Bay 12 Games Forum
Finally... => Life Advice => Topic started by: Aqizzar on February 20, 2009, 07:33:42 am
-
Hey folks. I'm doing a speech on the practice of judicial review for a class (so it'll be mostly bullshit), and part of the assignment is I have to give out a survey, for the audience's view on the topic. So I wrote this, and I thought you guys might like to take a crack at it. And to head off comments about other questions I should have asked, it has to fit on a sheet of paper, with writing space, so it's pretty short. These were the best I could think of in the last 20 minutes. I'll let y'all know how it turns out, should be fascinating.
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you?
Something can be described as rational if it has been given some serious thought and logical processes have been applied.
2) How would you define a “belief”?
Belief is putting ones trust in something despite either a lack of rationality or the inability of rationality to be applied to it.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? Under belief? It depends on the person and the morals as well as the reasons they trust these morals. Some morals can easily be defined through rationality, while others require a bit of belief or are believed blindly. Morality is such a brad category that applying a single definition to it all would be idiotic.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
The current laws of the United States is technically a belief system, centering around the moral of freedom. Heck, laws are the manifestation of a belief system being enforced. Due to the brad range of belief systems and rational systems(As rationality can sometimes lead to two vastly different conclusions depending on how you rationalize), it would be reckless for a code of laws to be based around one person under their influence if the morality driving the whole thing is freedom and equality for all.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
Of course. Not everybody has strong enough of a willpower to always enforce their belief systems or rational systems.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
Yes. Another morality is the sense of Duty. As much as a person can disagree with the outcome they are a facing, Duty can compel them to take the outcome defined by the laws of the land. This is as they should be, as judges should be the arbiters of the law. Of course, removing their rationality, belief and morality would depend on the morality of the code of laws they abide by.
I would like to note a few of those questions seem a bit centered around the US system of government, but only as examples.
-
Hey folks. I'm doing a speech on the practice of judicial review for a class (so it'll be mostly bullshit), and part of the assignment is I have to give out a survey, for the audience's view on the topic. So I wrote this, and I thought you guys might like to take a crack at it. And to head off comments about other questions I should have asked, it has to fit on a sheet of paper, with writing space, so it's pretty short. These were the best I could think of in the last 20 minutes. I'll let y'all know how it turns out, should be fascinating.
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Based on logical reasoning and sound evidence.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
A strongly held opinion that may or may not be based on sound evidence and reasoning.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Sometimes. Some forms of morality are part of an individual person's beliefs, while others are almost universal among varying cultures and groups.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
No. They should be for the protection of individuals/groups and their rights.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
Yes
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
I believe they should, but isn't that kind of a blanket statement? That all judges can be impartial to all cases? I highly doubt that, but I think a judge with his priorities in order can be impartial.
-
I don't really believe that people's minds can generate pure rationality because we really didn't evolve to do that
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
A belief that can be arrived at through logic using apparently truths
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
Something an individual holds to be true
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Yes, morality are beliefs. That does not make them irrational (or untrue)
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
The law should be based on rationally proven truths. Moral beliefs that cannot be rationally proven are the domain of social mores, not the law
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
No, our beliefs tint our thinking and perception of the world.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
Yes. Rational truth is readily observable or derived from the readily observable. Quis Custodiet and all, I don't think many ARE truly impartial.
No. Legally, the concept of reasonable doubt and true enough needs to be left to the discretion of someone. I would agree that judges should only have the option of mercy, however.
-
You know what the sad part is?
MSWord 07 hates OpenOffice, so my file for this got deformatted when I tried to print it at the campus library and had to retype the questions from memory. I forgot to add all the "Why do you think this?" type postscripts.
I got almost nothing but yes/no answers from 27 people. Fucking useless.
-
Handouts are useless for anything real... Typing is way easier (and thus more robust).
Thought about doing a web based quiz?
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
---A logical and calm way of addressing a situation.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
---The code one follows in their daily life, be it religious or otherwise.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
---Yes
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
---Yes, it should be a reflection of a moral system. No, it should not be my own, I hold myself to high standards of conduct, and doubt that many people would have an easy enough time following such standards as I have set forth for myself.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
---Unfortunately, yes. There have been times when I've acted against my own beliefs, if not simply because it was the lesser of two evils.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
---No, I don't think they can truly be impartial. They'd have to have no beliefs or morals of their own, and need to be brought up in such a way that no case brought before them could be a reflection, in any way, of their own lives, lest they think back to an occasion similar in their life to the experience and lean to one side or the other. I do not think it possible for a human to be impartial on anything, so I don't think that they should be impartial because I don't think that it'd be possible for them to be truly human if they were capable of such.
