Now there is no doubt that "the right to a death in dignity" is important! Also for our own human worth. But... It might be that if for example this "right to a death in dignity" is ensured for typically younger people who have deep depressions and, as a result, are qualified (required) through 3 or 5 years(?) at psychologists or psychiatrists before they are allowed to die. This qualifying period will be reported to the authorities and thus you can use this to prevent suicide in this younger group in the future because they told about all the craziness/vileness (crime) they have been through and in this way, Norway and other countries may improve their human rights work on a much deeper level so that ALL suicides can be prevented (except those where there are a disease and those who will die a death in dignity of old age). Is this something? Still good luck with the good work, you people who work for dying in dignity! WE WIN through!
There seems to be a duty in doing this work, making this happen that's implied by the suicides themselves, especially for the group 10 to 50 year olds. A citizens' commission for inquiry into suicides for this group?
Showing posts with label dignity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dignity. Show all posts
Friday, 14 July 2017
Friday, 3 June 2016
Comparison of USA and EU-28 by Legal Systems - Comments
This is the effort to describe a given elephant in the European legal room by comparing the legal systems of USA and EU. It's an assumption that Norway doesn't differ much from that of Germany or France or other (developed nation). By this effort I cherry-pick certain stats, always in pairs, from Eurostat (EU-28) and FBI (USA). All of this relates to crime and the influence of crime to suicide rates among else.
The comments will show that I favour the character and traits of USA in defending the dignity of the humans living there. USA has an important advantage by the 2nd Amendment that ensures a real defence of people who have the pistol or revolver. Even in face of crime, the pistol or revolver secures a fairly painless and quick death or an injury that's fairly clean, i.e., the bullet penetrates in a straight manner often creating a mere flesh wound. Even the fractured bones from gunshot wounds should be possible to heal given some time for this.
We have:
(I start with Norway as crime typical for Europe)
From https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/lovbrudda/aar/2015-04-15?fane=tabell#content there is 372 107 complaints filed to the police which is 72,8 complaints per 1000 inhabitants/Norwegians for 2014, newest numbers.
So we see that "respectable" Norway has a good deal of crime to handle. There's no Eden here.
Sources:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat - Various statistics for Europe, also crime.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats - Crime for USA.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE?lang=en - Suicides for every country.
https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/lovbrudda/aar/2015-04-15?fane=tabell#content - Complaints filed to the police in Norway.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - Guns in the world, also those privately owned.
"Straight" USA allows its citizens to defend by handweapons, tazers and peppersprays! "Corrupt/Crooked" Europe has all this practically banned, especially after Behring Breivik. Note!
"Straight" USA also has the death penalty for these depraved monsters who commit atrocities with the full mental report of them to go!
At least for suicides:
It's stated that "Approximately one-half of suicides are committed by firearm, accounting for two-thirds of all firearms deaths. [21,334 of 33,599 in 2014]"[24-reference]
Those are decent suicides! In Europe we do all sorts of crazy things in order to (finally) die because either it's the corrupt authorities hunting the suicide candidates only to get more torture on them. A corruption we in Europe usually never can do anything about because the self-protection is outlawed, that is, guns, pepperspray, tazers and killer knives. And that's after the 20 times the suicide candidates "bounce" about before they ide!
"The same article [USA Today] stated that there are far fewer homicides than suicides in the country; in fact, homicide rates have fallen by half in the U.S. since 1991."
So homicides are bad, but the numbers are improving and the victims have gotten the death by gun shot, not tortured a few times first as in Europe.
For the instances of torture in Europe, pick out the stats for murders, missing people and a good portion of the suicides who "failed" to die when tortured!
At spot no. 48 USA comes in with 12.6 per 100 000 people.
At spot no. 102 Norway comes in with 9.3 per 100 K people.
Hurray! At spot no. 123 United Kingdom comes in with 7.4 per 100 K people.
Now, from the above and given Europe's tendency to sodomy, corruption and lying for the facade, also for protection (because a wounded prey in Europe usually gets "taken" quickly).
You know, I happen to think that USA takes it (accepts the deaths, some also "beautiful"), all factors considered! (Don't say you're young, please, because then you have quite a bit of learning to do!)
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Some additional:
Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
(This blog-posting is intended to develop and more will appear.)
The comments will show that I favour the character and traits of USA in defending the dignity of the humans living there. USA has an important advantage by the 2nd Amendment that ensures a real defence of people who have the pistol or revolver. Even in face of crime, the pistol or revolver secures a fairly painless and quick death or an injury that's fairly clean, i.e., the bullet penetrates in a straight manner often creating a mere flesh wound. Even the fractured bones from gunshot wounds should be possible to heal given some time for this.
We have:
(I start with Norway as crime typical for Europe)
From https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/lovbrudda/aar/2015-04-15?fane=tabell#content there is 372 107 complaints filed to the police which is 72,8 complaints per 1000 inhabitants/Norwegians for 2014, newest numbers.
So we see that "respectable" Norway has a good deal of crime to handle. There's no Eden here.
Sources:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat - Various statistics for Europe, also crime.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats - Crime for USA.
http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.main.MHSUICIDE?lang=en - Suicides for every country.
https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/statistikker/lovbrudda/aar/2015-04-15?fane=tabell#content - Complaints filed to the police in Norway.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ - Guns in the world, also those privately owned.
"Straight" USA allows its citizens to defend by handweapons, tazers and peppersprays! "Corrupt/Crooked" Europe has all this practically banned, especially after Behring Breivik. Note!
"Straight" USA also has the death penalty for these depraved monsters who commit atrocities with the full mental report of them to go!
At least for suicides:
It's stated that "Approximately one-half of suicides are committed by firearm, accounting for two-thirds of all firearms deaths. [21,334 of 33,599 in 2014]"[24-reference]
Those are decent suicides! In Europe we do all sorts of crazy things in order to (finally) die because either it's the corrupt authorities hunting the suicide candidates only to get more torture on them. A corruption we in Europe usually never can do anything about because the self-protection is outlawed, that is, guns, pepperspray, tazers and killer knives. And that's after the 20 times the suicide candidates "bounce" about before they ide!
"The same article [USA Today] stated that there are far fewer homicides than suicides in the country; in fact, homicide rates have fallen by half in the U.S. since 1991."
So homicides are bad, but the numbers are improving and the victims have gotten the death by gun shot, not tortured a few times first as in Europe.
For the instances of torture in Europe, pick out the stats for murders, missing people and a good portion of the suicides who "failed" to die when tortured!
