Laws against homicide are of the few 'morally absolute' laws - except of course in uniform. And even homicide is treated differently by different cultures - crimes of passion, honour, rebellion. You can't be me, I'm taken
An attempt was made to cooperate with the police in order to get rid of the heroin pushers, which was something many Christianites felt extremely uncomfortable about due to their anarchical tradition and the continuous clashes between Christiania and the police. Despite the shared feelings of distrust, however, some Christianites felt there was no other way to fix such problem, and supplied the police with a list of suspected hard drug networks. The intention of the Christianites' decision was made very clear: police were to concentrate only on hard drugs. This did not happen, and instead the police ignored the Christianites' requests and made a large crackdown only on the hash network, oddly leaving the heroin ring untouched. The police gave the names of "cooperating Christianites" to the hash dealers, and they had to leave Christiania for fear of reprisals. Feeling betrayed and bitter the Christianites decided not to cooperate any further with the authorities, and instead launched what was to be known as the Junk Blockade. For 40 days and nights the Christianites--men, women, and children--patrolled 'The Arc of Peace' and whenever they found junkies or pushers they gave them an ultimatum: either quit all activities with hard drugs or leave Christiania. In the end, the pushers were forced to leave, and sixty people entered drug rehabilitation.
An attempt was made to cooperate with the police in order to get rid of the heroin pushers, which was something many Christianites felt extremely uncomfortable about due to their anarchical tradition and the continuous clashes between Christiania and the police. Despite the shared feelings of distrust, however, some Christianites felt there was no other way to fix such problem, and supplied the police with a list of suspected hard drug networks. The intention of the Christianites' decision was made very clear: police were to concentrate only on hard drugs. This did not happen, and instead the police ignored the Christianites' requests and made a large crackdown only on the hash network, oddly leaving the heroin ring untouched.
The police gave the names of "cooperating Christianites" to the hash dealers, and they had to leave Christiania for fear of reprisals.
Feeling betrayed and bitter the Christianites decided not to cooperate any further with the authorities, and instead launched what was to be known as the Junk Blockade. For 40 days and nights the Christianites--men, women, and children--patrolled 'The Arc of Peace' and whenever they found junkies or pushers they gave them an ultimatum: either quit all activities with hard drugs or leave Christiania. In the end, the pushers were forced to leave, and sixty people entered drug rehabilitation.
A legal positivist would say that drug use is clearly wrong, because it is illegal, while a supporter of natural law would say that we have an inherent right to use drugs if we feel like, and no amount of law can turn this right into a wrong. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
My understanding of legal positivism is that it makes no statement on whether the law is right or wrong, morally. It's just the rules we have chosen to give ourselves. That doesn't make them morally right in an absolute sense. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that: There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality. Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings. Laws must follow the rules of determinism.
Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that:
Rättspositivism - Wikipedia
Enligt rättspositivismen kan inte en lag vara orätt, eftersom rätt bara är en idé eller känsla som skapats genom till exempel uppfostran, eller ett instrument för makthavare att utöva makt.
Det finns olika skolor inom rättspositivismen, varav en del menar att moral existerar och andra inte gör det.
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist. Therefore - if I understand it correctly - there is no moral that the law could contradict.
After reading some wikipedia I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting... A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
In other words: there's what's legal and illegal; what's done or not done (morals); and right and wrong (ethics).
One doesn't have to believe in natural law (which is a sort of absolute standard) in order to believe that ethical behaviour exists and can be illegal.
But one can also decide that law dictates morality and there's no difference between morality and ethics. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
for expeciency reasons
I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting...
Nomic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1] Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362. Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1]
Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362.
Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist.
Thanks for clearing that out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
