-
Home
- A unified theory of a law
- A unified theory of a law
- An application of the theory:
When bad things happen to good recipients
A Recipient does not cherish a right to be killed. Killing is conduct whose consequences are not pleasant for their Recipient. Yet, the facts remains that 1) the consequences of some conduct are indeed unpleasant to a Recipient and 2) a Lawmaker may want a Recipient to receive unpleasant consequences. What makes a right is not whether a Recipient is happy with the conduct and its consequences but whether a Lawmaker wants the Recipient to receive them. The consequences of conduct are either good, neutral or bad. A recipient of the consequences of conduct has a right if the lawmaker wants the Recipient to receive the consequences regardless of whether the consequences are good, neutral or bad. Hence, it cannot be universally said that a right is a good thing for a Recipient to have. Whether good or bad depends on the underlying conduct and the consequences it brings to a Recipient. With killing, most Recipients would prefer to hold the right not to be killed
Transition from an absence of circumstances to the presence of circumstances.
Let us pause to review what has been accomplished so far lest you neglect to take notice. We have particularized the facts by adding particular values to the general factual variables. Then we ran the particularized facts through the three permutations of a law: 1) Affirmative Regulation, 2) Deregulation and 3) Negative Regulation. We saw that killing can be addressed by a Lawmaker in any of the foregoing three ways. There are no fourth or fifth ways. The universe of permutations consists of three and only three. Most importantly, all of this was done systematically.
Our next step is the addition of circumstances. Circumstances are the facts that surround a flow of conduct. They are the context through which conduct flows. It is the circumstances that make one killing different than another killing. It is the circumstances that drive a lawmaker to pick one of the three permutations of a law.
Some killing is viewed as legal, that is, it is done pursuant to the permission, 'Thou may kill or not kill' or pursuant to the command, 'Thou shall kill'. Other killing is viewed as illegal, that is, done in violation of the command, 'Thou shall not kill'
The circumstances through which conduct flows
Here is a chart linking a type of killing to its significant circumstance or circumstances.
| Abortion |
The victim is young between the age of conception and birth |
| Infanticide |
The victim is young after birth but still an infant |
| Euthanasia |
The victim is elderly |
| Self-defense |
The victim was attacking the killer |
| Death Penalty |
The victim is a heinous criminal; the killer is a government. |
| Deadly Force |
The killer is a police officer. |
| War |
The victim is an enemy; the killer is a government. |
| Homocide |
The victim is another human being. |
| Mercy Killing |
The victim is very ill. |
| Suicide |
The victim is the killer. |
A review of some of the particular types of killing
In the following sections we shall review particular types of killing.
Abortion
One of the factual parts of a law is the Recipient of conduct. In the case of killing, we call the Recipient of killing a Victim. Killing becomes abortion when the age of victim is between conception and birth. Other types of killings where the age of the victim is a significant enough characteristic to earn it its own name are infanticide
(the victim is born but young) and
euthanasia (the victim is old) .
A lawmaker can address the flow of conduct known as abortion with any of three permutations of a law. The three permutations are
- negative regulation,'Thou shall not kill'
- deregulation, 'Thou may kill or not kill' or
- affirmative regulation, 'Thou shall kill'
However, in the debate over abortion in the United States, no faction advocates that affirmative regulation,
'Thou shall kill' ought to be the law of the land. This is an issue in China with its one birth policy. The issue in the United States is between those who advocate for negative regulation,
'Thou shall not kill' versus those who advocate for deregulation,
'Thou may kill'
With a permission, the decision whether or not to embark upon a course of conduct shifts from the Lawmaker to the Source doing conduct. The Source has the choice between affirmative conduct and negative conduct. The lawmaker does not substitute its own decision for the decision of the Source of conduct. This is true anytime a lawmaker issues a permission. The significance of a permission is that the mother makes the decision whether or not to engage in the conduct not the government. The propagandists for those who favor the permission to kill in the context of abortion have seized upon this aspect of lawmaking and use it as their rallying cry calling themselves pro-choice.
With a command, decision making shifts to the Lawmaker from the Source. The Source does not get to make the choice about the polarity of conduct. The Lawmaker substitutes its own decision for the decision of the Source. This is true anytime a Lawmaker issues a command. The significance of a command is that the government makes the decision about whether or not to engage in the conduct not the mother. The propagandists for those who favor the command not to kill in the context of abortion use the label pro-life as their rallying cry.
