Philosophy Paper

[SK]

First comment: Make paragraphs. A single block of text this size is a crime against humanity.

Second comment: The overall tone of this sounds like someone rambling on about unjust laws. Imagine two guys casually arguing over some philosophical matter - that's what this sounds like. Maybe this is due to not having paragraphs, which creates a feeling of poor structure.

Thanks everyone for the input, Apraxhren and Stoopider etc.

My style when it comes to this kind of stuff is to just start typing, then I can try to see where I was going and revise. It is not structured at all, it can sound a bit like rambling, but I think I do a good job of staying on the main point. Many philosophers don't, mainly what is called "hard" philosophy ie Hegel, Kant etc.

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

[XanBcoo]

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

I'm the same way. However it's still a good idea to organize your thoughts (perhaps as Stoopider suggested) instead of writing them out in stream-of-conscious ramblings, as Ryllharu said. This will make it harder to go back and reorganize later on in the writing process.

What I usually do is separate each "concept" in to its own paragraph, and then once I've got all the information I need, I pick and choose from each paragraph, placing the necessary points where they would need to be in the final draft.

Since you are forming a logical argument, you have to make sure that one statement logically follows from the last. So far it seems you haven't done this. Your sentences are also extremely choppy, and you need to fix grammar mistakes/run-on sentences/etc. If you do upload a word file, I wouldn't mind proofreading it, which is my guilty (nerdy) pleasure. Good luck.

[Stoopider]

Yup, break down your essay into portions and re-write it. At the moment it's everywhere, you have good points, but it's hard to follow your train of thought reading the essay. You might want to restructure it. It's not awful, just needs structure.

[SK]

Yup, break down your essay into portions and re-write it. At the moment it's everywhere, you have good points, but it's hard to follow your train of thought reading the essay. You might want to restructure it. It's not awful, just needs structure.

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, my mind is very every which direction, I had attempted to direct it in which I spent 4 hours not writing anything. So, I try to just get my thoughts on paper and then revise. Good thing is I have till the end of the semester.

[Stoopider]

You might want to do some reading on the earliest thinkers of the Law. I think Thomas Aquinas is one,

"St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts the human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Probably might want to read up on some of the earliest thinkers of the law. Martin Luther King is an interesting one as well. He talks alot about unjust laws.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King

" * One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

* In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?"

Hmm.. Wish I can help more, but I never studied nor majored in Philosophy.

[SK]

You might want to do some reading on the earliest thinkers of the Law. I think Thomas Aquinas is one,

"St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts the human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Probably might want to read up on some of the earliest thinkers of the law. Martin Luther King is an interesting one as well. He talks alot about unjust laws.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King

" * One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

* In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?"

Hmm.. Wish I can help more, but I never studied nor majored in Philosophy.

I read the MLK thing, and I'm reading Aquinas' thing right now along with some others' stuff.

[SK]

Here's an update:

