07 Mar 09
Originally posted by vistesdDuring the early formative period of the common law, the courts tended to stress stability and continuity in the principals of law being developed. It will be recalled that the inflexibility of common law rules was a principal factor behind the development of courts of equity. Even after courts of equity developed, however, there were special fact situations not adequately covered by existing rules.
[b]No appeal to authority, such as an appeal to a sovereign or to a religious symbol or deity will do here -- as these are false authorities or no authority at all.
Agreed.
Since one needs some contextual matrix within which to define the concept “justice”, then any definition is going to be relative to such a matrix. Since “justice” is an ethical ...[text shortened]... you expand on the notion of “equitable treatment” some more? At least I would find it helpful.[/b]
For example if Able through an honest mistake conferred a benefit on Baker under circumstances where Baker knowingly received the benefit, Able had no remedy in either contract or tort law.
To preserve the general consistency of the existing rules and yet to avoid the resulting injustice, the common law judges resorted to a fiction: they held that a promise had been made or was implied in law. These obligations based on promises implied in law are known as “quasi contracts.”
Equity is that which is used to avoid injustice that otherwise would result from the application of law, alone.
07 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI'm going to cite an ancestor of mine. My family name is an Ellis Island name given as a result of the point of origin of the patriarch who immigrated to the USA more than 130 years ago. The man I cite was a distant cousin, part of my father's family and his words were rendered in the year I was born.
[b]No appeal to authority, such as an appeal to a sovereign or to a religious symbol or deity will do here -- as these are false authorities or no authority at all.
Agreed.
Since one needs some contextual matrix within which to define the concept “justice”, then any definition is going to be relative to such a matrix. Since “justice” is an ethical ...[text shortened]... you expand on the notion of “equitable treatment” some more? At least I would find it helpful.[/b]
"Equity is rooted in conscience. An injunction is, as it always has been,'an extraordinary remedial process, which is granted, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion.'"
-- Justice Frankfurter concurring in Hurd v. Hodge, 68 S.Ct. 847, 853, 334 U.S.24, 36 (1948)."
In its beginning, equity was what its name implies, and to a considerable extent it still is: "justice" as opposed to "law," a reach for fairness in the particular case as distinguished from enforcement of general rules. Charles Rembar, The Law of the Land: The Evolution of Our Legal System (Touchstone Books, 1980), p. 280.
If the addition of such equitable concepts as injunctive relief and specific performance to supplement the common law was equity's paramount general contribution, the origin of the trust was its most important conceptual addition. The common law did not recognize an interest in a party who was not the titleholder to land. The transfer of property to a party to hold either for benefit of the grantor, who may have been trying to avoid feudal obligations, or a third party, did not create legal rights enforceable by beneficiaries. The Court of Chancery, acting to fill this acknowledged void in the common law by using its powers to demand good conscience, would rule that the holder of the property must administer it for the benefit of the donor or third party, as specified in the initial grant. From this concept arose an equitable interest held by the beneficiary, the person in possession assuming the status of a trustee obligated to deal with the property considering the nature of the equitable interest of the third party.
UNDER MODERN CODES blending legal and equitable remedies or making equitable defenses and rights available in an action at law, a partial assignee can recover, but the obligor (debtor) is invariably allowed to insist that all the persons having an interest in the claim or debt be made parties to the action so that all claims against him may be adjudicated in one action. If the obligor fails so to insist, most codes provide that he thereby waives his right to object to the defect of parties. See N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules, § 1001a, for example. [R.II, § 158; Williston's Treatise on Contracts, 3rd ed., § 443]. Paul R. Conway, Outline of the Law of Contracts, 3rd ed. (American Legal Publications, Inc., 1968), pp. 363-364.
"[E]quity acts in personam ("against the person"😉, while the law acts only in rem ("against the property"😉. Thomas Conyngton & Louis O. Bergh, Business Law, 4th ed. (The Ronald Press Company, 1949), p. 10. "One of the distinguishing features between the civil law of Rome and the common law of England is that the civil law acted personally, while the common law acts territorially." Jones v. Hines, 47 So. 739, 157 Ala.642, 15A C.J.S., Common Law, § 1.
