Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
When one writes laws, one does it in relationship to laws already existing, and does not look to one's beliefs.
One then looks to the scenarios creating the need for new law, and takes what the legislative intent is.
For the most part, most law has NOTHING to do with truth. It is independent of truth.
A law regulating speed is not about truth. Engineers have studies which dictate safe speeds for certain types of routes. No truth here, just empirical observation.
Man's Law and truth are often not related.
|
How about the very first men who wrote the laws...what were thier motivation to provide the accurate law ? and to which pre-existed law ,they might have been attached ?
You mentioned about speeding on the road ...good example..why a driver needs to mind his safty ?? or care about others safty and comfort ??
to live more and better? to do what?? to degenerate and become part of the soil after 100 years?? or to be healthy safe person to find out his way toward the truth ??
basically whats the main reason for empirical approaches ??
if in a society, where every individual is supposed to seek for the truth ,how come the laws (which is produced and enforced to manage individula's lives) would have nothing to do with the truth?
as you portray your law system..it seems there is NO place for justice and moral values ,becuase they both acquire thier meaning under the light of the truth.