At spot no. 48 USA comes in with 12.6 per 100 000 people.
At spot no. 102 Norway comes in with 9.3 per 100 K people.
Hurray! At spot no. 123 United Kingdom comes in with 7.4 per 100 K people.
Now, from the above and given Europe's tendency to sodomy, corruption and lying for the facade, also for protection (because a wounded prey in Europe usually gets "taken" quickly).
You know, I happen to think that USA takes it (accepts the deaths, some also "beautiful"), all factors considered! (Don't say you're young, please, because then you have quite a bit of learning to do!)
Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States
Some additional:
Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
(This blog-posting is intended to develop and more will appear.)
Sunday, 21 July 2013
The Human Being of Law - The Legal Duties of the Future
One should remember that the divide between right and wrong, is by some people considered the start of civilisation and that this effort stands on top of history that extends more than 2000 years of human thought and anguish for the missing steps up here. As this is noted, we start:
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system.
2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.
3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM, of the science, and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.
4. Legislation is on top. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak.
Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for securing best-practice legal work.
You should note my point on Gödel, the German logician, in Phil. Notes, that this text leaves no room. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for.
Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak). Thus, this comes natural.
I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for the dubious parts of the World)...
I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you need legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.
When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information, by the privacy laws, as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.
Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services. Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again. Extra efforts should be made to secure system for this, that doesn't fall to crime/corruption.
A possible interpretation by myself of the original 9th Amendment from the Constitution of USA:
How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute.
This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost).
Remember still, though, that Law Enforcement has to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going.
Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.
An inevitable list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:
1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism, that is, "monkey business", of "energy problem", as fixation or modus operandi, from the lunatic is here addressed specifically.
2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past. Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.
3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.
4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.
5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.
This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)
The difference between de jure legal person/human being of law is key in this text, as should be clear to all, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by www.brreg.no. On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is novel in legal theory, that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"!
The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, www.brreg.no ): well, well, it relates to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and_corporation_by_estoppel.
The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/opinions-on-philosophy-of-law-maybe-bit.html.
Term: person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
See also: corporation party - from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516.
I add the Norwegian terms just for the possibility of misinterpretation to become zero. There is also a slight development of language that I'd like to address:
Juridisk person.
Fysisk person.
(Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)
Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.
There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.
For the legal systems to progress further from this year, 2013, as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have lied most blatantly!"
Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).
Practical example for the common societies:
On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,
Start
Go www.google.com/search
Do
has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"
Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.
Some practical implications for the highest legal matters, the military and the intelligence services:
A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22820711. That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!
Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism.
Advice to the public: You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...
Notes:
1. However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
2. I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.
3. This text is repeated so that it becomes more clear to people around the World. It also holds great importance to all of humanity and may imply a historical shift in near future.
4. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
That my work in it has effectuated: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the full extent of these to the people's benefits. See specific text for best wording (above, else).
5. I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and that I know this is worthy for the Nobel Prize of Literature or the Peace Prize in the extended sense, people relying on the future of humanity.
6. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!
References:
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.
--------------------------
A sub-note to The Human Being of Law is this, as matter of underlying support, given the complexity of the nature of human being and much ground to improve on, legally:
[Text to the attacks on "The Stranger": ]
Additional Considerations to the "Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers", also known as "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple.
Under John Lennon's Imagine still, a sharing of story between two friends occur, of the dangers of the World and how to solve them, specifically the ones described by "The Stranger" by Camus. At the time of writing this could have been under "Hey Jude", Beatles, too, but this reference has been beyond me at the time.
The story we speak of is a loose version of the text to follow, Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers (not homosexual here, but rather in the sense of two male friends who may happen to double-date time and again, i.e., perfect lovers). With notions of "flow psychology", not entirely described as flow psychology at the time and feeling a great rush of history reading, "of flying on oceans of time", I write:
[No room (for them)/"instant"] Full organs, The Stranger isn't the Bible. Full guitars blow! [Maximum power.]
The text without the vocalisation of the above, but there by assumptions.
The text,
[Text, ending with vocal "end-signature": Perfect lovers slash perfect strangers]
After text, it should be noted that as a friend to friend "trick", in finding a friend to stay with, one is asked to consider "Perfect Lovers slash Perfect Strangers" as a slider that one seeks to improve, at least as a matter between oneself and the other person.
"Go!" ("The Stranger" no more?)
A note on psychology, with "Don't talk to strangers", Karl Marx forgets that estrangement from the means of production, fails the higher target of ensuring non-estrangement of human kind, that McCarthyism in ousting communism succeeds in three, 3, targets, the human rights, the democracy and the psychology to go, human being to human being. It's complex to be find the best line for human beings and the story of the human being, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens extend some 200 000 years by loose memory. Check yourself, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU.
Marked by Christianity, McCarthyism wins through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy, USA withholding both Religion and personal weaponry while ousting Communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel).
The French are now up to the arms in Pierre Duhem and Christianity and Family, Monarchy and France, while "Abolition" has to leave the scene for the next 100 years at least, by my own estimate. Death penalty, by Payment Slips Laws (slip laws) and common-sense punishment of criminals, should be in everywhere, for the same 100 years, give or take some.
France going at its matters, USA and World (France incl.) may take on a new kind of corruption fighting by McCarthyism 2.0, a much more refined McCarthyism that has "the right people with it", like the broader, transparent set-ups of "Citizens' Commissions of Law and Order" and wide public coverage (avoiding hysteria and foul play at the same time).
The World is encumbered by many issues, but with USA at a headstart, I've encourage EU, China and Japan to rush the same way too, leaving the bug(g)s (as in sandbogs) of corruption behind.
This text only speaks for the rare or moderate uses of the death penalty.
There is no neck-over-head pro-death penalty from myself to this, The Human Being of Law, that also has to comply with "Accordance-Realism-Pragmatism-Utopianism" (ehhh... Utopianism in the scope of 200+ years) of Political Theory.
The Human Being of Law - Definition
The use of "The Human Being of Law" in this context refers to an ideal of the human being and the fact that this particular achievement does the following: it represents "The Theoretical Legal Guarantee for Being the Human Being" in such terms that now Rule of Law and the legal systems will always provide the reach for achieving the best of human kind in terms of the ideal of The Human Being, of Humanity, and that this is as big as it's possible to get in Science of Law, the Legal Sciences!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Science_of_Law.
Doctor of law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence: From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.
Legal philosophy has many branches, with four types being the most common. The most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law, ranging from contract to tort to Constitutional Law. Legal encyclopedias, law reviews, and law school textbooks frequently contain this type of jurisprudential scholarship.