07 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton================================
….But you must agree, according to your own philosophy, that this opinion of yours is so subjective as to be virtually meaningless.
..…
not quite -I didn’t say that an opinion on either what is “politically stupid” or what is “brutal” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” but rather what is “unjust” is “so subjective as to be vi ...[text shortened]... word “brutal” and, ultimately, there is no purely objectively “correct” way of defining a word.[/b]
not quite -I didn’t say that an opinion on either what is “politically stupid” or what is “brutal” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” but rather what is “unjust” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” although, I admit, that is just as the result of the way I personally tend to define the word “brutal” and, ultimately, there is no purely objectively “correct” way of defining a word.
==========================================
Pronouncing what is "politically stupid" and "brutal" I take to be just as much moral judgments as pronouncing what is "unjust".
I don't know why excessive subjectivety should play a part your defining of one but not in the other.
There is not much difference in you making an ethical pronouncement of what is "brutal" as opposed to your declaring what is "unjust".
08 Mar 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill….Pronouncing what is "politically stupid" and "brutal" I take to be just as much moral judgments as pronouncing what is "unjust".
[b]================================
not quite -I didn’t say that an opinion on either what is “politically stupid” or what is “brutal” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” but rather what is “unjust” is “so subjective as to be virtually meaningless” although, I admit, that is just as the result of the way I personally tend to define the w cal pronouncement of what is "brutal" as opposed to your declaring what is "unjust".
..…[/b]
Then you take it wrong. I can understand how you would think that I am making a “moral” judgement when I talk about "brutal" but that is only because we probably mean subtly different things from the word. When I use the word "brutal" I am referring to deliberate acts that are done that knowingly cause pain or death but, remember, even if I emotionally disapprove of such a "brutal" act, I do not morally disapprove of such a "brutal" act nor any other kind of act because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” or “immoral”.
But what I cannot understand how you would think that I am making a “moral” judgement when I talk about "politically stupid" (if that is what you imply here?) -I mean, can’t a “kind” act sometimes be simultaneously “politically stupid" ?
….There is not much difference in you making an ethical pronouncement of what is "brutal" as ….
..…
But I am not making a “ethical pronouncement” but rather an “emotional pronouncement”.
I may have an emotional disapproval of something (such as in this case) and, because I recognise the fact that it is purely an EMOTIONAL disapproval, I am not saying anything about what we “morally” shouldn’t do and, because it is purely an EMOTIONAL disapproval based on MY personal emotions, it is somewhat subjective because somebody else may naturally have different emotions and NOT emotionally disapproval of it like I do and there would be no rational argument I could give to such a person to persuade him that he “should”, in some sense, have the same emotional disapproval as I do.
09 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy do you have an emotional response at all?
….Pronouncing what is "politically stupid" and "brutal" I take to be just as much moral judgments as pronouncing what is "unjust".
..…
Then you take it wrong. I can understand how you would think that I am making a “moral” judgement when I talk about "brutal" but that is only because we probably mean subtly different things from the word. Wh that he “should”, in some sense, have the same emotional disapproval as I do.[/b]
Why wouldn't you view an act of brutality, for example, upon let us say, your mother, with perfect unemotional and objective detachment ?
09 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton=========================
….Pronouncing what is "politically stupid" and "brutal" I take to be just as much moral judgments as pronouncing what is "unjust".
..…
Then you take it wrong. I can understand how you would think that I am making a “moral” judgement when I talk about "brutal" but that is only because we probably mean subtly different things from the word. Wh that he “should”, in some sense, have the same emotional disapproval as I do.[/b]
I do not morally disapprove of such a "brutal" act nor any other kind of act because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” or “immoral”.
==============================
Do you feel that one day scientists will be able to tell us what the weight of hate is ? Will science be able to discribe the molecular composition of love ?
Will we be able to determine the atomic composition of generosity or identify the atoms which compose loyalty?
10 Mar 09
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill….Why do you have an emotional response at all?
Why do you have an emotional response at all?
Why wouldn't you view an act of brutality, for example, upon let us say, your mother, with perfect unemotional and objective detachment ?
..…
I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has but;
I have emotions because I, like everybody else, have evolved to have emotions -why else? What is your point?
