Philosophy

This page is a continuation of Ethics. For a better understanding of Transcendent Realities position on Laws, also visit Morality.

The history of law is intertwined with the history of morality and ethics. A discussion of its historical development is presented in Ethics.

Between Hammurabi 1,300 years before Christ and now, succeeding civilizations have enacted codices of laws founded both in religious morals and the ethics of secular philosophy. However, laws have one characteristic not common to morality and ethics – laws almost always prescribe remedies and punishments for causative actions, almost never rewards.

Natural Sanctions are legal consequences are the effects of a legal cause of action, There are three types of legal consequences:

‐ Natural consequences occur as natural effect of the causative behavior without regard to sanctions, (example: a vehicle crash that occurred as a result of speeding). At law, natural consequences are the “facts” of the case, and damage compensation may be awarded to a complainant.

‐ Social consequences occur as impacts on society at large because of a causative legal behavior. Social consequences are largely perceived or assumed to be true, with little more than anecdotal evidence or argument to support their existence. Despite the poor founding in actual fact, perceived social consequences play a powerful force in promulgating laws.

‐ Temporal Sanctions are legal punishments given a violator while alive for violating a law. The sanction is weighed both as a deterrent from further such behavior from the violator, and also as a deterrent, example, or warning to others who may be contemplating similar behavior.

Divine Sanctions are For example, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief that unrepentant sinners will be raised from the dead and cast into a lake of fire at some future and final day-of-judgment, is, in Transcendent Reality, considered a belief, and not a factual natural consequence. However, it is clear that beliefs, whether based in reality or not, do affect social behavior among the believers, though generally of no effect on non-believers.

There are several factors that greatly complicate the analysis of moral and ethical issues

1) Humans tend to have multiple and sometime conflicting motives for taking a position or an action.

2) Humans (like most animals) engage in deception as a natural course – seldom is what is on the visible surface reflective of what goes on below the surface;

3) Human decision to act is prompted by a complex mixture of innate temperament, peer pressure, rational thought and emotional reaction, which is difficult to predict for specific individuals, although the characteristic behavior of a group can often be established;

4) Gender may play a large role in the predisposition, manner, and mode of action or reaction to similar stimuli – males, as a group, tend to react differently than do females as a group to the same stimuli;

5) The characteristic actions of a group cannot be used to predict the specific actions of an individual with any certainty.

In considering moral and ethical issues, natural consequences are perceived or assumed which may, or may not, exist in reality, or there may be no real causal connection, or the causal connection may be weak, or only one of many other causes.

The first order of analysis is to establish or confirm what these natural consequences may be, that they are indeed caused by the behavior to be sanctioned, and the probability and strength of their occurrence in any given set of circumstances, That is very easy to say, but exceedingly difficult to establish with any degree of causal certainty. The preferred methodology to establish causality is by statistical inference. Generally, for social settings, this is the only way. However, one should always be aware that such causal correlations, especially those which employ pseudo-experimental procedures (which is true for almost all social studies) can never be more than tentative.

Assuming that natural consequences exist and are a true effect of the causing behavior, and are sufficiently established, the next order of analysis is the consideration of sanctions, either as reward for desirable behaviors, or punishments for undesirable behaviors. Sanctions are appropriate only if they actually result in a social benefit, or cause a beneficial change in the natural consequences. The same degree of causality that must be established for natural consequences must also be established for the artificial consequences of sanctions – and the procedures and caveats are the same.

Prescriptive behavior is that behavior which is authorized. Proscriptive behavior is that behavior which is prohibited. Sanctions are either rewards or punishments – rewards for following prescriptive edicts, and punishment for violating proscriptive edicts.

The question of who is the authorizing body runs the gamut from “God,” to formal and informal group rules, to government legislative bodies acting under some self-assumed or popularly-elected constituency. The humans subject to sanctions may have voluntarily submitted to the process, or may be involuntarily made subject to it by some coercive force.

Government is prescriptive if it allows all behavior not specifically proscribed. It is proscriptive if no behavior is allowed except that specifically prescribed. This definition is summarized in the table below:

Government	Law	Behavior allowed
Prescriptive	Proscriptive only	All except that proscribed
Proscriptive	Prescriptive only	None except that prescribed

Examples of generally proscriptive governments can be found in autocratic states, such as some of those comprising the old pre-world-war-II European states and Middle and Far-east kingdoms, wherein only specifically prescribed behaviors are allowed, all other behaviors being proscribed (prohibited). The citizens of proscriptive governments generally live in a state of constant fear of unintentionally committing some unauthorized act.

Contrasting the proscriptive autocratic states are the prescriptive governments typified by the United States of America, wherein all behavior not specifically prohibited is allowed. In such an environment, an inhabitant therein is free of fear of sanctions except those specifically enumerated.

Most states have both prescriptive and proscriptive elements. Transcendent Reality favors a prescriptive form of government.

Generally, all powers are assumed by state governments. Unique to the Earth is the American constitution which limits power to the federal government except those specifically enumerated in its federal constitution. However, much of that enumeration is so broad and sweeping, that little power is actually restricted.

Sanctions may be divided into official sanctions and social sanctions. Official sanctions are those imposed and enforced by a governmental agency. Social sanctions are those imposed by private (non-governmental) organizations on its voluntary members.

Official Sanctions come in a variety of forms and classifications. One major classification is to divide official sanctions into criminal and civil categories.

