Do most philosophies agree with each other most of the time? I'll accept that for the majority of everyday transactions (is it right to brush my teeth, pay for my coffee, etc.) the issues are uncontroversial, but do you mean to say that most philosophies will agree on most situations where there is some morality in issue?
Anyway, what do you do when two rules conflict? My suggestion is that universally (or popularly at any rate) accepted laws must apply, even if they are secular and not religious, in order to prevent total social breakdown. For example, in the situation you gave in fn[5], English law would not condemn you for standing by and doing nothing, but you would be very hard pressed to justify pushing the person under the wheels. The only time in the history of English law where it was accepted as an argument was in the Siamese twins case ("Re: A (conjoined twins)") and that was pretty exceptional because the weaker twin was going to die anyway and the obvious utilitarian answer was very strong.
Interestingly enough, in French law you would possibly face prosecution for failing to throw yourself under the wheels as they have a doctrine of enforced altruism towards victims of misfortune!
I suppose the point of those last paragraphs is that at some stage laws have to be formulated prior to the event, and they inevitably have to be general in nature, or at least applied by analogy from existing cases, so you have to sit down beforehand with a general governing philosophy or series of weighted principles which will prevail whenever there is a conflict.
If you want to know why a law has to be formulated in advance, it is because it is a fundamental principle of law and punishment that a person can only be punished according to a law where they had an opportunity to know about it beforehand and modify their behaviour accordingly. In civil law cases where only money is at stake it is possible to be more flexible and result-orientated, but there must be some degree of certainty with criminal law where a person's liberty or life is at stake.
Debate
Date: 2005-04-07 11:02 am (UTC)Anyway, what do you do when two rules conflict? My suggestion is that universally (or popularly at any rate) accepted laws must apply, even if they are secular and not religious, in order to prevent total social breakdown. For example, in the situation you gave in fn[5], English law would not condemn you for standing by and doing nothing, but you would be very hard pressed to justify pushing the person under the wheels. The only time in the history of English law where it was accepted as an argument was in the Siamese twins case ("Re: A (conjoined twins)") and that was pretty exceptional because the weaker twin was going to die anyway and the obvious utilitarian answer was very strong.
Interestingly enough, in French law you would possibly face prosecution for failing to throw yourself under the wheels as they have a doctrine of enforced altruism towards victims of misfortune!
I suppose the point of those last paragraphs is that at some stage laws have to be formulated prior to the event, and they inevitably have to be general in nature, or at least applied by analogy from existing cases, so you have to sit down beforehand with a general governing philosophy or series of weighted principles which will prevail whenever there is a conflict.
If you want to know why a law has to be formulated in advance, it is because it is a fundamental principle of law and punishment that a person can only be punished according to a law where they had an opportunity to know about it beforehand and modify their behaviour accordingly. In civil law cases where only money is at stake it is possible to be more flexible and result-orientated, but there must be some degree of certainty with criminal law where a person's liberty or life is at stake.
Well you said you wanted controversy...