Natures law - religious law/principles - written law (Philsophize)

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

For me natures law always beats mans law

My principles/code of conduct ALMOST always beats mans law - ex of cases it doesn't "I could feel morally and ethically fine killing that fucker" But the written law would throw me away forever. God says thou shall not kill; than authorizes killing a bunch of times....

Gods Law/Religion -- I really don't put much stock in it other than 'treat others how you wish to be treated" --- now I am and grew up Catholic so there is alot of lingering guilt there but if can't see "Another" reason it isn't right to do *shrugs*

Written law -- if it does not clash with my ethics/principles/code of conduct and I know I can get away with it --- may as well not exist. All hope lost seeing that money is the determining factor of how you fair in the system.

How do you see these three sets of "Laws" -- does one beat the other to you and if so why?

Which is most important for everyone (not just you) to follow - are all three important to have? Etc

 

[Zopiclone bandit]

For me natures law always beats mans law

So "man" isn't part of "nature" in your view?

 

[M!$TER-ED]

Why follow laws at all? Some laws like the law of gravity is followed without choice. Law of physics is another, however, if you could manipulate the law of physics would that be breaking the law?
Religion is man-made so it is possible to break a religious law in the same fashion as jaywalking or driving above the speed limit.

Thou shalt not kill is man-made law, so are the Ten Commandments, all man-made laws in my opinion. As a matter of fact all laws are man-made even the law of gravity. Humans broke that law when they went into space.
Laws are meant to be tested, although the consequences may be devastating. If you murder somebody....

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

So "man" isn't part of "nature" in your view?

Poorly written of course man is part of nature --- I mean written law, don't jaywalk don't smoke pot. Sorry if that was unclear

Why follow laws at all? Some laws like the law of gravity is followed without choice. Law of physics is another, however, if you could manipulate the law of physics would that be breaking the law?
Religion is man-made so it is possible to break a religious law in the same fashion as jaywalking or driving above the speed limit.

You follow laws because you want or choose to - or you don't. Some have consequences if you don't follow them (That deters people). The conscience tends to dictate some things are unnatural and MOST people find them quite despicable -- that would be gods law

Thou shalt not kill is man-made law, so are the Ten Commandments, all man-made laws in my opinion. As a matter of fact all laws are man-made even the law of gravity. Humans broke that law when they went into space.
Laws are meant to be tested, although the consequences may be devastating. If you murder somebody....

I do not think gravity is a man made law -- we may have recognized it is a fundamental law -- noone ever wrote gravity into effect . That would also be natures law.

Sorry if I was unclear in my meanings
*Edit* ya ball busters lol

 

[JackARoe]

Gods Law/Religion -- I really don't put much stock in it other than 'treat others how you wish to be treated" --- now I am and grew up Catholic so there is alot of lingering guilt there but if can't see "Another" reason it isn't right to do *shrugs*

I think if a person followed the Golden Rule there is no greater natural law to practice.

I’ve been thinking a lot about Natural law lately. Especially when we see people get away with breaking man made laws. I suspect nature is not so forgiving.

This topic of man made/natural law could help people troubled by the current and fading political scene to relax a little. We may have man made things that goobers ignore but try ignoring gravity...............or the Golden Rule. Rest in Faith that Nature has our backs.

 

[M!$TER-ED]

Does nature have our backs? You are one with nature.

The world is a mysterious place, we will never fully understand life or our place in life unless we ask questions, discuss and reflect. In my opinion, there is no other purpose greater than to attain knowledge and understanding.

Life is simple, but the infinite wisdom of mankind makes life complicated. We are born, we live, we die. nothing is simpler than that. We are bored at an early age, so we think of ways to make life complicated. We nourish emotions and feelings that cloud our judgement from the fact that life is actually black and white, it is or it is not, it does or does not, life is either or not maybe. As humans we live between black and white, somewhere in the gray where there is possibility. Reality stays the same, it either is or it is not. there is no in-between, however, something new can develop that is neither black or white...an anomaly is created.

 

[Brendan12]

I think there is no grey area.. or maybe the grey area is Why do immoral desires appear in our mind?

Desires are VERY real!

The knowledge of WHY someone has a specific desire is most important.

Also learning the ability to deter deleterious thoughts from our mind and others minds as well is very important again.

