Philosophy Paper

[SK]

Okay, I wrote my first philosophy paper, but I need some help. Basically this paper after corrections, revisions, etc, will be the final for one of my courses. There is also a contest and the winner receives $500, even 4th place gets $100. The topic of the paper is Unjust Laws are not Laws at All. I am not allowed to take a position (yet), this segment is arguing for Unjust Laws not being laws, as arguing for them being laws is boring, generic, and easy, so I won't paste it here.

Basically you can help me by finding the weak points so I can fix them.

Unjust laws are not laws at all. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, still are not laws. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws on the other hand have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality. In nations as well, we refer to just systems, as real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, the fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize justice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict with the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. If I created a society, based upon Unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.
However, if one does not follow Unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the Unjust law the power of real laws. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceiving and acknowledging, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that is real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. They do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.

Thanks for any help....

[masamuneehs]

usually i wouldn't do this but... my comments are in red


Unjust laws are not laws at all. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, they arestill are not laws. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. This previous sentence could be deleted because it is repetitive of what came immediately before it.Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws ,on the other hand ,have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality. In nations as well, we refer to just systems, no comma hereas real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, the fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize systematicjustice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict Are also in conflict with OR also conflict withwith the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. But what about the just laws in that nation? Simply having one unjust law does not mean the other laws in that system are not just. This is a critical flaw in your logic, since you haev the fallacy of one unjust law undermining all accompanying just laws, when in fact that unjust law only undermines itself and, to a limited extent, the governing body. That governing body may also regain legitimacy by abandoning/reforming the unjust law OR making just laws, even while maintaining the unjust oneJust laws can be neither created nor destroyed. I believe you are using the term 'just laws' to speak about what Locke and others describe as "natural law". These are not the same thing! A just law may be made to address a situation which was only created by society/government. A law stating that a government cannot spy on its own people may be considered just, but it is not natural, because government itself is artificial. Natural laws are the right to life, liberty (freedom of choice etc.), property and some others, depending on which philosopher you're reading.They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. <-- sentence is not complete or is simply fucked up. Fix itIf I created a society, based upon Unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.
However, if one does not follow Unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the Unjust law the power of real laws. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws.however you disagreed with this point earlier when defining Just laws as superior to Unjust ones, since the power of Just laws includes natural legitimacy and natural agreement with people's pursuit of happiness, and thus can be logically obeyed more often. That argument you make places limitations on the power of Unjust law It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing i do not think this is a real word. is it? to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceiving and acknowledging, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that is real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. incomplete sentenceThey do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.is this really where the paper cuts off?

pretty good paper. needs another round of editting for grammar. You must distinguish between Natural Laws and Restrictive Laws, since both can (in some schools) be considered Just.

also, spacing needs to be done if you expect anyone other than my foolish self to respond to this.

[SK]

Yeah, its half way done, not even really. The first part is me saying unjust laws are laws which I didn't want to include. I haven't taken my position yet really, which would continue to go more into the appearance/existance/consequences etc point.

The natural law thing you brought up I thought was very interesting.

"it is not natural, because government itself is artificial"

this is a fundamental part of my arguement, being that if humans are natural creatures then anything they create is also natural, including government. which now means I need to address that. fuck. shit. Wait I could just distinguish further between just law and natural law and maybe that will solve it. hmm. I could go into further detail but Im sure you get what I am saying.

[mage]

There are a lot of fragmented sentences, sentences that just don't make sense, sentences that need more clarification, and grammer issues. Space the paragraphs and I'll fix some things for you. Grammar happens to be my forte.

Edit: It would actually be better if you just uploaded the word file.

[Ryllharu]

I can make a couple of general comments, since I'm not that big a stickler on grammar (green squiggles in Word, (passive sentence) consider revising, "F*** it. It sounds better.") I can't really help you on subject matter, since I had to take Ethics, with almost no focus on Law.

You need to make your stance known as soon as possible. Otherwise, the readers don't know where you intend to go with it. It's about two pages or so in Word, and that's fine for an introduction for a thesis paper (25+ pages) but even on those your position has to be known immediately, the first sentence even. Then you can take all the time you want setting up a basis for your primary points and arguements.

You also use the term "Unjust Laws" too often in the beginning as the first two words in a sentence. It makes it sound too...preechy, narrative instead of an argument.

[SK]

I can make a couple of general comments, since I'm not that big a stickler on grammar (green squiggles in Word, (passive sentence) consider revising, "F*** it. It sounds better.") I can't really help you on subject matter, since I had to take Ethics, with almost no focus on Law.

You need to make your stance known as soon as possible. Otherwise, the readers don't know where you intend to go with it. It's about two pages or so in Word, and that's fine for an introduction for a thesis paper (25+ pages) but even on those your position has to be known immediately, the first sentence even. Then you can take all the time you want setting up a basis for your primary points and arguements.

You also use the term "Unjust Laws" too often in the beginning as the first two words in a sentence. It makes it sound too...preechy, narrative instead of an argument.

Well actually my professor wants me to argue both sides before explaining my position. Your last point, well I am using the words Unjust Laws as if it is a term almost, since I don't yet know what an Unjust Law is.
NOTE: this isn't an english paper by the way, I think I am doing an okay job trying to atriculate the moving abstract things my mind comes up with. read some kant if you want to see some horrible grammar etc.

[Apraxhren]

Well I tried to group your thoughts together to try and make the reading more fluid. The sentences I moved are in green, the things I think aren't needed are underlined and the few changes are in red. At the moment I don't have time to throughly recheck as I have to be leaving for a hockey game but I hope my opinion helps.


Unjust laws are not laws at all. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, still are not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws on the other hand have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality.

In nations as well, we refer to just systems, as real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, The fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize justice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict with the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. If I created a society, based upon unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice.

Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few, who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.

However, if one does not follow unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any official law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the unjust law the power of real laws. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceive and acknowledge, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that are real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. They do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.

[Ryllharu]

You can argue both sides, I had to do it a lot in my last philosophy course (Asian philosophies and religions, great class, a real midnblower). It's still important to make the stance you are going with known before you start.

The way I've always liked to do it is say which point I'm agreeing with, give the reasons why, and then go into the reasons why the other one *could* be valid, but is still not quite as right. When making an persuasive paper, the best way is to take one side, agree with the one, and shoot the other down. You still have to thoroughly explain both sides, but it gives it more of a focus and impact when you pick one from the beginning.

This is basically what I've been told to do since about the 8th grade, after we were finally told to cover both sides on persuasive essays.

NOTE: Stream of consciousness can be one of the best writing styles for poetry, but is one of the worst for persuasive essays, or position and research papers. Yours is a little like that, and you definitely want to stay away from that. Even for a philosophy paper, the more clearly your point gets across, the better. There's a reason why no one likes Kant.