Criminal sanctions are established by statute, adjudicated by a court system, and enforced by the police power of the state. Elements generally required for an action to be considered a crime are:

4) sometimes (but not always) the occurrence of the natural consequences of the proscribed behavior.

Enforcement generally require a formal judicial process such as a judge and/or jury to find guilt and impose the sanction, and have penalties ranging from death to prison to monetary fines. The modern classifications of crimes, which vary between jurisdictions, is more or less as follows:

Capital offense – such as pre-meditated murder and treason, punishable with a death penalty or life imprisonment;

Felony offenses – such as robbery and assault, punishable with a significant prison sentence measured in years;

Misdemeanor offenses – such as speeding and public nuisance, which generally carry a monetary fine, or light jail term measured in days if the fine is unpaid,

Civil sanctions may be divided into Administrative sanctions, Domestic sanctions, and Contract sanctions

Administrative sanctions are enforced by regulatory governmental bodies, such as those that issue drivers licenses, professional and trade licensing, zoning boards, and so forth. Administrative sanctions for regulatory violations may result in fines and or temporary or permanent loss of license privileges. In most cases, administrative sanctions do not include imprisonment, but ignoring or failing to comply with an administrative sanction is considered a crime in most jurisdictions, which may result in criminal prosecution and imprisonment.

Domestic Sanctions are those that are enforced through family and juvenile courts in the dissolution of marriages, resolution of domestic disputes, and the treatment of criminal offenses by juveniles not subject to normal criminal sanctions. In times past, domestic courts endeavored to preserve marriages and families, and legislative and judicial efforts focused on putting the burden of proof and the expense of litigation on the party seeking dissolution or familial interruption. In more modern times, notably in western countries, domestic courts have been subverted into woman’s advocates, actively encouraging women to divorce, providing them free court services, adopting extreme “feminists” positions, and putting all the burden of proof and expense of litigation on the husband or father. Domestic court judges generally have secret hearings, and are widely regarded as over-reaching (to the point of abuse) in using its contempt powers to intimidate and imprison “obstinate” litigants (almost always male) brought before it.

Contract sanctions are among the most litigated matters. Non-performance and interpretation of contracts between private parties, and between government and private entities are often brought to a court of law or equity for resolution. Contract sanctions may range from enforcement of contract terms, to award of damages, to seizure and sale of property. Contract sanctions rarely involve criminal sanctions, but imprisonment for failing to heed a directive of the court (contempt of court) is possible. Contract litigants often find their court-ordered remedy impractical to realize, and their litigation expenses enormous. A concerted effort has been undertaken to promote non-judicial resolutions of contract disputes (example: binding and non-binding arbitration, and mock trials.)

Social Sanctions. There are several major classes of social associations. Some of those for which moral and ethical issues are important are as follows:

1) Inter-business associations, which involve business relations or financial transactions between two separate firms or parties;

2) Intra-business associations, which involve business relations or financial transactions between employer and employee;

3) Political associations, which exist to promote political agendas and political leaders to office;

4) Religious associations, which administer to the spiritual needs of its members;

5) Competency organizations, which promote the special interests and competencies of their members, such as trade unions and professional associations;

6) Advocacy associations, which advocate specific social agendas, such as animal rights or the regulation (or not) of firearms;

8) Front associations, which have covert activities masked by overt claims and activities; and

9) Opposition associations, which exist to oppose government sanctions or sovereignty.

Social sanctions differ from official sanctions in that the police power of the state are not normally brought to bear on the enforcement of the sanctions of social groups. However, in many instances, especially for inter- and intra- business associations, parties may avail themselves of remedies available through official sanctions, should an aggrieved party choose to bring their case to court.

Social associations often offer very large benefits to members at very low expense to the individual member, such as insurance against calamity, or promotion of an agenda that is far beyond what a single individual could accomplish.

In general, An individual is relatively free to choose to associate with others in whatever common cause they choose, providing it is not contrary to the interests of society at large. Most individuals would find it of considerable economic and social disadvantage to forego social associations. Besides economic benefits, associations provide an individual with feelings of belonging, social worth, a sense of direction, a more fulfilling life, social contacts, and opportunity to meet members of equal or higher status.

Transcendent Reality does not generally oppose the creation of laws by government, provided such laws are not inimical to Transcendent Reality. But rather it imposes a duty to test the efficacy of those laws and regulations that are established or proposed. Thus it is important to rely on not just divine authority, logical argument, or because some official has the power to impose itself, but that actual measurement of the efficacy of laws, and their sanctions, are made using established scientific methodology. Those laws that cannot be substantiated should be rescinded or eliminated, those that are substantiated, could be retained, and if the results so indicate, perhaps even strengthened.

1) A significant and strong causal relation must actually exist between a human action and the presumed consequences, as measured by standard statistical inference tests implying causation.

2) The sanctions imposed or intended must actually result in a significant social benefit commensurate with the social cost of the sanction, as measured by standard statistical inference tests reasonably implying causality.

3) The codification of a law passing the first two standards must not be extended beyond the reasonable implications of the statistical tests performed.

Related Issues: The moral foundations of Transcendent Reality (those a-priori tenets not amenable to statistical inference) are set forth in Morality, while those issues subject to statistical inference and intellectual debate are set forth in Ethics.

Historical Perspective	Human Predisposition	Sanctions
Legal Consequences	Perception vs. Reality	Transcendent Reality vs. Law
Prescriptive & Proscriptive Behavior