Right and Wrong.

[Englishbird]

ok, this question is designed to provoke thought, it is not necessarily my personal opinion....

Following on from the execution of Tookie Williams, and the overall debate of right or wrong....

What right does any human being have to say what another can or cannot do. From murder, rape, theft, down to driving too fast, smoking, watching tv. Have these rules come from a necessity for 'society', a necessity by society, are they based in religion, do they date back to the caveman or where they autonomous with Dictatorships, a way of controlling the masses. Over centuries and even millenia these standards have changed, but by whom, is it solely a case of majority rule, is this an instinct, a right, or something to be challenged by minorities? Do we just know right and wrong or are we taught it? And do we really have the right to tell each other what to do on any level or kill each other in any manner - why one and not the other, where is the line drawn and why?

[woofgang]

sociologically, I think that the lines are drawn to ensure that the human race flourishes, rather than individuals. The rules emerge from consensus about what supports a group of a species to exist and what doesn't. For and by society and religion are different aspects of the same imperative which is that the species shall survive....same as the rules in communities of any other species

[Loosehead]

Without rules there is anarchy, order is needed to progress. We need to be able to concentrate on things other than our day to day survival. To that end various systems have been used as mentioned in your question until we arrive at the system we have today. A long way from perfect but the best we have come up with so far.

Without order and rules we are essentially still at the mercy of natural selection where only the strong survive and only then while they are strong, see the animal kingdom.

When intellegence is able to override instinct then systems will emerge, initially simply the strongest in the tribe and then perhaps a fear can be installed in the masses so that they believe in some arbitrary god and what ever the local witchdoctor come cleric says about what the gods are demanding, eventually a democracy may emerge but this is not certain, dictatorship is still the norm in a lot of countries.

It's huge subject so I've just touched on a few areas.

[gary baldy]

Blimey - i agree with Loosehead. Society by definition needs parameters. I am just repeating Loosehead here but a society functions within what is and what is not morally acceptable. If that line is crossed then society adjusts for that. At this moment, in this country we think it is morally unacceptable to carry out state sponsored murder (or capital punishment if you want to call it that) and whilst prison is not ideal solution it is all we have at the moment. Thankfully we live in a society that still is shocked by violence be it done by an individual or by the state. I believe British society is envied by many others because of this.
Sorry went on a bit of a tangent but a fascinating subject.

[andy-hughes]

No argument with the previous responses -

laws are what make us civilised, imperfect though they are, they provide a framework in which society can live. In the interests of free speech, it is possible to take isue with just about any aspect of society and culture, but the wishes of the majority have to take presidence, there is no serious alternative.

[Englishbird]

Andy - was it you that posted a Q in Film and TV about celebs we didn't like - if so, why did it mysteriously disappear?

[gary baldy]

...and why have you gone green? Are the two related?
I said i didnt find Kylie Minogue attractive but it was pretty uncontroversial? Perhaps some of the 'celebs' involved read it and spat the dummy - i know Jennifer Aniston contributes to the site under the name 'Stanleyman'.

ps no offence stanleyman - you are just the most un-Jennifer aniston contributor i could think of - you are my personal favourite!
right get back on topic now!

[Ward-Minter]

I think this question is the basis of the whole Jurisprudence (the philosophy of law) thing.

Two states of law, natural law (not the Political Party!!) and nurtral law.

Natural law... For example every society has condemed murder in their own tribe since anthropological studies have been around.

Nurtral law........ Every man is a potential rapist (like most mammals are) Through civilisation (and its discontent---Freud theory) man has become aware of certain values that are simply morally wrong. However left to his own devices man would rape.

Does that make sense??

If you want a really boring read here's a lecture I went to nearly 10 years ago.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lws64.htm

[campbellking]

Further to some of the answers, I would just add that in some American states, people have been placed on death row solely on the decision of a judge, who has decided on the verdict without a jury. Bit worrying,that.

[mimififi]

Read "Lord of the Flies" Kinda sums up lots of this.....

[Dolly1308]

The veneer of civilisation is very thin,as mimififi suggests read "Lord of the Flies " and I believe Ward-Minter is so right it is only the rules and regulations of society that keeps us civilised.In some societies in this world men still believe it is their right to rape and abuse women without suffering recriminations .In my opinion they are still living according to the law of the jungle .

[loudickson71]

Woofgang, that's not correct, sorry. There is no social imperative in any species. All imperatives are at the level of a single gene, they may just give rise to particular behaviours when taken as a group.