-
You know what the sad part is?
MSWord 07 hates OpenOffice, so my file for this got deformatted when I tried to print it at the campus library and had to retype the questions from memory. I forgot to add all the "Why do you think this?" type postscripts.
I got almost nothing but yes/no answers from 27 people. Fucking useless.
So, you got a few that weren't just yes/no answers? What were they?
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Being able to use logic in decision-making, an overly excited person is often thought to be 'irrational' because they are so worked up they can't step back and make logical decisions.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
Things held to be true. The logic in a rational decision is based on a person's beliefs, which means someone can appear rational to one person and irrational to another.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Which one? It would fit under belief, as it is a part of our fundamental understanding of how things work. It wouldn't fit under rationality however. A sociopath is thinking rationally, however much people might wish to say otherwise.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Of course it should be my own. I mean why wouldn't someone want their views to be considered the correct ones? But no not really, it's a matter of opinion. If there was a way to avoid the question of morality completely then that would be the best way, but since people want government to protect them that will never happen.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
It's possible to act against some of their beliefs, but not -all-. If they're forced at gunpoint that's because they 'believe' that their life is worth more than resisting.
(And no I wouldn't hold a gun to anyone's head :) Promise)
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
No, it's impossible. Humans are not logical creatures, we have to train ourselves to think logically and what little this achieves comes at great difficulty.
-
Waaay too dark, Jamuk.
Also, did you get any stupid and/or crazy answers?
-
I'll collate my results shortly. I'm in the middle of doing my laundry.
At a quick glance, I'm seeing an awful lot of "something that thinks"/"sane"/"logical"/"I don't know" answers for #1, so I'm not too hopeful. A lot of obvious answers for Beliefs.
Virtually all Yes for #3, a few Maybes, a couple Nos. Really wish I'd put a "Why?" on there, because I could really use some explanations.
All over the scale on #4. Some bitterness, some ambivalence, one claim to the Ten Commandments being America's legal basis.
Almost all flat Yeses on #5. The only longer answers were religious, and they were still Yes.
A lot of waffling and ranging on #6, including some flatly contradictory answers.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Rationality is a conceptual illusion that imposes a set of rules upon the otherwise random and unquantifiable sensory and intellectual thought. It's sole purpose is to isolated and suppress a pre-determined section of either unpleasant or socially unacceptable thinking. and as such, the exact definitionion of rationality is amorphous and subject to interpretation. as exemplified by the various differences, both accidental and perpetuated, that exist between separate cultures.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
Any adherence to thought, wether it be a principle, imaginative, or presumed knowledge, can be considered a belief. and like rational thought, any belief (to varying degrees) can be subject to re-assessment on the part of the believer.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Morality, regardless of it's appearance as a human invention, can be explain as an outgrowth of natural instinct. most animals will not eat there own kind, and many have deep affection for their own young. Human morality is merely a more complicated and self aware (though still very fluid) set of these inter-relational and bodily instincts.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
In order for a society of any great size to survive and flourish. all members of that society must act and think succinctly and with regard for the society as a whole. and while the methods of enforcing this behavior are often harsh and many time lamentable, they are, in the grand scheme of things, largely irrelevent.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
if a human were to intentionally act in a way that was not in line with any of his beliefs or principles, he would first need to change his way of thinking to allow this certain behevior. To illustarate: if a man believes it is wrong to cheat on his wife, but does so anyway, it is not because he has chosen to simply ignore hie belief, but it is because he has changed his belief set (which here means putting personal pleasure above marital vows) to allow him to do this act. so, in short, the mind (be it intellectual of instinctual) determines what the body does. and as such the question is a non-issue.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
No judge can be, or has ever been impartial to a legal case. nor could they be. for if they were truly impartial, it would be impossible for them to make any decision whatsoever.
-
ooh. was I too late?
sorry.
-
Nah, answer all you like. I need data before Wednesday at the latest, but you can all go on discussing it as long as you like. That was just the class result.
And why the hell are you all coloring your answers blue? I'm using the Darkling theme, I can't fucking read that.
-
1. Rational means "logical". It means thinking intellectually rather than emotionally.
2. A belief is something somebody thinks is true, whether it's actually true or not. I BELIEVE that Dwarf Fortress will be finished before I get too senile to play it, but I don't know this for a fact.
3. Morality is a personal or social code of conduct which details what is "right" and what is "wrong".
4. They ARE, certainly. Should they be? I'm not sure. I'm inclined to believe that a mature enough society could create a set of laws based solely on rationality, and further, I'm inclined to believe that such a set of laws might well be superior to the laws we have now, but I don't know this for a fact, and I also believe that there is NOT any such society on our Earth at this time.