The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The purpose of this type of study is to enlighten each field of knowledge by sharing insights that have proven to be important in advancing essential features of the compared discipline.
The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law itself. These questions seek to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural underpinnings of a particular legal concept. The Common Law (1881), written by oliver wendell holmes jr., is a well-known example of this type of jurisprudence. It traces the evolution of civil and criminal responsibility from undeveloped societies where liability for injuries was based on subjective notions of revenge, to modern societies where liability is based on objective notions of reasonableness.
The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more abstract questions, including, What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?
Four schools of jurisprudence have attempted to answer these questions: formalism proposes that law is a science; realism holds that law is just another name for politics; Positivism suggests that law must be confined to the written rules and regulations enacted or recognized by the government; and naturalism maintains that the law must reflect eternal principles of justice and morality that exist independent of governmental recognition.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Mine: Formalist!
Formalism is by this realised by conventions of linguistic science and the Conventionalism of Poincare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventionalism.
See for instance Formalism by Martin Stone in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law by J. Coleman and S. Shapiro, OUP, 2002, repr. 2004.
My "Human Being" presides over these notions from history describing human as animals. As a start for exposing this literature, I've chosen to start with Aristotle's Politics where humans are being described as political animals in what I see as the start of a plan to make a structure for the transition of humans from animalistic humans to human beings. Aristotle lives in 384 to 322 BCE in (Ancient) Greece.
Recommendation, The Human Being of Law:
I recommend that the people who go away "in" suicide can do so with legal silence, i.e., the laws concerning the suicide victims themselves must be erased/abolished for not being valid anymore (or enter legal sleep).
This follows the logic "after the Bible" so to speak, that a person is either admitted "in" to "herb" euthanasia/suicide or offered credible/definite protection against the attacks on this person's belief (in God) or adviced to seek suicide elsewhere "with blessings to go", so as to not condemn anyone "with a heart of malice or any else thereof".
The Legal Context:
The laws are abolished/erased by traditional approach as 1st step. Then the next steps are to make the case for more formal euthanasia/social code suicides, in dignity, by understanding the hardship some people go through and leaving life in escaping it all, as should be plain, death being the highest price to pay (and not for these "psychopaths" to seek torture in full before the last breath on Earth).
The Religious context:
In a sense, this above text provides a 3-Options respectful approach to people of (deep) despair, one of which is most desirable, to be able to protect the fellow human being of religious faith ...foremost.
Thus, at least for a start, this person of despair is requested to seek a person (inside Church) worth of trust.
Formalism as project toward book can be given this title:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!
"Inner note": Formalism is to be known publicly:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!
Formalism admits NO deficiencies to other aspects of Jurisprudence and Phil. of Law.
"In citing the Martin Stone article of Formalism by Oxford Handbook, as above/former."
The Human Being of Law
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.
Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)
(This is a new position to be known in the World, as with Accordance Realism-Pragmatism-Utopian.)
In addition, time in logics can be solved like this:
Predicate logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
Sentential logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...)
Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal...
Frame logics for time, doing it properly/by stiff structure, the logical schema is presented by the below,
UoD: Everything (by default) for all frames/both frames.
t(1):
t(2):
t(x, as many as needed...)
[The declared list, general/definite, i.e., by predicates x and singular r, s, t, u, all that's needed from a to u, as usual.]
Argument, Frame 1 - Code: Fx. the murder, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(1): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Argument, Frame 2 - Code: Fx. time elapsing after, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(2): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Argument, Frame X - Code: Fx. time all else, time so and so, including year, possibly, all legal reasoning entailed, physics reasoning for physics, etc. ["Heh-heh-heh", also for the political attempt]
t(X): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Warning!
To think that "any legal system walks", failing the Police Act and police instructions in rife manners, approving every state crime and every criminal, prompts this:
"The condition of our legal system has coerced me into these killings. I'm without guilt. You are the atrocity, preventing everyone their rightful life!"
To say that the use of the word "torture", people to people, makes this only worse because "in one sense or thousands", the use of torture, secretly, moving in the bling of academic title after is d*mn FACT, a mere rope "as passion with the twisted mind looking for perfect evil"!
There is a worsening fact too now that the Human Being of Law has been established, making these failures to duties and lawful behaviour most evident!
"That violations of my Human Rights, Articles [xyz], UDHR/ECHR..."
The Legal Systems of the World - The "Developed" Countries
The definition of a legal system that defeats itself is one that promotes crime as acceptable/"allows crime openly" among the general population.
Because states/nations are acting like this, suppressing various alarming statistics, one being the instances of torture, the law-abiding/lawfully behaving citizens are pushed into being logical dissidents to their states/nations.
Their "weapons" as straight facts or not, at the disposal:
Betrayal in return (because the state/nation isn't...)
The political attempt (with many targets now)
All other demonstrating acts (as d*mn objection)... Everything...
(Examples of big failures: China and the one-child policy and WWF, with parts of Greenpeace or not, and their promise to deliver leadership by "national parks" that has turned to... 7,1 Bn people... much insect-culture on the planet...)
The World has entered a dangerous condition! (Black laughter or not!)
PS: The two largest human rights organisations make this no better, HRW (with the personal weapons) and Amnesty International (with European peace and law ideals)... always with "calm down" as one of the loudest responses... psychology concerns...!
PS2: Logicians looking for fuzzy logic expressions, police state (unwanted = 0) and democracy (wanted, maximally as idea into reality = 1). How is yours? (Rather than one of the "glider" expressions, one from one of my original accounts (2 exactly) on (D)Arpanet as newsservers/discussion boards.
To add strength to the World more:
All national assemblies are bound too, as much as the highest level courts are bound to laws and regulations and truth on a "no-mistake-basis" (also by "overturning principle" by the properly qualified lawyers). We write:
The laws are to work deeper and simultaneously strengthen the already existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the notion that any law can pass is only brain-hypothesis-entertainment with no value as such other than to entertain fantasies of "this and that"! (I.e., taken out and shot in being shameful!)
Police too, checked from all angles, the 3 perfect parts form democracy! With media serving the public, being the 4th, crucial parts being, for the time being, legal system reporting and reports on weapons, lethal and non-lethal, outside World too.
However... By police state and fuzzy logic:
To gain a reading of the police state as degree into your life and your view of society, effectively, you only need to "factor in" your own personal unrest/uneasiness/worries in order to have a clue of where to set the fuzzy logic value! Good?