 

[Robi]

Its weird we as a species have,I use weird loosely, a common desire.Now there's a whole bunch of us that dont

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

I think there is no grey area.. or maybe the grey area is Why do immoral desires appear in our mind?

Immoral desires appear in our mind because we still have real animal instincts and needs; and desires -- you don't see an animal feel bad for killing and eating another animal. Path of least resistance.

Why if not for some 'greater law' do we not act on every immoral thought we have? Conscience -- Only animal to have one? I don't think so we have all seen a guilty looking (and usually guilty) dog or animal of some kind.

Desires are VERY real!

The knowledge of WHY someone has a specific desire is most important.

Also learning the ability to deter deleterious thoughts from our mind and others minds as well is very important again.

So to try and get back to the heart of what I was getting at --- What deters you/most people from acting on such immoral actions.

1. Consequence of written law (Getting caught is scary)
2. Spiritual consequence (Karma included)
3. Natures law ( Conscience )

I suppose there is a none of the above option but I ain't asking anyone to admit that lol

 

[M!$TER-ED]

if you are asking me in particular why I don't do certain things that I consider wrong it would be fear consequence and conscience. Don't believe in Karma or god's wrath.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

Im asking everyone and was hoping for more of a Convo but it is all good -- some threads take and others do not haha

 

[Foreigner]

You’re treating nature’s law, personal principles, and written law as competing layers, but they’re really different expressions of one underlying force... the causal structure that keeps a social species alive. Nature’s law is simply cause and effect, which means actions produce consequences. Personal principles evolve because individuals need internal rules to predict outcomes and avoid self-destructive choices. Written law is the external version of the same thing, a collective attempt to formalize boundaries so that cooperation doesn’t collapse.

Nature provides the consequences.
Your code is your model of those consequences.
Law is the collective model of that code scaled to groups.

None of these are metaphysically separate. They’re all feedback loops in the same system. If your personal code clashes with written law, the conflict isn’t about which authority wins, it’s a mismatch between your internal model and the group’s model of what keeps things stable. When written law fails, that’s not a failure of law beating ethics, it’s a breakdown in the group’s attempt to model consequences accurately.

They are all expressions of the same one system. The conflicts arise because our understanding is incomplete. Nature is evolving, people's understanding is evolving, and laws intending to scale those understandings to the group level are also evolving.

Theoretically if we had perfect understanding that was in harmony with nature, we would need no written law... or the law would be so perfect that it would never come into conflict with people's personal codes.

 

[M!$TER-ED]

You’re treating nature’s law, personal principles, and written law as competing layers, but they’re really different expressions of one underlying force... the causal structure that keeps a social species alive. Nature’s law is simply cause and effect, which means actions produce consequences. Personal principles evolve because individuals need internal rules to predict outcomes and avoid self-destructive choices. Written law is the external version of the same thing, a collective attempt to formalize boundaries so that cooperation doesn’t collapse.

Nature provides the consequences.
Your code is your model of those consequences.
Law is the collective model of that code scaled to groups.

None of these are metaphysically separate. They’re all feedback loops in the same system. If your personal code clashes with written law, the conflict isn’t about which authority wins, it’s a mismatch between your internal model and the group’s model of what keeps things stable. When written law fails, that’s not a failure of law beating ethics, it’s a breakdown in the group’s attempt to model consequences accurately.

They are all expressions of the same one system. The conflicts arise because our understanding is incomplete. Nature is evolving, people's understanding is evolving, and laws intending to scale those understandings to the group level are also evolving.

Theoretically if we had perfect understanding that was in harmony with nature, we would need no written law... or the law would be so perfect that it would never come into conflict with people's personal codes.

Perfectly said

 

[emkee_reinvented]

True all seem a bit human construct s we all learned along the way while ageing.
Time is irrelevant according to Einstein, don t mean anything in my life, surfaces under certain circumstance s like during +++++ experiences on Shulgin s scale.

Gravity another powerful force, which a magnet can defeat. We didn t defy gravity but along with friction. Launching from orbit should be a piece of cake. Without atmosphere. Or from the space station in the exosphere. There are theory s that say there is no gravity. I am all open for it.

Was brought up atheistic. Had some adjustment problem s. But atheist s are in general less harsh on their religion as god worshipper s. So spirituality, term used for un-explainable insight. Is discarded as Psychotic behaviour or mental breakdown.
Des-illusion s.

