is unjust?

What the hell does this mean? Do you imagine there exist some universal principles of justice?

Gary Childress wrote: Are judges elected or subject to any sort of feedback from the populace?

Absolutely not. The notion of an elected judge strikes Australian as utterly insane.

Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. I guess what I'm asking is, assuming your Supreme Court judges are mere mortals, what happens if they make a decision that is mistaken? How would the mistake be redressed?

Or maybe I should put it this way.

When your judges make a decision on something, do they give reasons for their decisions? For example if I were a judge and say, "I rule X because if I did not rule X then it would be unfair to the plaintiff because Y".

If it were an American judge then "Y" might = "because it goes against the plaintiff's right to 'free speech'" (for example) or something along those lines.

I guess in the US "we the people" have our "bill of rights" as a guide to whether or not a judge ruled the way the judge should have ruled. I guess it's a little strange to me if there wasn't some sort of principles by which ordinary people could play "armchair judge" and point to a ruling and say, "look, the judge defied principle Y".

We have fundamental principles spelled out more or less. Not being familiar with "Common Law" I was simply wondering what serves as a "good" reason for a judge to rule in a particular way on a case?

Gary Childress wrote:...
So tell me, what is your complaint?

In Bob's case it's that he never went to university.

Arising_uk wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:...
So tell me, what is your complaint?

In Bob's case it's that he never went to university.

Christ, he wasn't even talking to you, but what I find so amusing is that only foreigners say "going to university," while Americans say "going to college." Time for you to learn the English language, and I don't mean that British crap, I mean American English, and while you may learn it at college, you won't learn it at university!

Gary Childress wrote: Sorry if I offended you. It was not my intention. I guess what I'm asking is, assuming your Supreme Court judges are mere mortals, what happens if they make a decision that is mistaken? How would the mistake be redressed?

Set your mind at ease, Gary, you didn't offend me at all. It's just that I didn't quite understand what you meant by a "mistaken" judgement and I still don't. Mistaken according to whom? We have different hierarchies of courts coming out of our ears in this country, enough to keep the high-powered lawyers in the standard of comfort which they've decided they deserve but which the poor shitkickers could only dream of. In principle any matter of law can be appealed all the way up to the High Court of Australia, which deals solely with constitutional matters. Once this court makes a ruling that's IT. That's the law of the land as it is currently interpreted. If you don't like it, tough shit. I can't for the life of me see how the notion of a "mistaken" judgement could be accommodated within such a system, or within any independent system of jurisprudence for that matter.

bobevenson wrote:Christ, he wasn't even talking to you, but what I find so amusing is that only foreigners say "going to university," while Americans say "going to college." Time for you to learn the English language, and I don't mean that British crap, I mean American English, and while you may learn it at college, you won't learn it at university!

My apologies, "In Bob's case it's because he never went to college."
p.s.
See the word "English" in the "English language'? It's why you speak American English and I speak English as I speak the language and you speak a dialect.

Quite so, my pommy friend. You can't play cricket for nuts but you did invent the language and should therefore be entitled to the last word on its usage. Australian English is yet another variant but it adheres more closely to the English English in its spelling and word usage, apart from our own quaint embellishments. I'm buggered if I can see anything wrong with this and I'm constantly amazed at people who don't understand that language is a tool of communication, not a divine fiat codified on stone tablets.