/lit/ - Literature

No, law is one of the primary instruments of class rule, whereby the status quo of society is upheld violently.

>>16543921
This. Political philosophy is like philosophy of science. It's people figuring out how things work, or how they "should" work, where as the people actually doing it, just do it.

>>16543914
It's a subset of moral philosophy.

>>16543921
Why should we accept class as the ultimate social reality and not the other way around?

>>16543942
Moron

>>16543949
What is the "other way around" from "class as the ultimate social reality"? Society as the ultimate class reality?

>>16543921
>>16543949
Prove that class exists as anything other than a subjective grouping of peoples according to certain markers.
>>16543945
What makes you think law has anything to do with morals? Law isn't about what is considered right and wrong, law is about maintaining power structures, in general.

>>16544124
>Law isn't about what is considered right and wrong
Yeah, it literally is you fat retard. It's grounded in moral philosophy.
Don't embarrass yourself again, I am a lawyer.

>>16544124
>Prove that class exists as anything other than a subjective grouping of peoples according to certain markers.
>prove that [social construct] exists as anything other than [social construct]

>>16544137
>It's grounded in moral philosophy.
No that's a justification. Justifications are not reality, they are tools used to make coercion more acceptable to the average person.
>I am a lawyer
Embarrassing that you believe that moral philosophy is anything other than empty justification.

>>16543921
>>16543942
>>16543914
I am a lawyer and you're all wrong and retarded.
>>16543945
You are right.

>>16544149
You have no concept whatsoever of the realities of law or philosophy. In other words, you're an average /lit/ poster. Don't post again.

>>16544165
Explain to me how law can have any power without the implicit threat of violent force.

>>16544172
Explain to me how can you realistically organize a society without a set of rules enforced by the government with the theat of violence without the society devolving to cartels and mafias ruling instead

Is political philosophy just a subset of moral philosophy?

>>16544194
Well you've basically just admitted that the rules have to be backed by the threat of violence, which means that law is not about morality but self-preservation. You create laws that preserve the self as an individual and preserve the things that the individuals who make the laws value. Ultimately law isn't about morals it's about maintaining things that lawmakers value using the threat of violence. Moral philosophy is just used as a justification so you don't have to use physical violence, it's a form of emotional and intellectual coercion imposed on those people who make up the majority of a society and have a lesser capability for rational thought and so are more easily coerced. Law can be reduced down to "the weak obey the strong", no need for more than that unless you're a lawyer who has to coerce people to believe in bullshit to get what you want.

>>16544154
>I am a lawyer
>You are right.
You wish

>>16544137
Well, you could have a system à la Kelsen. Norms are valid because other norms say they are valid and that doesn't have anything to do with something like a material justice criteria inserted in said norms.

>>16544221
How do you determine what's worth preserving when there's conflicts of interest within the people?

>>16544303
You preserve your own interests and convince people of lower intellectual ability that you're actually acting in their interests in order to better preserve your own interests. It's only reasonable to expect a person to ensure their own survival and wellbeing at any cost, society must be maintained so that those with power can continue to maintain that power which allows them a greater standard of living and access to health services and medical treatment. You preserve whichever aspects of society will most ably maintain the status quo. All of this is necessary so long as society requires people to produce goods and services. If goods and services were produced without human input you could simplify the laws to only protecting individuals from harm, and ensuring a minimum level of satisfactory comfort to the extent that the status quo would never be questioned.

>>16543914
I cannot be any philosophy because it's useful.

>>16544154
I am a lawyer also and I violently dispute the notion that law has anything to do with morality or philosophy. Just because we get paid for this shit doesn't mean it's worth anything, it just means that people are fools.

>>16545617
morals doesnt have to necessitate good or strongly held morals anon. It is based on it as a sociatle function or abstraction, but its there nonetheless.

>>16545617

Law must have some basis in something, otherwise they would be completely unmotivated performance scripts. Now, you might disagree with some laws or find your job boring because you are left to sift through details in what was codified, but it's the same problem with every field. Most "scientists" don't do much science, they just collect samples of this or that and look at them and then check a box that someone else put in front of them.

>>16545650
That is such a weak argument. What are you even trying to demonstrate? That the fact that people are fools is good because they are all consistently foolish?

My point remains the same; if people were wise, we would both be beggars warming ourselves with port wine in a paper bag over a burning 55 gallon drum.

Lawyers are all pretty retarded regarding jurisprudence. It's an optional class, but lawyer ethics is mandatory. Lawyers who weren't raised on the triumvirate are a bunch of indoctrinated mercenaries.

>>16543914
>>16543945
Law has very little to do with political philosophy or moral philosophy.