But i do defy nature law s. just because of men-made law s. Response ability s
It seem s as time flies by thing s fall in place thing s do get sorted out. \
And i assume the ones making the error s are gonna get it back eventually.

Not my care as sticking to what real, or the truth. Which involves thought s i d classify delusional. Putting aside my killer instinct and vengeance protocol. Keeping to my smart part and my principle s. That does feel better.

And now and then the paid people that fuckup. Most people seem to rea\lly get whack for there boss. Newer religion as when the boss say s jump the worker s answer;
HOW HIGH

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

Ideally all three align. of course! They usually do.

The idea was to evoke discussion about how you feel when these layers fall out of cohesiveness or status quo.

You’re treating nature’s law, personal principles, and written law as competing layers, but they’re really different expressions of one underlying force...

Nature provides the consequences.
Your code is your model of those consequences.
Law is the collective model of that code scaled to groups.

None of these are metaphysically separate. They’re all feedback loops in the same system. If your personal code clashes with written law, the conflict isn’t about which authority wins, it’s a mismatch between your internal model and the group’s model of what keeps things stable.

Here is where perhaps we depart or there is just a level of nuance not yet addressed. I am sure (Well I am guessing) you are familiar with the notion a (Person smart -- Group of people (Groupthink) Stupid almost every time.

If acting in alignment a group can really only be as smart as the dumbest member who refuses to leave or is not ejected or ended. In an entire society this can become an incredibly large group -- hence the law being written to protect the stupid as much as possible.

That is the only fair way -- which leads me to the question

Is the group model keeping things stable? (1. Stable for who - 2. where/what are the actual objectives standards of stability here?)

When written law fails, that’s not a failure of law beating ethics, it’s a breakdown in the group’s attempt to model consequences accurately.

I am going to be honest, I have a bit of trouble with your speech pattern here .... (I know mine suck, two way street --- I have no second language to blame!) So I will attempt to spell it out myself lol

written law fails does NOT equal failure of (Written I presume?) law beating ethics --- it DOES equal breakdown in groups attempt to model consequences accurately.

Could I get an example? Ill try one --

You mean like someone goes to court for something they are guilty of and beat the case by holding a code of silence. That is NOT that persons ethics "Beating" written law -- that IS the group failing to be able to use established written law to hand out the consequence (that person should have received) as agreed on by 'the group' ?? (Did I understand you correctly and use an example that makes sense and follows)

If so I agree with that assessment - and again tend to think person smart quick easy to pivot -- group large slow stupid but powerful

They are all expressions of the same one system. The conflicts arise because our understanding is incomplete.

Our understanding that all 3 are one harmonious system -- but they are not as you point out next sentence. So when they are not (for you)

--- maybe you feel written law is in direct violation of natures law due to relaxed pollution laws.--- Maybe you don't-- legal or not the two are in conflict and eventually one will override the other.

During that time period does your personal code favor team nature or team opportunity? Why and how do you apply your personal code to such conflicts. (about as succinct and laymens as I seem to be able to grasp)

You may believe natures law is in violation of written law --- As it is simply unaware written law exists.

Than you have your code or personal principles which everybody applies to both written and natural law -- but with a great variety of importance and emphasis which was kind of what I was getting at discussing hopefully

It was not a well thought out thread I suppose! Certainly was put together in a way that was not clear - my apologies for that.

Theoretically if we had perfect understanding that was in harmony with nature, we would need no written law... or the law would be so perfect that it would never come into conflict with people's personal codes.

absolutely 100 on that ---- until that day though

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Here is where perhaps we depart or there is just a level of nuance not yet addressed. I am sure (Well I am guessing) you are familiar with the notion a (Person smart -- Group of people (Groupthink) Stupid almost every time.

If acting in alignment a group can really only be as smart as the dumbest member who refuses to leave or is not ejected or ended. In an entire society this can become an incredibly large group -- hence the law being written to protect the stupid as much as possible.

That is what in Economic s is called the bottle-neck. The limiting factor what having witnessed it can be applied on human-groups as well. Peer-pressure called when exposed in adolescent s. Over here the saying goes 'We know nothing'.

Grown up s. Fuck became one of them. Now i openly witness how it goes.

That is the only fair way -- which leads me to the question

Is the group model keeping things stable? (1. Stable for who - 2. where/what are the actual objectives standards of stability here?)