….Why wouldn't you view an act of brutality, for example, upon let us say, your mother, with perfect unemotional and objective detachment ?
..…
Why should I?
Of course I would act emotionally. I would act very emotionally (although not necessarily non-objectively -I am not sure why you would think that)
Is there some reason why I would deny the existence of my emotions?
What is your point? I mean, what has this got to do with my original statement of:
“I do not morally disapprove of such a "brutal" act nor any other kind of act because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” or “immoral”. ”
Bearing in mind that I clearly implied just before this that I would emotionally disapprove of such a "brutal" act
?
10 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill….Do you feel that one day scientists will be able to tell us what the weight of hate is ?
[b]=========================
I do not morally disapprove of such a "brutal" act nor any other kind of act because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” or “immoral”.
==============================
Do you feel that one day scientists will be able to tell us what the weight of hate is ? Will science be able to discribe the molec ...[text shortened]... to determine the atomic composition of generosity or identify the atoms which compose loyalty?[/b]
..…
If what you mean by “weight of hate” is some kind of measure (using arbitrary defined units) of how much ‘hate’ a person has -probably yes! -I don’t see why not.
….Will science be able to describe the molecular composition of love ?
Will we be able to determine the atomic composition of generosity or identify the atoms which compose loyalty?
..…
Who is claiming here that “love” “generosity” etc is “composed of molecules”? 😛 -not me.
“love” etc are states of a brain.
Again, what has any of this got to do with my original statement of:
“I do not morally disapprove of such a "brutal" act nor any other kind of act because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral” or “immoral”. ”
Bearing in mind that I clearly implied just before this that I would emotionally disapprove of such "brutal" acts
?
10 Mar 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton============================
[b]….Why do you have an emotional response at all?
..…
I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has but;
I have emotions because I, like everybody else, have evolved to have emotions -why else? What is your point?
….Why wouldn't you view an act of brutality, for example, upon let us say, your mother, with perfect unemotional and ied just before this that I would emotionally disapprove of such a "brutal" act
?
I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has but;
I have emotions because I, like everybody else, have evolved to have emotions -why else? What is your point?
=============================
[/b] Emotions can be the product of evolution but morals cannot ?
You would not press charges against an attacker on any moral grounds ?
You would not use any moral grounds as a basis for a legal claim then because morality is illusionary ?
If your mother was brutalized would you seek to dismiss charges because morality does not exist ?
10 Mar 09
7 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==========================
[b]….Do you feel that one day scientists will be able to tell us what the weight of hate is ?
..…
If what you mean by “weight of hate” is some kind of measure (using arbitrary defined units) of how much ‘hate’ a person has -probably yes! -I don’t see why not.
….Will science be able to describe the molecular composition of love ?
Wi plied just before this that I would emotionally disapprove of such "brutal" acts
?
Who is claiming here that “love” “generosity” etc is “composed of molecules”? -not me.
===============================
[/b]... certain Darwinists for whom only the materials exist.
... cerrtain materialists who think morality is meaningless because it cannot be traced to some physical particles.
Morality also cannot merely be an instinct because we have competing instincts. And sometimes something tells us to ignore the stronger one for the weaker one.
For example, you hear somebody being mugged in calling for help One instinct says "Don't get involved because you might get hurt". But another instinct, a weaker one says, "Even though you might get killed yourself, get involved."
You have TWO impulses competing inside. Yet a third matter tells you to choose between the two. Something is telling you to judge between the two instincts. That third matter cannot itself be a part of the two instincts.
The tendency to judge between the two instincts must be something different from them, standing off apart from them.
As C.S. Lewis put the matter, basically - You could not say that a sheet of music telling you to play one piano note and not the other is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. Some Moral Law is telling us the tune we have to play; our instincts are merely the keys.
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywill….Emotions can be the product of evolution but morals cannot ?
[b]============================
I have absolutely no idea what relevance this has but;
I have emotions because I, like everybody else, have evolved to have emotions -why else? What is your point?
=============================
[/b] Emotions can be the product of evolution but morals cannot ?
You would not press charges against a ...[text shortened]... f your mother was brutalized would you seek to dismiss charges because morality does not exist ?[/b]
..…
I didn’t say nor imply that (I assume what you mean by “morals” is “moral beliefs”?)