Lieber is better, but Holmes is to hand:
"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, and even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have had a good deal more to do than syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

Fetch some soupmeat.

>>16545674
>Law must have a basis in something
Law is based on a few creditable emotions, and many discreditable ones.

>>16543921
Do you guys hear how you sound?

>>16545702

That's a fortune-cookie-tier statement, brother.

>>16545700
>>16545617
>>16544282
>>16544228
You're not intelligent.

>>16545691
>What are you even trying to demonstrate? That the fact that people are fools is good because they are all consistently foolish?
that laws are based on a abstracted social contract we can call "morals". Weither good given or man it doesnt matter. Im not saying it is smart or anything, just what it is.

>>16545719
No it's not, go read a book and then maybe you'll learn how to write simply without appealing to memes.
>https://www.britannica.com/topic/emotivism

>>16545719
Like everything from diogenes, the most reddit of philosophers.

>>16545738
If you'd read a book you'd know Diogenes never said that quote. It would be anachronistic, to make Diogenes into an Emotivist. See
>https://www.britannica.com/topic/emotivism

>>16545728
Then you are saying what I am saying, just with some niceties of speech.

Law is what a fucking county sheriff can enforce with a judgement after a default judgement is granted. The law is a system of justifications for acts determined by those in power.

>>16545722
Fetch some soupmeat.

>>16545756
Then you are saying what I am saying, just with the unnecissary nihilism and descriptives.

>>16545737

Emotivism is your response? Please. It's a nice psychological model for our moral assertions, but it doesn't rule out any number of non-emotive theories of morality. It's very easy to simultaneously think that our moral assertions are expressions of our emotive states but that our emotive states are themselves normatively governed by moral reasoning.

>>16545772
It's not nihilism to be honest with yourself about your job. It is worthy of lamentation that people are so foolish that they go to law willingly.

>>16545768
I pwned you, cope.

>>16545783
>It doesn't rule out a number of non-emotive theories of morality
It actually does; the assertion is that the phrase "murder is bad" is logically equivalent to "murder sucks." It's not a psychological theory at all, just a product of Fregian Logic. Of course, we have reasons for why we don't want murder, but if, as the logic dictates and experiment confirms, our emotions truly dictate our moral response, then our moral reasoning about it can be discarded by Occam's Razor, since our moral reasoning constitutes an unnecessary additional premise for which no real need arises.

>>16545839

Listen moron, you yourself used the phrase "creditable" and "discreditable" in classifying some emotions over others. On what basis would any emotion be "creditable" or "discreditable" if they were not normatively governed? If they are "just emotions" in the sense you are pushing then they are just literal responses and there is no normativity involved whatsoever. Put some effort into this or just sit quiet.

>>16545862
Creditable only insofar as they engage our self-interest!

Consider this; it is good for us that we reject murder. Our emotions cause us to reject murder, but this they do because murder is bad for us (for we might be murdered). But is it logical that we should agree with the death penalty for murder? No, since it is implied by law that we all live under the power of law. Therefore if we hate murder because we do not want to die, we should hate the death penalty for the same reason.

So this is what I mean by some moral emotions are creditable and many more are discreditable. I do not mean that they are governed by normative beliefs, I mean that by failing to recognize our morals as emotional, we fail to control our emotions insofar as they are moral. This is what is discreditable.

>>16546036
You're not making any sense bro. You're equating value of one's own life with the value of the lives of others without explaining why.

>>16545617
I would hire the other guy desu

>>16546073
I wouldn't hire either of them, they both sound like midwits with an overinflated idea of their own intelligence.

>>16546048
>You are equating the value of your life with the value of other lives and not explaining why
This is a pretty hard cope, I'm not equating the value of my life with any other life; I don't need to. I am treating other lives like my own life because it doesn't benefit me to do otherwise.

>>16546087
We're both lawyers which means we're infinitely more intelligent and accomplished than you ever will be, neet.

>>16546087
Don't hire a lawyer that posts on 4chan

>t. lawyer that posts on 4chan

>>16545617
You're the reason why people think lawyers are all scumbags(I'm a lawyer)

>>16546196
You just proved my point though, how ironic.
>>16546199
Don't worry I only hire jewish lawyers.

>>16546212
It's not an over inflation of one's ego to state a simple fact, that someone who has gone to law school and passed the bar is more intelligent than some fat neet who whines online.

>>16546048
It's just rational self-interest, the same thing at the heart of the formation of a social contract. I never need to say or affirm a belief that all lives are worth the same amount, I only have to suppose that were fortune different, I could be in the situation of the oppressed, and so long as I live that chance exists. Therefore I must mitigate the downside of personal loss by fighting for those who are not in my shoes.