The Humanistic Oath for Leaders!
There is this suggestion to require ALL LEADERS to lay down a humanistic oath, committing them to proper leadership in accordance with laws and regulations, incl. the Human Rights (ECHR/UDHR)! This may make all these leaders liable to harder punishment or harder sentencing in the Court of Law!
The above is logically placed, also, with "100 % Society", as ...
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/05/100-society-matter-of-political-science.html - The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science.
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/11/straight-addition-to-100-society.html - A Straight Addition to 100% Society - Philosophy of Politics.
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system.
2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.
3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM, of the science, and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.
4. Legislation is on top. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak.
Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for securing best-practice legal work.
You should note my point on Gödel, the German logician, in Phil. Notes, that this text leaves no room. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for.
Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak). Thus, this comes natural.
I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for the dubious parts of the World)...
I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you need legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.
When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information, by the privacy laws, as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages.
Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services. Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again. Extra efforts should be made to secure system for this, that doesn't fall to crime/corruption.
A possible interpretation by myself of the original 9th Amendment from the Constitution of USA:
How the laws are numbered/organised shall not be construed in such a way that people are denied or disparaged the protection of law, because they, secondarily, the people (or their representing lawyers, of old), fail to identify them, impliedly, of these laws that are, of course, represented by we, the people! Thus the protection by law is absolute.
This relates to the Science of Jurisdiction/Law and Philosophy of Law.
As soon as the letter of the Laws is broken, the rights for absolute privacy fall away by definition and the perpetrator(s) fall(s) into the category of possible persecution (by law enforcement, first and foremost).
Remember still, though, that Law Enforcement has to obtain evidence in a legal manner, that is, after reports have been filed... or after a sting operation we managed to... You know where this is going.
Judges, especially of the lower courts may be doing mistakes too. Therefore, the trust put in them by their colleagues higher up may be deeply misplaced. As the judges of the lower courts are seen as more or less error-free, expecting the system to accommodate for mistakes, that is, to correct them (by the appeal system), the whole system gets corrupted. This may be the cumulative effects we live with today! Not only the courts are a problem, but the police, special interests Laws by lobbying groups, by companies or else and so on! This makes it definite that there is room for a lot of improvement, by system and so on.
An inevitable list of modern notions to (every) Philosophy of Law, I introduce to you:
1. I've made a novel move in terms of describing the real and hard criminal nature of "monkey business", in conjunction with mSomatism, that is, "monkey business", of "energy problem", as fixation or modus operandi, from the lunatic is here addressed specifically.
2. I've suggested a national assembly approved official commentary that is to support the courts and reduce the amounts of precedents, so also as to diminish their mistaken authority throughout the World, even if they have served us to some good extent in the past. Germany is explicitly on the move in this respect.
3. I've described the definitive relations between the national assembly, the courts, and the police forces, so as to make the lines of duty more clear and to reduce any illusion of "self-made-policies" in that auto-generated sense. This is really /the/ policies killer, withholding the far more serious "police instructions", fx.
4. I've made Objective Ethics including the crucial 4 methods of lie-detection to be used, potentially, at the same time, inside the police "interrogation room"/"questioning room". These are, of course, (f)MRI, "a swim hat of sensors", voice-stress analyzer, mimicry, including eye-dialation, and polygraph-testing, the reaction of body to nervousness in exuding sweat, essentially.
5. I have, together with others, suggested to film all cases in the courts so as to heavily reduce poor judge performance in the long run and to definitely place the possibilities for democratic control well within the proper hands of democratic care-takers! So that the court-archives will take on the most definite character and leave no doubt how the case has run. Some set-ups may even contain one or more of these 4 methods above.
This should speak well for me in demolishing any legal Hilbert's program! (Hilbert for insiders.)
The difference between de jure legal person/human being of law is key in this text, as should be clear to all, i.e., the companies, like Coca-Cola, with the company registry numbers to go, in Norway given by www.brreg.no. On the contrary, with insights to go, I am establishing The Human Being of Law for everybody, that is, I establish the legal guarantee (in theory, stiffening the duties for lawyers and others considerably) for seeing through human beings as individuals and this is novel in legal theory, that of course, is subdued by my adversaries here and there on planet Earth, so plainly withholding the points by lying/"pro-active ignorance"!
The plain de jure human being of law, like the Coca-Cola company (Norw. comp. registry, www.brreg.no ): well, well, it relates to this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto_corporation_and_corporation_by_estoppel.
The Human Being of Law (that I'm writing about), leading up to the burning of "tons" of precedents in USA: http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/09/opinions-on-philosophy-of-law-maybe-bit.html.
Term: person
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
See also: corporation party - from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1516.
I add the Norwegian terms just for the possibility of misinterpretation to become zero. There is also a slight development of language that I'd like to address:
Juridisk person.
Fysisk person.
(Issuing this comes from the Norwegian legal separation of "physical person" (NO: fysisk person), how an ordinary person is addressed in the Norwegian legal system. On the other hand, companies are addressed as "legal person" or "legal human being" and I happen to think that there's some convention for this "here or there" in Europe, perhaps also in USA, despite my lack of legal nomenclature.)
Given my position by mSomatism, I see no other choice than to commit all citizens to have a pistol/revolver for personal security so that human nature can continue to progress (faster/more steadily) in order to be better human beings, i.e., the biggest challenge in the World today is to make human kind a better human kind and it will probably also take more death penalties in order to happen.
There is no need for pause for when to make these politics to have effect, that is, please, get it into life as soon as possible.
For the legal systems to progress further from this year, 2013, as the weapons enter, so goes the death penalty in too, Worldwide, "because the advocates for the abolition of the death penalty have lied most blatantly!"
Most importantly: this text approves "weapons to all citizens" for the next 50 years most certainly, and minimally, under The Human Being of Law, that I hold as name, because I have created it, it belongs to my name as my contribution to the World (of intellectuality).
Practical example for the common societies:
On Copyrights and APIs (from some time ago),
I better make a comment on a verdict some time ago on copyrights and APIs.
First of all, I think there is a general note on novelty. A copyright is bought and sold on appeal, on attractiveness, on effort.
Secondly, there are formal requirements that demand that you have made it, you are the maker/creator of a particular copyright (other circumstances may obtain under reasonable agreement between some parties).
Thirdly, let the market test whether a person has been invited to make,
Start
Go www.google.com/search
Do
has something to show for or not. Either way, any person bringing something "to the market", has an undeniable right to say that this given person actually has accomplished this, no matter how small. A smaller consideration is whether this is an inside invitation from fx. Google to this person to make this come true, i.e., is this some kind of "fixed"/"hypothetical" problem? "Have they invited problems to the table?"