5. Yes. Edgar Allen Poe referred to this as "The Imp of the Perverse". George Orwell referred to it as "doublethink". It is quite frequent for somebody to think, "I know I shouldn't do this, but I'll do it anyway."
6. Unfortunately for society, humans are inherently selfish and emotional creatures. Judges are human just like the rest of us, and therefore are vulnerable to acting irrationally or even stupidly. It is possible for a judge to be impartial most of the time, but it's not easy. As I understand it, that is part of the reason for their extensive training. I don't believe it's possible for a real human being (rather than, say, a movie or comic book character) to be impartial all of the time. However, it's not necessarily harmful for a judge not to be totally impartial. He can think whatever he wants about a case as long as the judgement he hands down is in accordance with the law.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
"Rational" Is a subjective state of mind when one believes that they or someone else is behaving within acceptable standards.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
A "Belief" is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
No, Morality would be closer to the above definition of "Rational".
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Laws and legal matters should attempt to be impartial to any particular morals, as they exist to serve the people and not to serve a particular viewpoint. In practice though it's nearly impossible to be that objective.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
It can be done depending on the circumstances. But it's not an easy thing to do.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
No person is infallible. Though a judge should attempt to be as impartial as he can
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
consistent with or based on or using reason
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
any cognitive content held as true
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Yes. You hold it as true.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Um.
Laws and legal practices exist solely to enforce the dictates of the leadership, or the community. I don't quite know why it should enforce any particular system of morality, altough I would greatly prefer it if it would support my morality system, I don't quite see why it should prefer my morality system over that of the leadership.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
Yeah, pretty much. If a person is afraid of the consquences of his action, he can lie and cover up his beliefs. Or further, he may seek to compromise his ideology, disregarding his beliefs.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
Judges exist to interpret the law, to say what it says. The law is vague, but that's their job to determine what is society's dictates and what society wants, and what the law says.
Indeed, most people will disagree on if the judges are impartial. But that should not really matter at all. Regardless on if you agree with the judges' ruling, the judges exist solely as a way to END disputes. If you seek to contest a judge's ruling, by calling the judge's impartility into question, you are continuing the dispute. The debate should end. The judge's word is final.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
-Having a coherent reason for any beliefs which are not self evident and being aware of the assumptions made when they are not self evident. Additionally, one must be aware that one's beliefs or assumptions may wrong and what seems self evident is not true, but not despairing.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
-A belief is a opinion which we consider it beneficial to treat as being true.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
-Yes, many people believe in moral codes because they believe this belief will produce beneficial results (results may vary, in terms of what they expect.)
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
-Laws should be oriented towards some goal. Sometimes, this goal is moral, sometimes not. Many moral standards are considered worth adopting into law. I hold the belief that laws should enforce morality only where there is rational support for that moral standard.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
-When trying to act without disregard to a belief, we will sometimes succeed and sometimes fail.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
-They will sometimes fail to be impartial but sometimes succeed.
Do you believe they should be?
-Judges must exercise some form of judgement. It is their duty to see when the law applies and when it does not. They should not decide to ignore the law due to an outside concern. However, they should, when they rule it necessary, overrule the meaning and/or spirit of the law due to factors which they believe renders the existing standard incorrect, especially in the case where the meaning of the law violates the spirit.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
The ability to make clear cut decisions without the silly emotions.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
Is something you must think is true no matter what. "I believe that that orange is orange".
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Depends, if you believe something to immoral then it is, if not then it isn't.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
I think laws and legal practices shape our believes of whats right and wrong. Different countries under different governing system believe in different things. Then again, laws should be good for the majority of people and aim to apply to every single person out there.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
Yes, if confronted with overwhelming evidence to suggest that their belief is wrong they may want to change.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
No judge can be impartial, because all Judges are human. We all have a different set of moral codes that apply differently to different people. Emotions will be a part to play in a judges desicion no matter what.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you?
Rational choices are choices that are make sense in light of a person's situation, instincts, and beliefs. This is a very broad definition that covers the vast majority of all human behavior, even that which most people consider "illogical". An addict that continues to take dangerous drugs even though they want to stop is being rational by my definition, because they have sensible reasons for this failure to act in what they believe to be in their own best interest. An action need not be logical to be rational.
2) How would you define a “belief”?
A belief is an assertion that a person is confident is correct. They don't have to be absolutely certain, willing to stake their life on it, just confident enough to act on the belief in everyday situations. A person's knowledge and philosophy are both based entirely on their beliefs, or more specifically, what they believe is true about the world, and what they believe works in life. The emphasis of science is in the formation of useful and non-obvious beliefs about the world.
