“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct

[Bosco1]

Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.

For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:

J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”

“Law” whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.

[Nick1911]

Is there anything in particular you wished to discuss about that?  Or are you just cross-posting that chunk of text on different forms for fun?

[Hawkmoon]

J.P. Sartre’s: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.”

J. P. Sarte?

Sounds vaguely familiar. Where is that citation codified in law and under what authority does it override a statute that prescribes capital punishment as the penalty for murder?

[Bosco1]

Intelligibility is the authority. Law is ontologically unintelligible due to being mistakenly deemed originative of human action and inaction. Sartre's account of the origin of human action is correct ontologically.

[RoadKingLarry]

Got a point to make?

[Angel Eyes]

GPT-3 experiment?

[Fly320s]

AI bot.  Nuke it from orbit.

[dogmush]

GPT-3 experiment?

That's what I was thinking.  It reads like one of the crappy AI scripts. 

[Nick1911]

AI bot.  Nuke it from orbit.

I had that or college kid on an acid trip having an existential crisis.

[HankB]

Looks like some comedian's chatbot posting to me.

Bosco? That was an old brand of chocolate syrup used to "fortify" milk.

That tickles an old memory - I think I had a Bosco Bear bank when I was 3 or 4 years old, but my younger self thought it looked more like a monkey than a bear.

[cordex]

AI bot or human, Bosco1's forte definitely is not clear, concise communication.  I've never run into a chatbot quite that pretentious, but who knows?

Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.

This sentence is contradictory.  You state that law "without question" determines action, but also that Sartre demonstrated that was not true.
 That said, if one is an adherent to Sartre's philosophy then one need not be bothered by rampant contradiction.

For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:

There are layers, degrees, and conflicts when it comes to human social obligations.  Even specific to the realm of law there are regularly conflicting responsibilities that are not consistently weighed from decision to decision.  A magistrate might be required based on a particular situation and law to do something.  They might also choose to defy those requirements based on other obligations they feel (religious, moral, familial, whatever).  The fact that they are capable of defying those requirements does not negate them, or the consequences of doing so. 

“Law” whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.

If a magistrate chooses to do something unpleasant in accordance with the law and describes his action as being "bound and determined by law" he might well be accurately depicting a particular compulsion that is overriding the other burdens they are weighing.  Or he might be hiding behind it to justify not having to make an independent decision.  However, while stating that his actions were influenced primarily by one particular duty might not be fully complete, it is no more dishonest than other incomplete statements. 

A human can choose to starve themselves to death, but that doesn't make the statement "I have to eat" dishonest.  Like all human communication, there is an enormous amount of subtext and context that helps apply meaning.  "I have to eat" might have the subtext of "I wish to continue to live, to avoid the discomfort of hunger, and to have energy to accomplish other goals," among other things.

[Hawkmoon]

Intelligibility is the authority. Law is ontologically unintelligible due to being mistakenly deemed originative of human action and inaction. Sartre's account of the origin of human action is correct ontologically.

If the law of [state] says the penalty for murder is execution, that's a pretty intelligible statement. It is also the requirement of the law, so a judge would be entirely correct in stating that the law requires him to impose that punishment.

What J. P. Sarte thinks is moral or immoral on the issue is irrelevant.

[Bosco1]

This sentence is contradictory.  You state that law "without question" determines action, but also that Sartre demonstrated that was not true.
 
No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.
What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote  it!
 

[cordex]

No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.

If you intended "without question" to refer to how people follow law, I did not read it that way.  As written, "without question" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the verb "are deemed".  According to modern English, the sentence was structured to mean that you were stating as undisputed truth that human action is generated by law.  I think the causality typically runs in the opposite direction, but that's neither here nor there.

As far as your new point, not everyone who obeys a given law or tries to follow a given system of laws does so without questioning the law.  Nor does anyone I'm aware of do so absolutely.  On the flip side, very few people who violate the law do so from a considered perspective of considered existentialism.

What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote  it!