Conclusion must be that copyright is still, generally, impossible to question and that the copyright-creators need to show for the work they've completed and want to bring to the market. The buyers or users need to wait for (proper) availability.
Some practical implications for the highest legal matters, the military and the intelligence services:
A slight note on US story of surveillance by BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22820711. That the World outside USA should fiercely/openly report US demands for intel outside own legal domain and that we should demand that the US servers are to be protected for "outside-US citizens" as well as US citizens in having the same (business) rights as US citizens on *US soil*, that invokes/includes a long-standing tradition. USA has no evident rights to claim full invasion of privacy against foreigners on US soil! This destroys some military ill-founded conceptions with them!
Secondly, the "after-Echelon" efforts by Microsoft and others should be demanded to gain a new transparent status such that the business standards are well kept again outside sinister-idiot-(military)-scheming for "greed" and "power", by (former) Financial Radicalism.
Advice to the public: You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...
Notes:
1. However, as a crime (letter of the Laws...) has taken place, everyone has either the duty or possibility to file a report to the police about their "suspicions"/sightings/what they've witnessed!
2. I'm inspired by Nancy Grace and we may share some "context" here.
3. This text is repeated so that it becomes more clear to people around the World. It also holds great importance to all of humanity and may imply a historical shift in near future.
4. On the (U. S.) American Constitution - The Ninth Amendment
That my work in it has effectuated: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage the full extent of these to the people's benefits. See specific text for best wording (above, else).
5. I'm still the holder of "The Human Being of Law" and that I know this is worthy for the Nobel Prize of Literature or the Peace Prize in the extended sense, people relying on the future of humanity.
6. I insist on mathematical union between Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law as much as Philosophy of Mathematics and Mathematical Philosophy! You may add Physics Philosophy and Philosophy of Physics to this as well!
References:
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.
--------------------------
A sub-note to The Human Being of Law is this, as matter of underlying support, given the complexity of the nature of human being and much ground to improve on, legally:
[Text to the attacks on "The Stranger": ]
Additional Considerations to the "Perfect Lovers Slash Perfect Strangers", also known as "Perfect Strangers" by Deep Purple.
Under John Lennon's Imagine still, a sharing of story between two friends occur, of the dangers of the World and how to solve them, specifically the ones described by "The Stranger" by Camus. At the time of writing this could have been under "Hey Jude", Beatles, too, but this reference has been beyond me at the time.
The story we speak of is a loose version of the text to follow, Perfect Lovers / Perfect Strangers (not homosexual here, but rather in the sense of two male friends who may happen to double-date time and again, i.e., perfect lovers). With notions of "flow psychology", not entirely described as flow psychology at the time and feeling a great rush of history reading, "of flying on oceans of time", I write:
[No room (for them)/"instant"] Full organs, The Stranger isn't the Bible. Full guitars blow! [Maximum power.]
The text without the vocalisation of the above, but there by assumptions.
The text,
[Text, ending with vocal "end-signature": Perfect lovers slash perfect strangers]
After text, it should be noted that as a friend to friend "trick", in finding a friend to stay with, one is asked to consider "Perfect Lovers slash Perfect Strangers" as a slider that one seeks to improve, at least as a matter between oneself and the other person.
"Go!" ("The Stranger" no more?)
A note on psychology, with "Don't talk to strangers", Karl Marx forgets that estrangement from the means of production, fails the higher target of ensuring non-estrangement of human kind, that McCarthyism in ousting communism succeeds in three, 3, targets, the human rights, the democracy and the psychology to go, human being to human being. It's complex to be find the best line for human beings and the story of the human being, from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens extend some 200 000 years by loose memory. Check yourself, please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ_kez7WVUU.
Marked by Christianity, McCarthyism wins through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy, USA withholding both Religion and personal weaponry while ousting Communism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stranger_(novel).
The French are now up to the arms in Pierre Duhem and Christianity and Family, Monarchy and France, while "Abolition" has to leave the scene for the next 100 years at least, by my own estimate. Death penalty, by Payment Slips Laws (slip laws) and common-sense punishment of criminals, should be in everywhere, for the same 100 years, give or take some.
France going at its matters, USA and World (France incl.) may take on a new kind of corruption fighting by McCarthyism 2.0, a much more refined McCarthyism that has "the right people with it", like the broader, transparent set-ups of "Citizens' Commissions of Law and Order" and wide public coverage (avoiding hysteria and foul play at the same time).
The World is encumbered by many issues, but with USA at a headstart, I've encourage EU, China and Japan to rush the same way too, leaving the bug(g)s (as in sandbogs) of corruption behind.
This text only speaks for the rare or moderate uses of the death penalty.
There is no neck-over-head pro-death penalty from myself to this, The Human Being of Law, that also has to comply with "Accordance-Realism-Pragmatism-Utopianism" (ehhh... Utopianism in the scope of 200+ years) of Political Theory.
The Human Being of Law - Definition
The use of "The Human Being of Law" in this context refers to an ideal of the human being and the fact that this particular achievement does the following: it represents "The Theoretical Legal Guarantee for Being the Human Being" in such terms that now Rule of Law and the legal systems will always provide the reach for achieving the best of human kind in terms of the ideal of The Human Being, of Humanity, and that this is as big as it's possible to get in Science of Law, the Legal Sciences!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_the_Science_of_Law.
Doctor of law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/jurisprudence: From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.
Legal philosophy has many branches, with four types being the most common. The most prevalent form of jurisprudence seeks to analyze, explain, classify, and criticize entire bodies of law, ranging from contract to tort to Constitutional Law. Legal encyclopedias, law reviews, and law school textbooks frequently contain this type of jurisprudential scholarship.
The second type of jurisprudence compares and contrasts law with other fields of knowledge such as literature, economics, religion, and the social sciences. The purpose of this type of study is to enlighten each field of knowledge by sharing insights that have proven to be important in advancing essential features of the compared discipline.
The third type of jurisprudence raises fundamental questions about the law itself. These questions seek to reveal the historical, moral, and cultural underpinnings of a particular legal concept. The Common Law (1881), written by oliver wendell holmes jr., is a well-known example of this type of jurisprudence. It traces the evolution of civil and criminal responsibility from undeveloped societies where liability for injuries was based on subjective notions of revenge, to modern societies where liability is based on objective notions of reasonableness.