3) Would you include morality under this definition?
Morality is explained by each person through their beliefs, by necessity. But it is an abstract that is not inherently defined as a set of beliefs. If you believe, for example, that God defines morality, that would mean that if you are correct morality is not based on belief. Nonetheless, it would still be your belief that God has defined morality in that way. So morality is perceived through belief, but it is not necessarily a belief in itself.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Yes and no; laws and legal practice should be a melding of the views of the society. It is up to the people of that society to decide under what system these laws and practices should be made. There will always be imperfections in the way the system we create operates, but ideally we would endeavor to consistently adhere as closely to aggregate popular opinion as possible. I personally believe in some restrictions: Measures that significantly reduce the freedom of discourse or that are hostile to minorities are cases
where I wouldn't want "tyranny by majority" to rule. But aside from some of these caveats, I'm willing to set aside my own system of morality as a basis of law in favor of using a more common one.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
There's no reason a person would ever do this, as this would be acting with complete disregard for their knowledge, experience, and worldview.
It is entirely possible to betray your own principles, or to do things that you know are in violation of your beliefs, however. David chose to walk through a wall, knowing full well that he would fail, and smacked into it painfully. But, that is because he has a tendency to be playful and experiment, personality traits developed through his experiences. Alice decided to commit suicide, knowing that she was violating extremely strongly held religious and moral beliefs, though she fortunately reconsidered. Yet even her initial decision was informed by her current state of mind and her perception of her circumstances.
Both David and Alice actively and knowingly decided to act against very strongly held beliefs, but their choices were not made with complete disregard for their beliefs -- rather, they have conflicting beliefs, or conflicts in the patterns of thought and habit arising from their beliefs, and when forced to take action they resolved this by betraying or ignoring some of them. They both agree in hindsight that they were "acting like idiots", but they were not acting with complete disregard for their beliefs.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases? Do you believe they should be?
Even two good Judges will not necessarily make the same decisions. Each one will take to the courtroom their own life experiences in the form of unique beliefs. The difference is that a bad Judge will hold their own life experience as more important than the arguments presented, while a good Judge will hold the arguments presented as more important than their personal experiences. A poorly argued case, or an ambiguous and difficult issue, can easily result in varying decisions.
So no, perfect impartiality is not possible or necessary; it is, however, a desirable ideal. If a Judge believes strongly enough in the correctness of that ideal, their bias toward impartiality may be significantly stronger than any bias they have relevant to the case, and that is more important than the fact that they cannot be perfectly impartial.
Jury trials exist in part because we do not place our faith in the absolute impartiality of Judges.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Process of thought is rational when it is based upon facts (not beliefs) and conceived using (mainly) logic. At least it should avoid any common fallacies and be open to criticism.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.
Considering an assertion to be correct, regardless of contrary evidence or lack thereof. Basically an irrational process of thought.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Yes and no. Morality is beneficial for the society as a whole and it is propably the reason it developed. Even if it stems from belief, it has a logical reason to exist.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
It should be a reflection of the society's own morality to be effective. As for a particular system of belief, I can't give an unbiased answer. It would be today's humanistic morality with some minor alterations.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
I don't think so, unless in life-threatening situations, relying on instincts. Or intoxicated.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
I don't think it's even remotely possible.
-
I can't say anything more useful than what has already been said, but here you go:
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Rationality, as in agreeing with reason.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
Confidence in an idea.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
No. I would include morality under the particular beliefs in question, and whether or not an action is rational under those beliefs. There's no absolute morality you can really define.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Laws and legal practice should stem from similarities in it's people's various moral systems. It would include much of my own.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
All the time to be able to adapt.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
While they're supposed to be impartial, it's impossible for a man to be perfectly impartial. I don't believe a Judge is ever 100% impartial, but desirably they should be.
-
sounds like your professor has been reading last quarter's Daedalus, and building his assignments from it:
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/daed/137/4
or maybe its just a common rhetorical discussion.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
Relating to rationalism, a system in which truth is found by applying deductive reasoning to axioms such as X=X, P=1 and If: A=B and B=C, A=C. This does not mean sensable, as you can have senseable ideas through empiricism and stupid ideas using rationalism.
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
A statement that one hold to be true.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
Your can have beliefs about morality and what constitutes morals.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
Ofcourse I think everyone should follow my morality. It wouldn't be my morality if I didn't think people should act that way.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
They can, but it is profoundly stupid to do so. ie; "I should avoid death", "Jumping off of a cliff would induce death", "I should avoid jumping off of cliffs"
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
Judges can be impartial, if they apply reason exactly and have a well made set of laws to judge with. I cannot qualify the second question. I would like my judge to be impartial if I like the laws, but I would like him to ignore the law if his judgement will produce a more just result.
