Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4704256" data-attributes="member: 4937">Interesting.  This seems to be a 'middle ground' between my instance that no pure personal code can be considered lawful, and the opposite contention (held by some) that holding any personal code of behavior makes you lawful.  I like your reasoning.  For one thing, I think it much more clearly explains why every personal code can't be considered lawful than anything I've said hitherto.No, but "Harm no one, do as you wish", might be universally encompassing......however, among other things, it would fail to give very specific guidance.  Like any other axiomatic basis of morality, like, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", broad axiomatic dictums are designed to work counter to strict moral legalism.  I think a lot of people are mistaking, "Passionate belief in something's value.", for, "Follows a strict code."  I can be passionately motivated by some belief of mine, but that doesn't make my personal beliefs legalistic in any fashion.  I think it just stands to reason that before a code of conduct can possibly be called 'lawful', that it has to have traits that make it legalistic and hense make the person's actions reviewable in an objective way.  For example, a club, fraternal order, or corporation might have some sort code of conduct.  That code of conduct could either say things like, "Curfew is at 10:00." or "No girls allowed in the dorm." or "If you bring beer, bring enough for everyone to have their own."  or "Don't talk about fight club."  That's a legal code.  Anyone can review whether or not I've broken the rules in an objective manner.  Or the code of conduct can be, "Do nothing that brings shame to the club."  That's not a legal code.  That's a very high standard of behavior, and people who held that maxim in very high regard, might be strongly motivated to engage or not engage in particular sorts of behavior.  But whether or not I'm actually following the code is entirely subjective, and the only real way to decide whether I've broken the code is to ask for someone's opinion.  Hense, such a code mandates not the rule of law, but rather rule by personal conviction.Naturally of course, many real world codes have both sorts of strictures in them.More than just the code must be unchanging.  The code must stipulate that for a given circumstance, there is an unchanging behavior - either a prohibition against doing something specific, or a commandent to do something specific.  For a given circumstance, there must be a predictable responce.  A lawful code can't just simply amount to, "Make it up yourself." or "Do what you want to do."  The personal code actually has to mandate something.  More than that, the holder of the code must recognize that violating the code brings a just punishment.  From the perspective of law, the problem with a personal code like, "I consider myself a citizen of the world.", is that not only does it not mandate anything specific, but the holder of the code isn't held responcible for their actions by anyone in authority.  No one grants or revokes 'citizenship of the world'.  There is no recognized set of duties imposed on someone by 'citizenship of the world'.  It might be an idea that has real personal meaning and which shapes someones behavior, but no external observer is in any position to judge whether that is the case.  With a personal code like, "I have a responcibility to your fellow humans", or "I have a responcibility to the Earth", it might motivate - even passionately motivate - a particular behavior, but unlike an actual lawful code, nobody would know to expect exactly what that behavior was or whether it would suddenly change according to the vagaries of how the person interpreted their code.  The holder of such a code does not expect and would strongly object to someone else holding them accountable for not doing A or B that that other person thought should be done.  The holder of such a code holds themselves responcible and judges for themselves whether they are doing a good job of living up to their own standards.Well, you are free of course to make your own judgement, but I think he comes about as 'far short' of being lawful as you can possibly come.  His ever changing face is about as perfect of a metaphor as you can have for chaotic behavior.Doesn't this conclusion bother you just a little bit though?  If everyone is basically nuetral, what is the conflict really over?  Is it just that Rorschach is a more extremist neutral, blowing things up to achieve some idea of harmony and balance, and Dr. Manhattan is just neutral apathetic?  Or, is there some actual ethical conflict being played out here, "The good of the many over the good of the few or the one.", for example?</blockquote>

Verification