Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Incorrect, humans are social animals, and are almost incapable of surviving alone. "Tribal" societies typically consisted of groups of 20-100 people, with many tribes having ties to one another. Ancient humans lived in an extremely hostile environment, and we lack natural abilities to defend ourselves. We were able to thrive and dominate our environment, however, due to our ability to think intelligently and cooperate. For instance, one man alone has almost no hope of surviving a fight with a lion. 1 man armed with a spear whose manufacture he learned from an older man, has some hope against the lion. 10 men armed with spears, working together, can destroy any lion that crosses their path.
In order to facilitate living together, it was imperative for us to evolve a "moral" sense. It is a very real part of our brains. Without our moral sense, human communities could never have formed and stayed together and we would have been doomed to die naked and alone.
Law was created to enable people to live together and easily resolve the disputes they have quickly, fairly and easily. It is an extension of our normal moral sense that allows us to be able to resolve disputes between tribal members.
|
Every example you have given serves survival. Animals have the instinct to preserve their species which would make killing kin unbeneficial (although there are cases of animals killing kin -_-, for beneficial reasons ofc). Humans being unable to survive on their own leads to social groups in order to survive. Every evolution that man has undergone has served the process of survival.
Thomas Hobbes Leviathan talks about social contracts as being subordinated to the survival of humans. When a social contract no longer serves survival (theoretically) it is shunned (which I think an interesting theme explored in many dystopian stories). If law is derived from people wanting to resolve disputes this still is derived from peoples survival instincts.
Now again this is my personal opinion but I think people submit certain liberties to government in exchange for protection against other people using those liberties in a harmful manner. I honestly believe that if there were zero negative consequences from killing someone in order to gain something people would do it. It is consequence that drives us obeying the law. And it is social order that drives the law. And it is survival that drives social order.
I think what it may come down to is naturalist vs postivist approaches to law. Naturalist law states that law comes from some greater moral compass whereas postivist law is only concerned with the legitimacy of the systems of law in place or the order of the system. Basically one has moral law while the other is amoral law. If you like the positivist law then chances are you believe justice is amoral.
but yeeee tbh I think I've drifted away from the subject and have found myself in the deep end of my knowledge in this topic
I'd find it hard to continue without repeating most points or drifting away into a different area. But I did learn quite abit from this discussion cheerio