-
I'm pretty sure he already did his survey, guys.
::)
-
Actually, I gave the speech Monday morning. After writing it, on Monday morning.
Yes, in another of my patented last-minute ass-pulls, I stated reading through the surveys I handed out in class at 3:30AM. I finished my script at 7:05, drove to class, and did a rehearsal in my head on the walk across campus. Delivered it five minutes after walking into the room, and went two minutes over time with excellent delivery.
Shamefully, I must admit I've only skimmed through the stuff you guys have posted here. I'll read through it all soon though, and probably use it in my next speech.
-
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
let's see...
1) The term "rational" means that the object is a result of logical thinking. interestingly enough, while 'rational' implies that the basis of such logic should be sound, it does not require it. So what [object] exactly is rational is different for different people.
2)a belief is something that you think to be true, without testing it. A note of interest is that what most people consider "facts" (f.e.: earth being round, electrons flowing from minus to plus, anyone becoming president), are in facts their beliefs, as they never conducted the experiments necessary to prove this.
3)I would be reluctant to include morality under that definition, as not all people think morality to be right, even if they are a minority.
4)
(what exactly does 'reflection' mean? I'm going to assume the question was "Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a derived from any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?")
yes, I believe that laws are derived from systems of morality (this could be just one system, but with any longstanding judicial system this would be unlikely). Furthermore I believe that it would be extremely hard to produce a system of laws not related to any morality, as laws serve to facilitate systems of values (what is needed or unneeded by society) which form the basis of systems of morality.
5)A person can not disregard their actual beliefs. however they can:
a)change beliefs
b)they can disregard what they claim (or even believe) to be their beliefs in special situations. They will still be acting out part of their belief system though.
6)Judges can not be "impartial at all", nor are they expected to be. Indeed if all the judge's decision were exactly what the law says, with nothing added, subtracted, interpreted, or chosen, her work would be meaningless. Hypothetically...
Assuming that the cost was no object, and judges just had a nominal position, just so they could get a paycheck (and are not expected to benefit society), they can be made impartial by holding them in isolation chambers with only law textbooks of company all their lives outside of trials (and of course the judges will not be usable for any future trials that have anything in common with previous trials). ;D
-
Actually, I gave the speech Monday morning. After writing it, on Monday morning.
Yes, in another of my patented last-minute ass-pulls, I stated reading through the surveys I handed out in class at 3:30AM. I finished my script at 7:05, drove to class, and did a rehearsal in my head on the walk across campus. Delivered it five minutes after walking into the room, and went two minutes over time with excellent delivery.
Shamefully, I must admit I've only skimmed through the stuff you guys have posted here. I'll read through it all soon though, and probably use it in my next speech.
cool, theres some fascinatingly vague questions.
1) What does the term “rational” mean to you? (Either a definition or interpretation is fine.)
thinking in a way that encorperates most things, to form your plan.
certain forms of insanity can be mostly rational
2) How would you define a “belief”? (This does not imply that “belief” and “rational” must be distinct.)
(This also need not be a religious question, but that is of course applicable.)
belief- an idea that you think is true, or want to be true, or others think or want to be true.
I don't believe god can have a belief because i believe god does not exist.
3) Would you include morality under this definition? (If not, can you shortly describe why?)
morality, belief and practicality are 2/3 exclusive for certain... situations.
a morality is what you want to be true, and a belief is what you think is true.
practicality is what really is true.
4) Do you believe that laws and legal practice are or should be a reflection of any particular system of morality? Would this be your own?
yes, many people have good morality, and i want most of what those moralitys contain to govern the world.
my own? i've put great effort into my own morality, but I haven't used it or tested it since middleschool (in college atm) as it governed situations not covered in everyday life.
5) Do you believe a person can choose to act with complete disregard for their beliefs?
(This does not necessarily mean against their beliefs, but would naturally include the possibility.)
yes, they use practicality, and ignore, bend, or break their belief.
if they make spectatular exceptions through the belief system, then it can both defy and remain totally compatible.
6) With those statements in mind, do you believe Judges can be impartial to all, or even any, cases?
Do you believe they should be?
yes, judges who truely care about maintaining a fair and balanced system can remain completely and entirely impartial.
untill they realize that our System of justice, like any practical item, is imperfect.
following the system to the letter, or following your heart to the letter will lead to either great atrocity, or great injustice.
judges shouldn't remain completely impartial in all cases, nor should they ignore completely impartialy in all cases.
they must find balance, favoring justice.