The fourth and fastest-growing body of jurisprudence focuses on even more abstract questions, including, What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?
Four schools of jurisprudence have attempted to answer these questions: formalism proposes that law is a science; realism holds that law is just another name for politics; Positivism suggests that law must be confined to the written rules and regulations enacted or recognized by the government; and naturalism maintains that the law must reflect eternal principles of justice and morality that exist independent of governmental recognition.
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Mine: Formalist!
Formalism is by this realised by conventions of linguistic science and the Conventionalism of Poincare. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventionalism.
See for instance Formalism by Martin Stone in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence & Philosophy of Law by J. Coleman and S. Shapiro, OUP, 2002, repr. 2004.
My "Human Being" presides over these notions from history describing human as animals. As a start for exposing this literature, I've chosen to start with Aristotle's Politics where humans are being described as political animals in what I see as the start of a plan to make a structure for the transition of humans from animalistic humans to human beings. Aristotle lives in 384 to 322 BCE in (Ancient) Greece.
Recommendation, The Human Being of Law:
I recommend that the people who go away "in" suicide can do so with legal silence, i.e., the laws concerning the suicide victims themselves must be erased/abolished for not being valid anymore (or enter legal sleep).
This follows the logic "after the Bible" so to speak, that a person is either admitted "in" to "herb" euthanasia/suicide or offered credible/definite protection against the attacks on this person's belief (in God) or adviced to seek suicide elsewhere "with blessings to go", so as to not condemn anyone "with a heart of malice or any else thereof".
The Legal Context:
The laws are abolished/erased by traditional approach as 1st step. Then the next steps are to make the case for more formal euthanasia/social code suicides, in dignity, by understanding the hardship some people go through and leaving life in escaping it all, as should be plain, death being the highest price to pay (and not for these "psychopaths" to seek torture in full before the last breath on Earth).
The Religious context:
In a sense, this above text provides a 3-Options respectful approach to people of (deep) despair, one of which is most desirable, to be able to protect the fellow human being of religious faith ...foremost.
Thus, at least for a start, this person of despair is requested to seek a person (inside Church) worth of trust.
Formalism as project toward book can be given this title:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!
"Inner note": Formalism is to be known publicly:
Formalism - in Being Realist - Science Abiding
(inside book:) in tribulating the success of Formalism!
Formalism admits NO deficiencies to other aspects of Jurisprudence and Phil. of Law.
"In citing the Martin Stone article of Formalism by Oxford Handbook, as above/former."
The Human Being of Law
- Formalism (strongest - note) has formerly "won" the Human Rights, UDHR and ECHR alike, also to service globally! Please, see reference with the UN.
Philosophy of Law: Legal Reasoning Closure Principle Philosopher, legal reasoning, being valid, has to comply with logical entailment and that this is minimally the claim that it does, apart from the (many book) examples that it does. (This is only a formal note, not the text for lawyers to actually having to sit and make these logical texts themselves, i.e., to burden them with much extra work.)
(This is a new position to be known in the World, as with Accordance Realism-Pragmatism-Utopian.)
In addition, time in logics can be solved like this:
Predicate logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: Km (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: Lm (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: Bm (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
Sentential logic,
UoD
20:20 PM, 2013-09-09: K (person m is suspected to have committed a murder)
20:20 [...]: L (person m after the time of murder)
20:20 [...]: B (person m before the time of the murder)
so on...
(Again, predicate logic is a bit more powerful...)
Additionally, you can check up various time-logics yourself, sentential, predicate, modal...
Frame logics for time, doing it properly/by stiff structure, the logical schema is presented by the below,
UoD: Everything (by default) for all frames/both frames.
t(1):
t(2):
t(x, as many as needed...)
[The declared list, general/definite, i.e., by predicates x and singular r, s, t, u, all that's needed from a to u, as usual.]
Argument, Frame 1 - Code: Fx. the murder, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(1): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Argument, Frame 2 - Code: Fx. time elapsing after, time so and so, including year, possibly.
t(2): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Argument, Frame X - Code: Fx. time all else, time so and so, including year, possibly, all legal reasoning entailed, physics reasoning for physics, etc. ["Heh-heh-heh", also for the political attempt]
t(X): [time reiterated for orderliness]
[Under UoD from above, the deduction and worded outline proceed.]
Warning!
To think that "any legal system walks", failing the Police Act and police instructions in rife manners, approving every state crime and every criminal, prompts this:
"The condition of our legal system has coerced me into these killings. I'm without guilt. You are the atrocity, preventing everyone their rightful life!"
To say that the use of the word "torture", people to people, makes this only worse because "in one sense or thousands", the use of torture, secretly, moving in the bling of academic title after is d*mn FACT, a mere rope "as passion with the twisted mind looking for perfect evil"!
There is a worsening fact too now that the Human Being of Law has been established, making these failures to duties and lawful behaviour most evident!
"That violations of my Human Rights, Articles [xyz], UDHR/ECHR..."
The Legal Systems of the World - The "Developed" Countries
The definition of a legal system that defeats itself is one that promotes crime as acceptable/"allows crime openly" among the general population.
Because states/nations are acting like this, suppressing various alarming statistics, one being the instances of torture, the law-abiding/lawfully behaving citizens are pushed into being logical dissidents to their states/nations.
Their "weapons" as straight facts or not, at the disposal:
Betrayal in return (because the state/nation isn't...)
The political attempt (with many targets now)
All other demonstrating acts (as d*mn objection)... Everything...
(Examples of big failures: China and the one-child policy and WWF, with parts of Greenpeace or not, and their promise to deliver leadership by "national parks" that has turned to... 7,1 Bn people... much insect-culture on the planet...)
The World has entered a dangerous condition! (Black laughter or not!)
PS: The two largest human rights organisations make this no better, HRW (with the personal weapons) and Amnesty International (with European peace and law ideals)... always with "calm down" as one of the loudest responses... psychology concerns...!
PS2: Logicians looking for fuzzy logic expressions, police state (unwanted = 0) and democracy (wanted, maximally as idea into reality = 1). How is yours? (Rather than one of the "glider" expressions, one from one of my original accounts (2 exactly) on (D)Arpanet as newsservers/discussion boards.
To add strength to the World more:
All national assemblies are bound too, as much as the highest level courts are bound to laws and regulations and truth on a "no-mistake-basis" (also by "overturning principle" by the properly qualified lawyers). We write:
The laws are to work deeper and simultaneously strengthen the already existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the notion that any law can pass is only brain-hypothesis-entertainment with no value as such other than to entertain fantasies of "this and that"! (I.e., taken out and shot in being shameful!)