The abortion debate can be examined from the perspective of both the Source of conduct and the Recipient of the consequences of conduct. This is focus shift. Let us assume that the Source is a mother and the Recipient is her baby. The issue in the abortion debate in the United States can be formulated as follows with the focus of the Lawmaker on the mother:
- A mother has a duty not to kill her baby.
- A mother has a privilege to kill or not kill her baby.
The issue in the abortion debate in the United States can be formulated as follows with the focus of the Lawmaker on the baby:
- A baby has a right not to be killed
- A baby has no-right to be killed or not killed.
Let us examine more closely the distinguishing circumstance of abortion: that the victim is below a designated age.
Even the advocates of death by abortion agree that, upon birth, a mother has a duty not to kill her baby. It is the period of human life before birth that is significant in the abortion debate. The advocates of death favor a period of vulnerability during which a mother has the privilege to kill her baby. The advocates of life oppose a period of vulnerability. They hold the opinion that a mother has a duty not to kill her baby even though the baby has not yet progressed to birth. Keep in mind that the phrase 'period of vulnerability' has both factual and legal connotations. It is called a period of vulnerability because, during it, a baby has no-right to life and a mother has a privilege to kill. However, to be a period, it must have a beginning and an end and they must be fixed in 'the factual'. The beginning is easy and that is conception. However, within the debate for and against a period of vulnerability is a sub-debate over where to locate the end point of the period of vulnerability. The end point is a turning point. It is a location in the life of a baby where the mother's privilege to kill her baby turns into a duty not to kill. At the turning point, the period of vulnerability ends and a period of invulnerability begins. The advocates of life hold the opinion that the turning point is the moment of conception. There is no period of vulnerability. The advocates of death hold the opinion that the end point is somewhere further into the life of a baby somewhere between conception and birth.
In evaluating the merits and demerits of an abortion law, one must ask why does a human who has escaped the period of vulnerability deserve a right to life while a human still trapped within the period of vulnerability is unworthy of it? What changes? What happens at the turning point that makes a lawmaker who has withheld his protection from a baby suddenly give a baby protection? Why treat a mother differently who kills her baby after the period of vulnerability ends - a horror viewed as the ultimate betrayal and perfidy - than during the vulnerability period? These are the hard questions that
A Unified Theory of a Law can only raise but cannot answer. The answer arises not out of
A Unified Theory of a Law but out of our hearts and souls.
Let us now re-examine the abortion issue by making the source of killing be a stranger instead of a mother. Does the stranger enjoy the privilege to kill the baby or is the stranger burdened by the duty not to kill and why? Some advocates of death would set the value of the life of baby within the period of vulnerability to naught. They would extend the privilege to kill to everyone fearing that to claim the life of a baby has any value would jeopardize a mother's privilege to kill her baby. Other advocates of death would disagree. They would say that indeed the life of a baby has value especially vis-à-vis a stranger. Vis-à-vis a stranger there is no period of vulnerability and a stranger has a duty not to kill a baby. They would not want a Lawmaker to sit on the sidelines when such a killing occurs. Only the mother can decide that other considerations have a greater value than the life of the baby and the Lawmaker ought to respect the mother's decision no matter which polarity of conduct she chooses.
In summary, if the abortion debate was looked at as a battle between the advocates of life and the advocates of death, the supporters of abortion advocate the permission, 'Thou may kill' and the opponents advocate the command,'Thou shall not kill'. Those who resort to labels classify the supporters of abortion as liberals and the opponents of abortion as conservatives. Yet, it is generally stated that the test that distinguishes a conservative from a liberal is the quantity of governmental intrusion into the lives of the citizenry that the person desires. A conservative wants less; a liberal more. Hence, conservatives favor permissions over commands because with a permission there is no governmental intrusion into an a citizen's decision making process. With a command, the government intrudes substituting its opinion for a citizen's. Yet, in the abortion debate, it is the so-called liberals who favor the permission and the so called conservatives who favor the command. Conventional wisdom tells us that the permission ought to be favored by conservatives and the command by the liberals. Labels, I guess, can be misleading.
The death penalty
The permutations of a law in controversy in the battle between life and death in the death penalty context are different than in the abortion context.
In the abortion context, the controversy is between Negative Regulation,
'Thou shall not kill.' and Deregulation,
'Thou may kill.' . Those on the side of death are in favor of deregulation; those on the side of life are in favor of negative regulation.
In the death penalty context, those on the side of life still advocate for Negative Regulation,
'Thou shall not kill.' . However, those on the side of death do not advocate for deregulation but for Affirmative Regulation,
'Thou shall kill.'