I honestly can't believe I have to explain this kind of obvious shit.

>>16546204
Everyone thinks lawyers are scumbags because the only people that can afford a decent civil side attorney are scumbags themselves. We don't have rights unless a you can afford a lawyer.

>>16546217
There is no proof that you have gone to law school or that I am a fat NEET other than the testimony of some Anonymous poster on 4chan. You must be a really bad lawyer to not realize that.

>>16546204
Most people are scumbags, lawyers are just skilled at it
>t. the poster to which you replied.

>>16546224
>We don't have rights unless a you can afford a lawyer
This is probably the most brainlet, millennial post I've ever seen on /lit/. There is nothing stopped you from learning the laws of the land, it is publicly available and your rights are not contingent on your having a lawyer.

>>16546222
No no, rational self interest doesn't work like that. Rational self interests works like this. You PRETEND that you are working for the self interests of other people so that they will work for you, while you mercilessly use them to ensure your survival.

>>16546229
>testimony
Your post is an out of court statement being used for the truth of the matter asserted. No exclusions to the hearsay rule applies. So I'm not gonna listen to what you have to say.

>>16546235
>heh, yeah we're scumbags but we're skilled scumbags
>pfft, the law isn't worth anything
I sincerely doubt you're a lawyer and if you are you're the most Reddit lawyer I've ever encountered.

>>16546238
>representing yourself in the modern legal system
The absolute state of /lit/ jurisprudence

>>16546229
Circumstantial as it is, it is reasonable to infer that you are a fat NEET because of your incessant whining online over other people's accomplishments.

>>16546241
>Rational self-interest works in the limited way I think it does
Sure, but that's your opinion of what self-interest consists in, and it's a very unimaginative one.

>>16546242
>the courts determine the truth
>the courts are backed by the violence of the government
>the government is backed by taxes
>taxes are backed by the fear of violence by the government
So you admit you're just a low level mafia man with no actual ability to do anything outside of your corrupt organization, you have no agency.

>>16546252
You know this thread is just 5 lawyers who lurk /lit/ just waiting to argue with each other about being lawyers.
>t. lawyer

>>16546249
>nooo you don't understand the system is stacked against me!!! my online political commentators told me so!!!

>>16546258
I (the person you are replying to) am also a lawyer
t. lawyer

>>16546259
lmao, you try and write your own petition against someone you want to sue and your shit is going to get dismissed with prejudice real fuckin' quick.

>>16546269
Only if you are a massive retard and file the form wrong. There are sample forms readily available for every suit under the sun. You fill in the info and file it with the court. It's really easy. Quite evident you've never done anything like that though, you have no idea how it works.

>>16545707
Yes.

>>16546256
This is an anonymous forum. In your opinion why would it be in my self interest to post my own actual opinions when these could possibly be traced back to me and used against me?

>>16546274
You go buddy. I believe in you. It's all gonna work out.

>>16546246
Take a good hard look at HRC, and tell me that the law is capable of reforming morals.

>>16546287
Looked it up, that's a fake quote. Lincoln never said it.

>>16546277
?

>>16546291
the law is capable of reforming morals

>>16546299
doesn't make the content of the message any less true.

>>16546299
>having to look up a quote you found on 4chan to figure out that it's fake
lmaoooooo
literally EVERY quote on 4chan is fake
"If you suck dicks, you win"
-Hiroshima Mootius Poole

>>16546315
Yes it does.

>>16543914
>laws
I follow the natural law of my creator as all righteous men are compelled to do. Those villains who administer their own "laws" for their own benefits exist far detached from all that is good. They seek only power and will destroy all that is beautiful to secure it. I seek only beauty and will destroy all that is powerful to secure it.

>>16546320
oh, good point.

>>16546299
Strictly speaking he probably did, because it's an older joke than Lincoln.

>>16546309
Imagine you post on 4chan using the same writing style you write with in day to day life and at work. One day the CIA releases a list of everyone who has posted on 4chan by comparing writing samples they've collected. Suddenly a lynch mob kills you for using 4chan 2 decades ago.

>>16546329
Speculation as to the possibility that someone said something with no solid proof that they did is not admissible

>>16546310
Fuck yourself my good sir

>>16546338
In the court of public opinion, all it takes to win is a hard cock and a bottle of lube.

>>16546348
I've got a hard cock, if you bring the lube you can have the privilege of jacking me off.

>>16546331
Take your meds

>>16546358
MY MEDS HAVE MICROCHIPS THEY USE TO RAPE MY ASS!

>>16546347
That is literally impossible, my penis is literally too short to reach my anus.

>>16546348
>>16546351
I fucking lost, holy shit