Well done for grasping the nettle! I am certainly looking forward to applying the enhanced vocabulary and concepts from this course to concrete examples, such as the one you refer to.
We are off to a good start! I feel there are some important implied messages in this unit on Civil Order. David talks firstly about social norms, then the legislative and judicial components, which begs the question as to the legitimacy of legislative and judicial actions which contravene social norms. Additionally, the "civil" in civil order points to the primacy of the city - the primacy of local social norms and legislative/judicial actions. In this regard, I feel it is useful to reflect to what extent empowering local levels of government could potentially provide an antidote to malign influences coming from the national and transnational spheres.
You are right that the customary and moral basis for civil law is extremely important. In medieval Europe, for example, custom was extremely important to discern the content of our common obligations. In the modern era, legislation started to take on much more centrality and even trumped local customs. Certain forms of positivism may even have contempt for customary norms. I believe legislative actions that completely disregard the force of entrenchd custom and moral norms may be illegitimate. And I agree 100% that empowering local levels of government is important to avoid the excessive concentration of power in a single governmental organ. Civil order should really be a set of nested and overlapping civil orders in the plural.
Thanks for this additional food for thought. I've re-watched the lesson and what strikes me is how much of our social order is self-enforcing, without much recourse to the civil authorities. And how that light touch feels like something of an ideal by contrast of heavy-handed policing or worse, policing without consent. Obviously, some more robust stuff from the civil authorities is also necessary, but I guess my primary interest is just how far the self-regulation principle can be taken, as that feels correlated to a balanced type of freedom.
What is the difference between natural law and maritime law? And was this - natural law - laid out in the Magna Carta? Does natural law, everyday civility, trump 'made up, Maritime ' law?
The Magna Carta expresses rights that enable human freedom, and human freedom is essential to the full development of a person's capacities. So in that sense Magna Carta could be viewed as an interpretation of natural law. I am not familiar with the details of maritime law. But I assume it is a set of internationally accepted conventions. Insofar as these conventions are consisent with basic human needs or enable human flourishing, they may be consistent with natural law, or the precepts we should follow in order to support the full flourishing of our natural potential.
Sounds good. I don't think it's civilized to force people to take medicine they know they don't want or need.
Well done for grasping the nettle! I am certainly looking forward to applying the enhanced vocabulary and concepts from this course to concrete examples, such as the one you refer to.
We are off to a good start! I feel there are some important implied messages in this unit on Civil Order. David talks firstly about social norms, then the legislative and judicial components, which begs the question as to the legitimacy of legislative and judicial actions which contravene social norms. Additionally, the "civil" in civil order points to the primacy of the city - the primacy of local social norms and legislative/judicial actions. In this regard, I feel it is useful to reflect to what extent empowering local levels of government could potentially provide an antidote to malign influences coming from the national and transnational spheres.
You are right that the customary and moral basis for civil law is extremely important. In medieval Europe, for example, custom was extremely important to discern the content of our common obligations. In the modern era, legislation started to take on much more centrality and even trumped local customs. Certain forms of positivism may even have contempt for customary norms. I believe legislative actions that completely disregard the force of entrenchd custom and moral norms may be illegitimate. And I agree 100% that empowering local levels of government is important to avoid the excessive concentration of power in a single governmental organ. Civil order should really be a set of nested and overlapping civil orders in the plural.
Thanks for this additional food for thought. I've re-watched the lesson and what strikes me is how much of our social order is self-enforcing, without much recourse to the civil authorities. And how that light touch feels like something of an ideal by contrast of heavy-handed policing or worse, policing without consent. Obviously, some more robust stuff from the civil authorities is also necessary, but I guess my primary interest is just how far the self-regulation principle can be taken, as that feels correlated to a balanced type of freedom.
What is the difference between natural law and maritime law? And was this - natural law - laid out in the Magna Carta? Does natural law, everyday civility, trump 'made up, Maritime ' law?
The Magna Carta expresses rights that enable human freedom, and human freedom is essential to the full development of a person's capacities. So in that sense Magna Carta could be viewed as an interpretation of natural law. I am not familiar with the details of maritime law. But I assume it is a set of internationally accepted conventions. Insofar as these conventions are consisent with basic human needs or enable human flourishing, they may be consistent with natural law, or the precepts we should follow in order to support the full flourishing of our natural potential.