Police too, checked from all angles, the 3 perfect parts form democracy! With media serving the public, being the 4th, crucial parts being, for the time being, legal system reporting and reports on weapons, lethal and non-lethal, outside World too.
However... By police state and fuzzy logic:
To gain a reading of the police state as degree into your life and your view of society, effectively, you only need to "factor in" your own personal unrest/uneasiness/worries in order to have a clue of where to set the fuzzy logic value! Good?
The Humanistic Oath for Leaders!
There is this suggestion to require ALL LEADERS to lay down a humanistic oath, committing them to proper leadership in accordance with laws and regulations, incl. the Human Rights (ECHR/UDHR)! This may make all these leaders liable to harder punishment or harder sentencing in the Court of Law!
The above is logically placed, also, with "100 % Society", as ...
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2012/05/100-society-matter-of-political-science.html - The 100% Society - A Matter of Political Science.
- http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.no/2011/11/straight-addition-to-100-society.html - A Straight Addition to 100% Society - Philosophy of Politics.
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide - The Argument has Now Grown into a Whole Full Bodied Power
Examination! Time for "inquisition"! I've made this topic because I think there are some (really) disgusting or stupid arguments against (Assisted) Suicide.
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:
The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:
"The Intellectual Defence"
It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".
The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:
Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.
Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)
Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.
First of all, those who seriously argue for the right to (Assisted) Suicide (A)S seems to have the greatest integrity of the subject they're speaking of. Necessarily, those who oppose it, are on the outside of the situation, but may very well have been considering (Assisted) Suicide in the past.
Now, one person, Simone, argues in favour:
1. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great pain and are bound to die (terminally ill).
2. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are losing their mind (fx. Alzheimer's).
3. People like to have the possibility to die, (A)S, if they are in great mental pain/distress to which there's no hope and there's no-one willing to significantly change the situation.
4. Combination of two or more of 1., 2. and 3.
5. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent.
6. People should have the possibility to (A)S so that people aren't forced to compromise on themselves to any extent (by 1., 2., 3. and 4.), calling the situation for what it is, making the possibility to (A)S possibly less restrictive.
7. There's more dignity in dying reasonably healthy and able (by/implied by X. in post #4 on the PF forum).
8. If I have no constructive role in society, being an adult, and I have the urge to commit suicide. It should be my right to commit this suicide or else I might get involved with illegal guns and homicide(s). Being an adult involves knowing what's best for yourself as you are closest to yourself and clearly then, I'm ethically/lawfully entitled to choose my destiny of suicide in my own opinion. Therefore, also, I demand it!
9. We should allow people to die by 1. and 2., possibly also by 3., 5. and 6. because it's the decent approach to the matters (by Apathy Kills in post #18 on the PF forum). There's a certain power in using the word, "decent", here and I'd like you to contemplate this.
10. The fact that people are driven down to basic instincts, into corners of despair, forced to compromise on themselves is necessarily leading to unnecessary friction and unhealthy tendencies in society. (A)S should therefore be allowed! (I think this is slightly different than 4. and 5.)
11. Acknowledging point 5. of the opposition, I do still think the defacto performance of society in telling people to "get out of the way" in a possibly hidden and cruel manner (if nothing else then implicitly by use of threats and fear) is true whether this is unexpressed or not (because I can think of such thought as having existence, plausibly).
(It should be noted that assisted suicides if they become legal, always are qualified (by whatever requirements), assisted suicides. This is implicit, but now it's explicit!)
One person, Peter, argues against:
1. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because of (my) (presumably) view of the sanctity of life.
2. People should not have the possibility to die, (A)S, because (unfounded) "it's the wrong signal to give".
3. In the case of older people, they may (mis-) perceive their burden on family and friends in an unproportionate way and thus wrongly requesting, wanting or actually committing suicide.
4. There simply is no unbearable/painful situation and therefore all suicides are wrong.
5. By allowing people suicide, one may give a (possibly subtle) signal that people should "get out of the way" and consequently devalue the human life. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (This may likely be the real argument of 2. while 2. is just a "social" signal of ambiguity.)
6. By denying people (assisted) suicide, one (unfounded) prevents possibly a number of suicides. Therefore, suicide should not be legal. (By atightropewalker in post #47.)
It seems to me to be common to somehow discredit the person who wants to commit suicide by being in doubt of the person's intelligence, sanity or cognition of circumstances.
I'd like you to add arguments to either of these two people. I'd also like you to list possible hidden motives with either of these two persons.
Like this:
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people die in severe pain and I also like the melancholy of thinking so."
Hidden, Peter, "I like the fact that people go through great pains before getting finally getting it done in all sorts of funny ways. Heck, it's a jungle out there and I'm an explorer!"
Hidden, Peter, "If we give people the possibility to (A)S, people can't be kept as virtual slaves anymore or forced to compromise on themselves to that extent."
Consequently, I also like you to note the possibilities of Simone having hidden motives and the very nature of them.
I also like to point out the usual ordeal of suicides. You know, people sobbing and complaining about losing someone beloved, but where are the f**king stories of these (deprived) people who commit suicides? Am I supposed to think they killed themselves because of some illusion? Hah, no way! If I'm supposed to think about suicide, it's the freaking last thing, I think about! I think it's so bloody clear, but people just shut up out of politeness or something. Psychiatry should have rife possibilities on telling people what kind of conditions that drive people into suicide, but do they? F**king never!
Objectively, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take effect and thus be effectuated or denied.
You may find this interesting: "Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind
Edwin S. Shneidman, Ph.D., 2004, Oxford University Press.
Autopsy of a Suicidal Mind is a uniquely intensive psychological analysis of a suicidal mind. In this poignant scientific study, the author assembles an extraordinary cast of eight renowned experts to analyze the suicidal materials, including a ten-page suicide note, given to him by a distraught mother looking for insights into her son's tragic death. Each of the eight experts offers a unique perspective and the sum of their conclusions constitutes an extraordinary psychological autopsy. This book is the first of its kind and a remarkable contribution to the study of suicide." I note that this is from 2004 (why not 1985?).
Important:
People may say that they don't subscribe to all or some of the points or that they certainly not subscribe to the hidden motives (of some people). Their very subscription may very well be so, but this doesn't undercut the fact that their position may support it, objectively! Undeniably then, every possible argument in the discussion of (A)S will take part and thus be effectuated or denied. It should on the other hand, incline them to take part in the debate of preventing this kind of vicious thinking or act in different ways to prevent suicide altogether. Clearly, they will fail to prevent the possibility of such attitudes and I think the massive problem of suicide and its origins are too great to make any solid impact on the matter by practical action. Surely then, this impels a certain kind of dissemination of information. Has Simone won?
