Philosophy Now Forum

it would be nice if law was about positive justice. but that's not human nature. To preserve civil peace we must deal in terms of negative justice.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-retributive/

I agree, both are definitely needed.

DontAskMe wrote:

Thanks for your reply, but why not just rely on the white wigged judges and jury to pass judgement on a human ..why include the bible if the bible was only authored by humans anyway, what benefit would a book authored by humans amount to, surely that would be like swearing on a copy of Beauty and the Beast and other fairy tales... why wouldn't they just trust in their own judgement ..why the need for the ritual? why include the Bible to support the evidence as to if one is telling the truth or a big fat porky lie or not....this all sounds a bit fishy to me...

In Britain, a man who takes his honesty seriously and who doesn't believe in Biblical authority or God can affirm in place of swearing a holy oath.


In America too:

United States

Oath:

Do you solemnly (swear/affirm) that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, (so help you God/under pains and penalties of perjury)?
Swear may be replaced with "affirm", and either "so help you God" or "under pains and penalties of perjury" may be used; all oaths and affirmations are considered to be equivalent before the law.[12] These modifications to the oath were originally introduced in order to accommodate those who feel uncomfortable swearing religious oaths, such as Quakers, as well as to accommodate the irreligious.[13] In United States v. Ward, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that certain other modifications of the oath were acceptable so long as they demonstrated "a moral or ethical sense of right and wrong".[14]

Oath (California):

You do solemnly state that the testimony you may give in the case now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God.

As for your scorning "white wigged judges", the judiciary is often the repository of justice in societies where the state is illiberal , illegal, or oppressive. Societies where the state is heavily invested in a religion are societies in which the people are oppressed.

Belinda wrote:
In Britain, a man who takes his honesty seriously and who doesn't believe in Biblical authority or God can affirm in place of swearing a holy oath.

You seem to have avoided the question, why the need for the ritualistic swearing on holy oath?...forget the artificially created imputed denominations that cannot be accessed anywhere but from a reliable one true original authentic law maker of truth and justice?

If they were so sure and confident about what is truth and what is lie...why the need for extra back-up via the Bible, if that Bible was not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth amen? ... why can't the white wigged men and jury just take the one on trial word for the truth? ... or do they know some other words will judge them their just deserts that they can't know for sure is just?

...I smell a rat here don't you?

If the white wigged men of truth and justice are not confident in their own judgement then doesn't that make a mockery of the human justice system?

Belinda wrote:

As for your scorning "white wigged judges", the judiciary is often the repository of justice in societies where the state is illiberal , illegal, or oppressive. Societies where the state is heavily invested in a religion are societies in which the people are oppressed.

Are you absolutely sure about that ...that you would swear on your mothers life was true?

The repository of truth justice and knowledge is not human property.

DontAskMe wrote:

If they were so sure and confident about what is truth and what is lie...why the need for extra back-up via the Bible, if that Bible was not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth amen? .

Until about three centuries ago everybody believed in God and the authority of The Bible. This is the origin of the custom of swearing on The Bible and saying "so help me God" and stuff like that. Now that many fewer people believe in God and the authority of The Bible the courts have had to find another form of words. The administration of justice has to go on.

Belinda wrote:DontAskMe wrote:

If they were so sure and confident about what is truth and what is lie...why the need for extra back-up via the Bible, if that Bible was not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth amen? .

Until about three centuries ago everybody believed in God and the authority of The Bible. This is the origin of the custom of swearing on The Bible and saying "so help me God" and stuff like that. Now that many fewer people believe in God and the authority of The Bible the courts have had to find another form of words. The administration of justice has to go on.

The show must go on and no one is running it..it's a run away train...


And even today aka now which is the same now as it was 300 years ago have switched context and believe in a ''human self'' and the authority of that self, which is just another belief and is no more authentic or different than the belief in a higher power aka the creator of the universe and all it contains. All we've done is replace one belief with another...excellent, how convenient.

That's why the rituals are still carried out because humans instinctively know that there is a much greater power way above and beyond any human authority. And that belief is just not going to disappear, so better keep loyal to that one just in case we get it wrong.

Unless there is absolute guaranteed physical DNA evidence to match the perpetrator to the victim... There is no chance any human judge or jury can 100% prove a man guilty of a crime unless they were physically there as first hand I witness at the time of the crime. The one that stands to pass judgement, the white wigged person I mean....I don't mean the witnesses who are only unreliable second hand I witnesses where it's their word against mine kind of scenario ..That is why the holy oath must be sworn in because it's the all seeing knowing eye, the only one fit to judge another.


.

the use of self all depends on whom the user is and the user's benefit. So utilitarian, when the user is done with you, your disposed of tidily .

so how do you use your self? what work brings you joy of self? is your happiness a worthy cause.

live, die and for what.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:21 pm We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

In this case Self is the system.

osgart wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2017 3:34 am the use of self all depends on whom the user is and the user's benefit. So utilitarian, when the user is done with you, your disposed of tidily .

so how do you use your self? what work brings you joy of self? is your happiness a worthy cause.

live, die and for what.

Don't seek from others,
Or you'll be estranged from yourself.
I now go on alone -
Everywhere I encounter It.
It now is me, I now am not It.
One must understand in this way
To merge with being as is.

Waechter418 wrote:

Don't seek from others,
Or you'll be estranged from yourself.
I now go on alone -
Everywhere I encounter It.
It now is me, I now am not It.
One must understand in this way
To merge with being as is.

That's good. However, I guess that the author is not referring to how they can know anything, but to being authentic despite any ensuing unpopularity.