Cipher Cee Truth

2006-10-06T05:46:00.000-04:00

Equality means to deal equally -- each one teach one according to one's knowledge. Equality is to desire for your brother or sister that which you desire for yourself. Equality is the state of being equal.

automatic writing exercise #C113

2006-09-19T22:51:00.000-04:00

It is with immense pleasure that now I depart from that which leads to nothing but eternal dissatisfaction the lies the cries the tears and all the bad times forever behind in time cycles that rotate to reach higher heights and fight better fights with causes that to lead fulfillment peace and satisfaction personal growth and development in accordance with all elements that combine move and flow like wisdom or water that is evaporated only to return back to the surface from that which it cannot escape 93 million miles away from came one itself bouncing around a wobbly orbit on a slanted axis moving at 1037 and a third miles per hour in the physical with words like 1 thousand 100 and 20 feet per second sonic boom sound waves and thoughts like 186000 miles per hour light rays never again off-guard now and forever on .....G.O.D.!

Quoted from EVERYTHING TRUE.

Law and Limits on Individual Liberty[1]: R. v. Butler[2] Revisited

2006-08-18T00:08:00.000-04:00

Junior "TRUE" Williams
PHIL2050 6.0 - Philosophy of Law
13 March 2006

The purpose of this essay is to explain how H.L.A. Hart and Lord Patrick Devlin would assess R. v. Butler [1992], in light of their opposing views on the role of morality in law. R. v. Butler [1992] was a Canadian Supreme Court case seeking to determine whether or not Section 163 of the Criminal Code, "which makes it an offence to make publish or sell obscene material, defined as 'any publication a dominant characteristic of which is the undue exploitation of sex, or of sex and...crime, horror, cruelty and violence',"[3] violated Donald Butler's right of freedom of expression, as stipulated in section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. In this case, the court ruled that "section 163 constitutes a reasonable limit on this freedom."[4] This is an important ruling as it sets the precedent for future cases, outlining when and to what degree the state is justified in setting and enforcing limits on individual liberty through its interpretation of the law and morality. This legal case discusses three moral principles central to the Hart-Devlin debate: the protection of human life principle, the personal autonomy principle, and the avoidance of harm principle. Devlin postulates that society requires a shared morality to survive; laws serve to enforce that morality. Moreover, he concludes that society is justified in doing anything to ensure its survival. Hart dismisses Devlin's findings on the basis that they proceed from a weak definition of society. In explicitly rejecting Devlin's notion that "the suppression of vice is as much the law's business as the suppression of subversive activities,"[5] Hart implicitly affirms the findings of the Wolfenden Report-"that there must be a realm of morality and immorality which is not the laws business." I find Hart to be correct in distinguishing between critical and positive morality. Further, I will argue that Hart's conception of the nature and purpose of law is preferable to that of Devlin. A shared public morality which unduly sacrifices personal autonomy is counter-productive to the interests of a free and democratic society.

In his paper, "Morals and the Criminal Law,"[6] Devlin argues that purpose of criminal law is to protect society. Devlin defines society as a community of ideas. In Devlin's view, Christianity is the primary source of morality from which laws are made to enforce. According to Devlin, "the law has never yet had the occasion to inquire into the differences between Christian morals and those which every right-minded member of society is expected to hold."[7] Devlin shows that morals purposes are found in many criminal laws; hence, society requires a shared morality to survive. In Devlin's view, the state is justified in both prohibiting and punishing even private self-regarding immorality. Devlin's disintegration thesis claims that without a shared, public morality, society would disintegrate-this is to be avoided at all costs.[8]

In his paper, "Law, Liberty and Morality,"[9] Hart distinguishes between positive and critical morality. He defines positive morality as "the morality actually accepted and shared by a given social group."[10] Critical morality is then defined as "general moral principles used in the criticism of actual social institutions including positive morality."[11] Hart argues that Devlin's supposition-that allowing some immorality will result in weakening all of a society's morality-is wrong on the basis that there is no evidence to support such a claim.

