PDA

View Full Version : Define RULE



Moose
05-26-2005, 03:43 PM
-Would you go with the modern concept of rule and say that there is one form of rule and that rule is the subjection of persons

-or would you go with the permodern concept of rule and say that there are many different kinds of rule (as there are ends) and say that rule is created to achieve an end, or to say rule for the sake of the common good...?

*Keep in mind that in premodern thought this definition was meant toward what was considered just rule, not injust rule.

...?

Vera
05-28-2005, 11:06 AM
WHOOO!!!! The Offspring RULE!!!!

Koobie
05-28-2005, 02:15 PM
...?

fucking druggies. well, at least you're trying.

Noodles is gay
05-28-2005, 05:46 PM
damn, I had to write a 2000 word essay on 'the importance of rules in society' in detention once. sucked.

Moose: out of your two, I would go with the 'premodern' idea.

Why?

greasemo
05-28-2005, 05:47 PM
i would say that rule is what keeps a good society together. It's the way people are expected to act to create a perfect coexistence. After a period of time, however, the society gets too big to manage and people stop seeing the advantage in following thier rule or the rule of thier society, since the people suffering at the hand of thier misbehavings do not suffer directly from them and therefore the person creating havoc feels no guilt. Of course, on the other hand, rule can be a devise used for gaining power. A mere vehicle for making the rich richer by controlling the weaker....dunno

Seiraryu
05-29-2005, 05:52 AM
Rules - Norms to be aheared to--see also "Laws."

Rule - A term of governance over a kingdom/empire or other organization of the like. See also "Reign."

Pffft.

NOAMR
05-29-2005, 08:50 AM
I don't think a rule is good, cuz nothing is that simple that it is always true. It's not so that something is just wrong, it depends on the situation. A rule has to be followed always, even if there is an exception so that the reason the rule is there isn't there anymore, cuz 'you have to be concequent'. But an agreement is mostly good, cuz it isn't so steady.

NOAMR
06-01-2005, 07:01 AM
Well, everyone is an individual, I don't know if binding a society together is that good. How more rules and binding you have, how less the individual, he becomes just a part of the entire, a robot programmed by society. It's good to have a society, we people can't live alone, we're for to weak for it, and we also get a lot more possibilities together. So it can also be better for the individual. But saying what has or doesn't has to, destroys the individual. That's why I'm for agreements, it 'binds' the societies together, but doesn't destroy the individual. Oh, and if you aren't happy with one of the two choices, just say how you would define it(everyone is an indivdual, so it's impossible to write down all possiblities someone can say, cuz that's 6 miljard).

RXP
06-01-2005, 09:53 AM
Legal rules are divided into primary and secondary rules

Primary rules e.g. : no killing

seocndary rules modify the primary rules so they are workable. With things like the rule of adjuciation and the all important rule of recognition.