III
Justice is the system of consequences that naturally derive from any action committed by the individual. For every action committed by the individual(s) there will be an equal, deserved reaction. Naturally every negative action will spawn a reverse reaction in answer to it; the negative action will be answered to with a negative reaction. Every positive action is the entire opposite, in that it will be reacted to positively. A negative action can never be positive to some, and the positive action can never be negative to others. A just law can never be created nor destroyed, since the just law is only a formality for the natural consequences to negative actions.
Although justice is a natural system of the world, its consequences to reactions are not known to all. Humans react to the actions of another, whether negatively or positively, because of the system inherent in nature we call justice. Each human only knows to react, not what the exact proper reaction is. These reactions can differ based on culture, religion, sex, upbringing, and other reasons. Laws are needed to insure that the consequences for negative actions are equal and deserved. A system of laws must be intended for this purpose, reaching a common level of justice applicable to all. This common level of justice is meant to mean the common level of consequences to negative actions, and insure that the consequences are in accord with justice.
Any rule made formal by passage through a system of law is no longer simply a rule, but a law actualized by legal force. The term legal force is used to describe the force of consequence to a negative action for which the law is intended. These laws, being representations of natural order, are referred to as Just Laws. Laws of just nature have always existed, and cannot be either destroyed or created. They can be expected to be obeyed just as a person is expected to breath. For a Law to have an expectation of obedience it must meet the following conditions; the law must be public: known to all in its application, the people must know of the law to follow it, explicit: that is the law is a necessary formalization of justice, the people must know the law is needed and will be broken, and uniformly enforced, the people should know the consequences of breaking the law are same for all. Today we call the aforementioned conditions legitimacy: a law must be legitimate in order for it to have an expectation of obedience. Just Laws, being representations of natural order, are already legitimate, and do not need to be designated as such. Laws whose legitimacy is unclear are questionable because they must be given the status they should have already had before their formalization as a law.
These questionable laws are referred to as Unjust Laws. These Laws are questionable because they are outside the bounds of justice. As aforementioned, the system we call Law is in place solely for the purpose of order. The order established must be Just, that is as close to natural order as possible, or disorder, in the form of violence, will occur. The people look to this system to insure consequences, on a common basis, are applied evenly, and deservedly, to all. This can be called a human attempt at the systemization of justice. Any law not in the bounds of this system, of justice, is not a law. A system which allows a law outside of justice to be formalized is not just itself, and therefore causes disorder, which cannot be called a system of law. The question now presents itself, is an Unjust Law a Law?
If it is remembered that a just law is a formalized representation of natural order, than it can now be said that an unjust law is a formalized representation of opposition to that order. While the Just Law only attempts to make standard the natural consequence to negative actions, the Unjust Law makes standard the unjust consequence to negative or positive actions. In explanation, the Unjust Law does not formalize a natural reaction to action, but the abnormal one, of no generality. This is made possible by the Unjust Law’s ability to influence the individual’s perception of justice, which is natural order, by intimidation or illusion of validity.
The Unjust Law is questionable in every way the Just Law is not, which may be called questions of legitimacy. If any law and its intentions are not made known to all, if its purpose of existence is unclear, and if it is not enforced indiscriminately, then its validity as a law nonexistent. An Unjust Law then lacks the legitimacy needed for it to be expected to be obeyed. If a law is not known to all, or made to not be known to all, or changed in retrospect to affect but a few, or many, but not others, if its establishment as a law is questioned because of its injustice, if it is not enforced evenly and deservedly to all, then the law cannot be expected to be obeyed by the people the law affects. If a law cannot be expected to be obeyed, but instead can be expected to be disobeyed, the law then has no function as a law. Without function as a law, that is order which resembles as closely to natural order as possible, the law then has no purpose in being called a law, and is a contradiction in terms. A Law which cannot be expected to be obeyed, which serves to cause disorder instead of order, which is Unjust in that it is not a reflection of natural reactions, good or bad, to actions, cannot be called a law.
While an Unjust Law may be empowered by force, it lacks the legal force which empowers all true, Just Laws. Remember that legal force can be defined as the force behind a natural consequence to negative actions. This force, which can be labeled justice, is intended to enforce natural order. Justice then fulfills its purpose in the natural order, the negative act is stopped from being committed a second time by the force of its consequence. This process is formalized and made standard with the passing of Law. Unjust Laws on the other hand enforce disorder by causing injustice to be formalized into law, which causes a disruption in the natural order established by justice. This disorder caused by Unjust Laws is a result of the conflict which erupts between those who follow Unjust Laws and those who oppose them. The force behind Unjust Laws can then be said to be oppositional to the legal force behind Just Laws. While the force behind Just Laws can be called legal in that it serves the purpose of stabilizing order, the force behind Unjust Laws cannot be called legal force in that it serves the purpose of destabilizing order. Force which does not serve the purposes of Law cannot be called legal force. Laws must be actualized by legal force. Unjust Laws, lacking legal force, are not actualized as Laws, and cannot be called as such.
While Unjust Laws do lack the legal force which actualizes True Laws, they are actualized by a negative force, that is, fear. Within the realm of justice consequences are restricted to negative actions, and for that justice is perceived as good and protective of the people. Returning to the earlier thought that justice is a term applied to the system of consequences for actions chosen by individual: a negative action results in a negative consequence. The aforementioned characteristics of justice are also the characteristics of law, being that law restricts consequences to negative actions, and is therefore thought of as good and protective. Any opposition to these characteristics within a system of law is contradictive to the purpose of law, questioning it as a system of law at all. Unjust Laws do not restrict consequences to negative actions, but to any actions lawmakers see fit, and cannot be thought of as good or protective. Unjust Laws can enforce consequences for positive actions, and none for negative actions, eventually causing disorder and dissent, its terming as a Law is then contradictive of the purpose of Law. The force behind Unjust Laws, that is, fear, causes the individual to ignore the natural order known to him, and to follow the law. The force of the law can enshroud the law in a fog of legitimacy, being that the people are too fearful of the consequences of the law to question its legitimacy. While obedience to Unjust Laws is strictly out of fear, obedience to Just Laws is out of reason. Laws are representations of natural order, a needed formalization in societies ruled by protocol. Unjust Laws are representations of disorder, a contradiction to any government attempting to establish order. A law which causes disorder and dissent is a contradiction to Law itself, and is not a law at all.
What is an Unjust Law then? Unjust Laws are formalizations of injustice, followed by those too fearful to challenge it. A law which is Just serves the purpose of law, that is: enforcing order. A law which is Unjust does not serve the purpose of law, and instead enforces disorder. Polar opposites cannot be referred to as the same thing, and to do so is to contradict the meaning of the word, in this case, Law. To insure the further existence of laws, governments, and recognition of justice, laws which are unjust cannot be called laws, and should be known as what they are: tyranny.