I am going to be honest, I have a bit of trouble with your speech pattern here .... (I know mine suck, two way street --- I have no second language to blame!) So I will attempt to spell it out myself lol

written law fails does NOT equal failure of (Written I presume?) law beating ethics --- it DOES equal breakdown in groups attempt to model consequences accurately.

Ethic s are the philosophy of critic in normal wording. Which is free advise in essence.
I am not a philosopher so correct when necessary. But admire the Greek s recently.

Basically they are said to be a bit like Jezus in their critical thinking. But AFAIK these thought s actually formed Greek s society. World s first democracy.

But this thread is sparking my mind to go. Love it. Gonna continue like this.
As it cover s way more aspect s. One step at a time. No bottle-neck group spirit.

edit: lost my dialogue but as @Foreigner wrote :
Loss of ethic s is that a fail of written Law or breakdown of the group model. In reality the law still exist s so is the mentality also causing jurisprudence.
Or not adequate or obtainable over here the latter 2.

 

[notsmokeymcpot42088]

I am no philosopher either certainly --- I would have worded it in a much more intelligible way!

If people don't get what I am trying to ask by now (at least vaguely) than it is my fault for not being able to grasp my own premise well enough to address it...

For example when put bluntly I would like to be team opportunity and deal with the uneasiness at night -- in reality I tend to lean towards nature due to the whole 'moral code' or w/e

There was a "Wolf hunt" where I live despite them being on the endangered species list -- totally legal to go shooting wolves in a fairly small wooded area -- encouraged even.

hehe in a hypothetical world close to ours I showed up a couple hours before the hunt started and blasted off a shit ton of shells --- even blared some rap through the woods for good measure.

What I should have done is get someone to pay me $ per wolf killed or whatever (More logical as there is a material gain and legal).

Does not sit well with my principle of "I only fire at creatures that fire back or are directly trying to kill me"

Even in the hypothetical world this was well over 10 years ago so chill --- That is where my 'moral code' put me on the issue.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

Does not explain the extraordinary simple law s that seem s to exist.
Enhanced with neon signs along the way that seem a bit un-noticed.

Mentioning Spiritually can evoke some sort of anaphylactic shock in people.
Funny when you are with one leg in-between everything.
And got the time and privilege to expand on them.

Nature put a sea-Eagle in my path before they officially where reported of in NL.
Why [Hallucination] ? Being at the right spot right time. Many times. Spotter sit hour s.
Waiting for a sign of animals. Like sign s but really feel s more like being open for it.
Nature s Law as i imagine is not personal aimed but global.
Like a wall socket you can plug in to.

There is something before man-kind adopted temporary morality s.
That direct s thing s, like leading stray cat s to friendly place s.
[on the internet]

 

[emkee_reinvented]

hehe in a hypothetical world close to ours I showed up a couple hours before the hunt started and blasted off a shit ton of shells --- even blared some rap through the woods for good measure.

Love that solution. My killer instinct just decided lets kill the hunter s,
when they pop up. [they willing to kill self-introduced Wolves as they cause trouble !]

What I should have done is get someone to pay me $ per wolf killed or whatever (More logical as there is a material gain and legal).

Does not sit well with my principle of "I only fire at creatures that fire back or are directly trying to kill me"

Even in the hypothetical world this was well over 10 years ago so chill --- That is where my 'moral code' put me on the issue.

The moral is changed[more like distanced]
from the Law like Foreigner wrote. And the critic that form s it.
Seem s degraded. They will kill anything seen it everywhere where it s poverty or to populated.

Even what people say and do don t agree. Ted Turner last night said.
'When asked people say this, but when measured they do that'
So they stopped asking and just measured. This was about commercial TV.


This probably didn t change over a few years.

 

[emkee_reinvented]

natures law

What would translate forme to logic most beneficial outcome possible.

Gods Law/Religion

These are way to vague and differ quite a bit.
And are a human s private interpretation of. The holy book s on eating animal no consensus. So go with the oldest Vegetarianism ? Well that will cause a meat eater up rise. Suckers really think any human should eat dead animal daily.

Globally im-possible without extinguishing all human/ animal life along the way

Written law

Love written Law, should be enforced more. On paper it look s good.
In reality it s not practised very well. Great for logic thinking creatures.
No guide line for a normal productive human unit.

So there is friction imo between the 3 and the general moral of humans.
Imo Bluelight is a sort of free-harbour of thought s, kinda.