Is law invented by the strong to chain and rule the weak?

Question

Thanks philosophers for all the answers. Have a great day!

Answer 1

The law's invented by people to organize social life. The absence of the law leads to anarchy. However there's no law, that doesn't give opportunity to gain profit, there's no law without "backdoors". And those backdoors are invented by the strong to chain and rule the weak.

Answer 2

Or is it invented by the masses to protect the weak from the strong?

Neither, I think.

Laws are invented by society because a controlled society prospers far better than an anarchistic one.

Our laws are based on rules that go back thousands of years. These rules make it possible for people to live together.

Simple example: You can go down to the river to provide fish for the whole village; but you will only do so if you know your belongings and your family are still there when you get back.

Rules allow you to dedicate your day to activities that benefit the whole community. Without them, the community life grinds to a halt because everybody sits at home guarding his 'things' all day long.

Answer 3

Laws are created to reinforce the morals of a group. An example would be The Ten Commandments.

In our civilization, laws protect the innocent, help the poor and weak, lead in ethical thinking, and deter aberrant behavior.

The strong abide by these laws as well as the weak. Therefore, they're both free of chains or perhaps both are chained?

Answer 4

Funny you should ask that, because in some cases, there are laws that are invented by the weak in order to chain the strong. Communism, for example, seeks to take the power of the rich for the use of and distribution to the masses. (It did not succeed, instead it just took power from one kind of tyrant and gave it to another)

Lets also consider moral laws. "Blessed are the weak" "It is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven". Far from being blind, we tend to by sympathetic for those in a weaker position.

Now I'm not saying that the strong does not oppress anyone. I'd just like to point out that if you really want to delve into your question, you might like to read two philosophers that might give you some points to consider: Nietzsche and Ayn Rand.

Answer 5

Law is to prevent the strong from killing the strong, but some cultures allow it in specified contexts. Generally law is to prevent infinite revenge.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.


'§ 496

Law (right) considered as the realisation of liberty in externals, breaks up into a multiplicity of relations to this external sphere and to other persons (§§ 491, 493 ff.). In this way there are (1) several titles or grounds at law, of which (seeing that property both on the personal and the real side is exclusively individual) only one is the right, but which, because they face each other, each and all are invested with a show of right, against which the former is defined as the intrinsically right.

§ 497.

Now so long as (compared against this show) the one intrinsically right, still presumed identical with the several titles, is affirmed, willed, and recognised, the only diversity lies in this, that the special thing is subsumed under the one law or right by the particular will of these several persons. This is naive, non-malicious wrong. Such wrong in the several claimants is a simple negative judgement, expressing the civil suit. To settle it there is required a third judgement, which, as the judgement of the intrinsically right, is disinterested, and a power of giving the one right existence as against that semblance.

§ 498.

But (2) if the semblance of right as such is willed against the right intrinsically by the particular will, which thus becomes wicked, then the external recognition of right is separated from the right's true value; and while the former only is respected, the latter is violated. This gives the wrong of fraud — the infinite judgement as identical (§173) — where the nominal relation is retained, but the sterling value is let slip.

§ 499.

(3) Finally, the particular will sets itself in opposition to the intrinsic right by negating that right itself as well as its recognition or semblance. (Here there is a negatively infinite judgement (§ 173) in which there is denied the class as a whole, and not merely the particular mode — in this case the apparent recognition.) Thus the will is violently wicked, and commits a crime.

§ 500.

As an outrage on right, such an action is essentially and actually null. In it the agent, as a volitional and intelligent being, sets up a law — a law, however, which is nominal and recognised by him only — a universal which holds good for him, and under which he has at the same time subsumed himself by his action. To display the nullity of such an act, to carry out simultaneously this nominal law and the intrinsic right, in the first instance by means of a subjective individual will, is the work of Revenge. But revenge, starting from the interest of an immediate particular personality, is at the same time only a new outrage; and so on without end. This progression, like the last, abolishes itself in a third judgement, which is disinterested — punishment.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/osabstra.htm#OS496

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_terms.htm

Answer 6

Law keeps the honest man honest. Criminals don't care about laws.

Overly restrictive laws passed by a government not of the people or who care not of the peoples interests can turn into an oppresive rule.

Look at the laws now, so many things that take away our liberties, and a large part of the masses have let themselves be conditioned to accept it.

If our founding fathers were alive today, we would surely have another revolution/civil war on our hands. There are a lot of things our government has done that are a lot worse than what England ever did(in regards to taking away power/rights).

Answer 7

"The Law" is what each society makes of it, so don't confuse it with morality, i.e. what were "The Laws" of Nazi Germany? Some people have stated here, more or less, "otherwise we would have anarchy and chaos". Go back to my question . . . what law for what people? Certain laws are used as a pretext by the police to harass or arrest "undesirables". Is someone with a joint in their pocket causing "anarchy and chaos"? Another way to think about it is that some laws are designed to protect the rich from the rich, so that one rich person can not monopolize and exclude others with investment capital.

Answer 8

strong or weak, all laws are instinctively created by man to avoid anarchy & chaos; even before ancient civilization

a tribe, a group will have some form of law at a certain level which is acceptable & sometimes not acceptable to everyone

scientific or civil law will always correpond to basic natural laws

for example, "self-preservation".....;this natural law will force any being to defend itself and so for a sensient individual or group then comes a law to protect life hence killing is then unlawful unless the act of killing itself violates or threatens the very life it protects

those laws considered to be as the first civilized form are mostly those that are documented or written, which is why laws are regarded as art or more approriately as literature

laws are created as proof to man's reason, otherwise dinosaurs rule over us

the corruption is the factor why laws are perceived as impartial or should i say "selective" therefore fuelling darwin's theory of natural selection

man's imperfection of course extends to both his existence & reasoning otherwise in a perfect world.....;laws are no longer necessary

Answer 9

Not necessarily..coz the weak sometimes need to be pushed a little or they will remain weak forever unless the strong purposely doing it, well, like " to chain and rule the weak " entirely for their personal gain or advantage.

Answer 10

The strong do not require law to control the weak.

Love is the act of considering the self interest of another as thought it were your own.

It is what allows us to form couples, groups and societies.

But social love is very conditional. It's all for one ONLY if it's one for all.

We are driven by self interest to form groups, but we are often tempted by self interest to cheat the group interest.

So the society requires a mechanism to punish members who act against the group interest. And that is Law.

Law is the enforcement of the mutuality of societal love.

That said, humans are pretty sneaky, so they are not above trying to use the law to cheat the social contract.

An aside to joeyrodent. Marx was an idiot. While he correctly saw Self Interest as the cause of Societal evil, he never grasped it was also the source of Societal good.

Marx could see the law being used as a tool of oppression,
but again he was cluless to the intent of law, which is justice.