With respect, your very first post was a cut-and-paste repost from another forum without context or introduction.  For a variety of reasons it frankly gave the impression of being generated by something or someone with an immature grasp of philosophy piecing together elements into something not dissimilar from the output of some generative adversarial networks.

It was an interesting way to say: "Hi, nice to meet you."

[RoadKingLarry]

No, I am saying those who hold to law do so absolutely without questioning the validity of law.
What is all this nonsense about a bot writing my post!? I wrote  it!

Not universal.

Some laws I follow because it's the right thing to do and would probably follow that course even if it weren't law.
Some laws I follow because I am unwilling at this point in my life to deal with the consequences of getting caught breaking said law.
Some laws I break because I know the odds of negative consequences are low or the consequences are insignificant enough to be worth the risk.

[Bosco1]

If the law of [state] says the penalty for murder is execution, that's a pretty intelligible statement.
What J. P. Sarte thinks is moral or immoral on the issue is irrelevant.

I am speaking of ontological intelligibility.  The claim that the magistrate is acting by law is bogus. Law is a given state of affairs, while, ontologically, all acts upsurge on the basis of what is not yet done; what is absent/desired.
There is no moral element involved.

[Bosco1]

If you intended "without question" to refer to how people follow law, I did not read it that way.  As written, "without question" is an adverbial phrase which modifies the verb "are deemed".  According to modern English, the sentence was structured to mean that you were stating as undisputed truth that human action is generated by law.  I think the causality typically runs in the opposite direction, but that's neither here nor there.

Yes, I am saying that I think the entire world accepts law without question, without dispute; but, Sartre shows that human acts do not arise on the basis if given states of affairs, and, law is a given state of affairs.
I very very much appreciate you responding to my entire post, bit by bit.
I had just posted it on another site, but they were horrid and banned me quick like a mouse; so I looked for another forum  and found this one; people here  are decent...

[RoadKingLarry]

I looked for another forum  and found this one; people here  are decent...

 

We just lure you in and then pounce when you least expect it, kind of like the Spanish Inquisition.

[Tuco]

We just lure you in and then pounce when you least expect it, kind of like the Spanish Inquisition.

That was unexpected

[Hawkmoon]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Hawkmoon]

I am speaking of ontological intelligibility.  The claim that the magistrate is acting by law is bogus. Law is a given state of affairs, while, ontologically, all acts upsurge on the basis of what is not yet done; what is absent/desired.
There is no moral element involved.

BS.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.

[230RN]

Oh, s/he's just spoofing Terry's posts.

[WLJ]

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Bosco1]

BS.

I don't know where you live, but I live in the real world. In the real world, if you break the law you can be arrested, tried, fined, and incarcerated. You can call laws "bogus" if you disagree with them, but what's your answer? In the real world, the answer is: you go to the legislature and petition to have a bad law removed. Been there, done that -- successfully.
[/quote
  Yes, of course, all law ultimately has is violence and infliction of death, and there is a very dire sense wherein that is real.  However, law is the most irreal/artificial state of affairs extant. Pure man made systematical misleadingness.
What I am attempting is to inform others why law is essentially a lie, designed to eat out the substance of persons, all it wants is money, money, money...the lie is that law is determinative of human conduct. The law is quoted while your money is taken...

[cordex]

Yes, I am saying that I think the entire world accepts law without question, without dispute; but, Sartre shows that human acts do not arise on the basis if given states of affairs, and, law is a given state of affairs.

Bosco1, do you have practical experience with humans?  I ask because on my way into work today I saw more people breaking laws than perfectly following them. I saw speeding, failure to signal, expired registrations, homeless squatters, and having walked the streets I was driving I know them to be littered (a crime in and of itself) with needles used for illegal drugs. Having spent time with police both personally and professionally I can tell you that what I see is hardly even the tip of the iceberg.

Roadkinglarry provides a good illustration of the mindset that many people have. Law is given deference (or not) for a variety of reasons.

I still say that you and Sartre have the causality reversed when it comes to law.