By examining the reasons for suicide, it can become a right to commit suicide. Open discussions will decide the laws in the various legislative domains/states and nations. This right can be qualified by fulfilling a set of requirements. I also think if people have a real chance to commit suicide legally, they will embark on a different procedure in relation to family and friends. There's also a chance that family and friends will care more and be more alert to factors leading to suicidal tendencies and the whole debate may also take on better characteristics.
Following the pattern of abortion that must be said to be very successful if you look closely on the statistics (leading to more: well being of kids, quality time, time for attention and love and so on), excluding, of course, the Christian conservatives (for them, we go the Hell all the same), I think this can turn out well for legalised (assisted) suicides too, that it gets accepted among the greater parts of the population, that for some, suicide by medicines is a good solution to sickness and other. There's nothing in the way for the possibility that near, dear people can take part in one's departure from life. The very (A)S can represent dignity in many ways, not to say fill many empty spaces (to make society "complete").
I think legalising suicide has the capacity to slash the "doctors'" vile, perverse, gruesome "games" quite heavily to put it bluntly (despite their, the medical doctors, Hippocratic oath)!
The final death to the Con-side of legalising (assisted) suicide:
The Hippocratic Oath poses in NO way any more charity toward anti-suicide than the charity of those who are in favour because both sides may equally say that they support the best humanity and the best dignity of it.
Thus, the mere uttering of a certain "devotion" to dignity is no point as such! Therefore, "I claim to follow the Hippocratic Oath" is just a blow in the air in this sense/relation!
Thus, in line with the argument started with as "Pro and Con Arguments of (Assisted) Suicide", I have this to add:
"The Intellectual Defence"
It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen<ref>Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York</ref><ref>http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime. FBI. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314. BBC News. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png. Eurostat. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref><ref>Ref.:
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf. WHO. Retrieved 2012-09-25.</ref>. And that when these are counted there are 5 references all in all, only under the "Intellectual Defence".
The references then under "The Intellectual Defence" are explained as:
Here are the relevant facts FOR THOSE WHO HAVE ACQUIRED THE BOOKS(!!! A hard academic demand). This is also to be known as "The Explanation of the References (for The Int. Def.):
1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York
The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime
FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314
A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png
Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf
A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.
Everybody knows there is a damn hard requirement of reading up FIRST!!! I bet this low "thing" hasn't even checked with Amazon for TOC (of anything). As much as a car can get totalled then also now the opposition that we are to seek out and highlight... (We have a clear conscience...)
Then the logical formal set-up, first we have the sentences (UoD, the entities, the whole disposition will have to wait for now):
1. There is a lot of crime in the World to such extent that even the (principal) ECtHR gets a huge backlog.
The references: Crime takes FBI and Eurostat. ECtHR takes BBC News.
2. And given that torture is part of crime then people may be in a World of hurt "here and there".
The reference: Torture takes Warburton's book. (But AI is also reporting a good deal, although they are very formal. So instead of saying torture they point to "abuse" and "domestic violence" and that children died under "unfortunate" curcumstances. They do avoid the word "torture" because they are part of some kind of political game or something. Annual report from them, although not formally in.)
3. When people are in a World of hurt "here and there", they want to suicide.
The reference: Suicide takes the WHO numbers, both for current (Wikipedia, but link isn't here because...) and this million.
4. People suicide, i.e., the suicide numbers, by hearsay, more than one million deaths every year.
The conclusion here is that people are unquestionably! I don't want to hear the slightest (lying) denial of this! And that this suffering, much because of corruption with the police, lawyers and doctors, cause suicides on the scale mentioned, 1 million in 1999, more than in all wars on Earth combined! I say, LET'S TAKE THEM ON. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE RODENTS NOW AND THAT WE ARE TO PLAY THE WHOLE BOOK OF TRICKS AND MISBEHAVE IN ORDER TO LAND GREATER DIGNITY OUT OF ETHICS AND COSTING THESE RETARDS IN THE PROCESS! Good? Understand?
Of course then, as you can read yourself, enter crime -> ECtHR -> Nigel Warburton -> Suicides! Entailment! Even if these "angel" researchers (clinical/police/sociologists/psychologists/psychiatrists) tell you that they try to help people who are suffering from suicide-issues, i.e., that they consider to kill themselves, what guarantee do you get from them by that? Do they ever so much as (bl*ody) mention a time-scope? Do you see them somewhere in the legal system standing up for anything at all? Do they write sympathically in the newspapers about these issues so as to earn your trust? I can't see them lifting a g*d-d*mn finger for these people who are suffering. And that they do very little in terms of organisation or legal work, even by Amnesty International, domestically (they have duties by AI to care for all), even though, they have gained authority by achieving their degrees. What I figure is that they sit there and do the ordinary and bumble about with little differences to notice whatsoever. So the "entailment" chain of logics above describe these problems, that people are suffering from criminal circumstances so that painful conditions obtain in them (because police, lawyers, and doctors are corrupt, to start with some groups). This argument, along with my description of a possible (class-action) lawsuit are here to alleviate all this awfulness so that at least the theory and the formal deficiencies are described! And this is important beyond words to have this in place. Therefore, this whole argument you see unfolding here may provide for lots of people to either die with dignity or to (consciously) live with dignity. This is the feat of this text on my blog, that we've disclosed these freaked people and that we will fight in order to see increased levels of dignity worldwide!
PS1: I also note that the President of the Norwegian Doctor's Association is against (A)S and that other doctors (tossing in the "authority" and "status") also are usually in favour, citing Hippocratic Oath. This is in no way anything objectional and one is entitled the view, but still... (and silent waters run deep).
PS2: If I, by this, get to inform people and also get to sway opinion into being in favour of (A)S, taking the correct (ethical) view on the issue according to myself, I'll be a very happy person!
Note1: If one allows one suicide, it doesn't necessarily mean that you allow one more suicide. It can be that one "palliative" assisted suicide is prevented or that one actual suicide is prevented. Either way, assisted suicides can't be said to necessarily have a bearing on the total number of suicides, actual or possible.
Note2: stamps from the Philosophy Now forum,
Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:58 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 pm; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:14 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 11:24 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org,
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:28 pm UTC + 1 hour; forum.philosophynow.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)