In R. v. Butler [1992], the decision of the court that "section 163 constitutes a reasonable limit on this freedom" is more commensurate with the paternalistic views held by Devlin, than it is with the utilitarian-like views held by Hart; however, the courts decision in this case borrows some nuances from both Hart's argument and Devlin's argument alike. Devlin would likely assign overriding importance to the crown's objective to serve the "public interest in maintaining a 'decent society'."[12] Conversely, the crown's view that "[t]o impose a certain standard of public and sexual morality, solely because it reflects the conventions of a given community, is inimical to the exercise and enjoyment of individual freedoms..."[13] is strikingly similar to Hart's arguments. Hart would likely object to the crown's decision in this case because no evidence is given to support the notion that there is a direct link between obscenity and harm to society; however, Hart would likely support the crown's objective that there exist a balance between the limiting measure and the actual effect. Devlin would agree wholeheartedly, as the crown contends, that Parliament has "the right to legislate on the basis of some fundamentally conception of morality for the purposes of safeguarding the values which are integral to a free and democratic society."[14]

Both Hart and Devlin would find it prudent, and even necessary, that a free and democratic society should embrace the moral protection of human life principle. The main difference in their arguments is in their treatment of the moral avoidance of suffering and personal autonomy principles. Devlin avoids discussing the personal autonomy principle; individual liberty is of little relevance to Devlin's thesis, which advocates blind obedience to a paternalistic positive morality. Contrary to Devlin, Hart recognizes that personal autonomy is indeed vital to a free and democratic society. Both Hart and Devlin acknowledge the avoidance of suffering/harm principle; however, their interpretations of this principle, and the contexts in which it is applied, are quite different. Devlin applies the harm principle in the context of justifying the state's prerogative to preserve itself by suppressing subversive activities to avoid harm to itself, lest its public shared morality be corrupted, which would lead to its disintegration. Hart, on the other hand, applies the harm principle in the context of the state causing harm to individuals by ignoring the precepts of the personal autonomy principle.

The concept of 'legal moralism', deriving from the notion that laws enforce moral standards for the good and for the preservation of society, is a theme central to the debate between Hart and Devlin. Devlin argues in favor of legal moralism-positive morality is to be enforced, regardless of the undue suffering that it may cause some individuals. Hart argues that Devlin mistakes legal moralism with legal paternalism, which advocates limits on individual freedom to protect the individual from his/her own self. Children oft require paternalistic restrictions on their freedom for their own good; this demonstrates how paternalism may protect individuals. Paternalism may protect an individual from his/her own self, but personal autonomy protects society from itself. Contrary to Devlin, Hart believes that the law's purpose is to protect the individual. When a society's constitution codifies an inherently evil sense of morality in its constitution, like Apartheid in South Africa, personal autonomy, an aspect of critical morality, remains the only safeguard against complete corruption of the shared public morality. When we look at personal autonomy in this context, we see the necessity of distinguishing between positive and critical morality. From this example, we also clearly see that sometimes disintegration is desirable.

NOTES

1 Keith Culver, Readings in the Philosophy of Law, (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999), 317.
2 Jerome Bickenbach, Canadian Cases in the Philosophy of Law, (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1998), 87.
3 Ibid., 87.
4 Ibid.
5 H.L.A. Hart, "Law, Liberty and Morality." Readings in the Philosophy of Law, (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999), 384.
6 Patrick Devlin, "Morals and the Criminal Law." Readings in the Philosophy of Law, (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999), 363.
7 Ibid., 381.
8 Ibid., 370-71.
9 H.L.A. Hart, 383.
10 Ibid., 386
11 Ibid.
12 Jerome Bickenbach, 87.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid., 88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bickenbach, Jerome E. Canadian Cases in the Philosophy of Law. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1998.

Devlin, Patrick. "Morals and the Criminal Law" Readings in the Philosophy of Law. Ed. Keith Culver. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999.

Hart, H.L.A.. "Law, Liberty and Morality" Readings in the Philosophy of Law. Ed. Keith Culver. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1999.

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. http://m-w.com. Accessed 9 March 2006.

What keeps it rolling?

2006-08-12T15:39:00.001-04:00

...branching off on tangents - divergent thinking with sporadic convergence. And what really is the point? Maybe there is in fact no point at all? Perhaps the only thing that is certain is that there is...and beyond that there is simply an endless cycle (knowledge to born add cipher to complete the circle) of life, death, and rebirth?

Everything is finite; only God is infinite. The God that exists in the mental, which transcends all physical existence, is the supreme head of all things that exist. Sub-atomic quarks, the theoretical components of protons, electrons, and nucleons within atoms, are said to not-exist more than they exist; they flux in and out of existence in a never ending chain or circle ...is what keeps it rolling!

Knowledge Wisdom Understanding

Cipher Cee Truth

automatic writing exercise #C113

Law and Limits on Individual Liberty[1]: R. v. Butler[2] Revisited

What keeps it rolling?