Death once again attracts allies from amongst us mortals.
'Off with their heads' is death's battle cry.
Let us illustrate the virtue of the three part sentence here.
Even though a killer is mentally deficient, the government has a duty to impose the penalty of death if the killer committed a heinous crime. This is the position of some who advocate for the death penalty.
If the killer is mentally deficient, the government has a duty not to impose the death penalty, even though the killer committed a heinous crime. This is the position advocated by opponents of the death penalty.
Notice how the circumstances jumped from the 'if' to the 'even though' clauses and from the 'even though' to the 'if' clauses as the main clause changed. This is the formula for showing the opposite position.
In contrast to the abortion debate, in the death penalty debate, conventional wisdom works. The conservatives favor the permission; the liberals favor the command. Yet, now, the conservatives are on the side of death and the liberals on the side of life. Liberals advocate in the context of the death penalty that the victim has a right not be killed, i.e. for a command. Conservatives advocate that the victim has no-right not to be killed, i.e., for a permission.
In the battle between good and evil, there are advocates of death and advocates of life. Oddly, not all mortals support the law, 'Thou shall not kill.' Some believe that 'Thou may kill' or 'Thou shall kill.'. Both conservatives and liberals according to the circumstances ally themselves with Death. Few are, across the board, allies of Life. Many of us presume to have the wisdom to know when it is good to be on Death's side. Death, however, is not as loyal and often treacherously turns around to bring its erstwhile allies to perdition.
Conclusion
When the need to address the facts and the law arises, legal thinkers with a system have an advantage over legal thinkers without a system. Legal thinkers with a system simply apply their system to the facts and the law to arrive at a solution to the problem. Legal thinkers without a system must improvise. They reinvent the wheel again and again. They come up with ad hoc solutions to problems.
What type of legal thinker are you? Do you have or lack a system? If you think you have a system, sit down and write it down now. If you cannot articulate it, you do not have a system. If you lack a system, may I recommend
A Unified Theory of a Law to you. The boundaries that define a law have been discovered, explored and mapped.
A Unified Theory of a Law is the map.
John Bosco
Project Director
The Legal Literacy Project
Questions & Answers
what is defense mechanism
what is defense mechanisms
Chinaza
I'm interested in biological psychology and cognitive psychology
what does preconceived mean
How can I develope my cognitive domain
why is communication effective
Communication is effective because it allows individuals to share ideas, thoughts, and information with others.
effective communication can lead to improved outcomes in various settings, including personal relationships, business environments, and educational settings. By communicating effectively, individuals can negotiate effectively, solve problems collaboratively, and work towards common goals.
it starts up serve and return practice/assessments.it helps find voice talking therapy also assessments through relaxed conversation.
miss
Every time someone flushes a toilet in the apartment building, the person begins to jumb back automatically after hearing the flush, before the water temperature changes. Identify the types of learning, if it is classical conditioning identify the NS, UCS, CS and CR. If it is operant conditioning, identify the type of consequence positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement or punishment
please i need answer
Wekolamo
because it helps many people around the world to understand how to interact with other people and understand them well, for example at work (job).
Agreed 👍 There are many parts of our brains and behaviors, we really need to get to know. Blessings for everyone and happy Sunday!
ARC
A child is a member of community not society elucidate ?
Isn't practices worldwide, be it psychology, be it science. isn't much just a false belief of control over something the mind cannot truly comprehend?
compare and contrast skinner's perspective on personality development on freud
Skinner skipped the whole unconscious phenomenon and rather emphasized on classical conditioning
war
explain how nature and nurture affect the development and later the productivity of an individual.
nature is an hereditary factor while nurture is an environmental factor which constitute an individual personality. so if an individual's parent has a deviant behavior and was also brought up in an deviant environment, observation of the behavior and the inborn trait we make the individual deviant.
Samuel
I am taking this course because I am hoping that I could somehow learn more about my chosen field of interest and due to the fact that being a PsyD really ignites my passion as an individual the more I hope to learn about developing and literally explore the complexity of my critical thinking skills
and having a good philosophy of the world is like a sandwich and a peanut butter 👍
Jonathan
generally amnesi how long yrs memory loss
interpersonal relationships
Got questions? Join the online conversation and get instant answers!
Source:
OpenStax, A unified theory of a law. OpenStax CNX. Mar 25, 2011 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10670/1.106
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.