….You would not press charges against an attacker on any moral grounds ?
..…
Correct -for I would press charges because my emotions would drive me to and not because of any kind of “moral” belief for I have none.
….You would not use any moral grounds as a basis for a legal claim then because morality is illusionary ?
.…
Why would I refuse to make any legal claim just because I don’t think there is such thing as “moral”? -I fail to see the logical connection there (especially if it is in my interest to press charges).
…If your mother was brutalized would you seek to dismiss charges because morality does not exist ?
..…
No -for my emotions would still be against the attacker.
10 Mar 09
Originally posted by jaywill….Who is claiming here that “love” “generosity” etc is “composed of molecules”? -not me.
[b]==========================
Who is claiming here that “love” “generosity” etc is “composed of molecules”? -not me.
===============================
[/b]... certain Darwinists for whom only the materials exist.
... cerrtain materialists who think morality is meaningless because it cannot be traced to some physical particles.
Moralit ...[text shortened]... . Some Moral Law is telling us the tune we have to play; our instincts are merely the keys.[/b]
===============================
... certain Darwinists for whom only the materials exist.
... certain materialists who think morality is meaningless because it cannot be traced to some physical PARTICLES.
..…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
“…The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material INTERACTIONS; …” (my emphasises)
“material INTERACTIONS” is not synonymous with “physical PARTICLES”.
For that reason, you misunderstand what materialists actually believe.
Some (I think probably most but I am not 100% sure about that) materialists believe there is such “moral” while some don’t.
….For example, you hear somebody being mugged in calling for help One instinct says "Don't get involved because you might get hurt". But another instinct, a weaker one says, "Even though you might get killed yourself, get involved."
..…
Probably the “weaker” one could only make you get involved if you already have some kind of “moral” belief so the “two instincts competing” are not synonymous with “having a moral belief”.
The two instincts compete in me and yet I have no “moral” belief.
We have evolved to have BOTH an instinct to be selfish AND an instinct to help others (I think probably more because of group selection http://www.answers.com/topic/group-selection ) rather than individual selection ) and these two instinct often conflict.
These two instincts certainly conflict in me but I fail to see how that would give me a “moral” belief (if that is what you are implying?).
….You have TWO impulses competing inside. Yet a third matter tells you to choose between the two. Something is telling you to judge between the two instincts. That third matter cannot itself be a part of the two instincts.
.…
not in my case -that “third matter” you speak of is “moral belief” which is something I don’t have. For me it is always the stronger instinct at the time that wins.
11 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton….For me it is always the stronger instinct at the time that wins.
[b]….Who is claiming here that “love” “generosity” etc is “composed of molecules”? -not me.
===============================
... certain Darwinists for whom only the materials exist.
... certain materialists who think morality is meaningless because it cannot be traced to some physical PARTICLES.
..…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat is something I don’t have. For me it is always the stronger instinct at the time that wins.[/b]
..…
sorry -just noticed that obviously simply not true and I don’t remember why I said that -obviously I normally weigh up the pros and cons of the various options before making a decision and sometimes that means I choose to do what the ‘weaker’ instinct tells me to do if I think that just happens to be the wiser thing to do in the long run.
11 Mar 09
2 edits
====================================
not in my case -that “third matter” you speak of is “moral belief” which is something I don’t have. For me it is always the stronger instinct at the time that wins.
=====================================
========================================
sorry -just noticed that obviously simply not true and I don’t remember why I said that -obviously I normally weigh up the pros and cons of the various options before making a decision and sometimes that means I choose to do what the ‘weaker’ instinct tells me to do if I think that just happens to be the wiser thing to do in the long run.
=========================================
I understanding you to be saying that the stronger instinct which you say "wins out," in the first paragraph "wins out" because of a decision and a choice on your part.
In your daily reactions you must have your criteria for why the choosing of one course of action is "wiser" than the next ?
You are saying those decisions have nothing to do with morality which you regard as illusionary.
A guy goes into a school and shoots up a group of children killing them. Do you think it is a wiser decision to inform that society in which this occured that moral values really do not exist ? Should the children who survived be taught latter that moral value is an illusion ?
I'd like to see how that would go over at that school's next PTA meeting.