1) How monlithic the law is depends on the level of power of
those in power. In Singapore's case, the PAP's power is almost
absolute (see how easily they can amend the Constiution despite the
Constitution's own "protections"Wink, and so our law is extremely
monolithic, because it suits the whims of our leaders, and
logically their whims cannot be varied.
different law sections have remnants of different philosophies,
as such that is what is meant by "un-monolithic law". the ability
of PAP to manipulate and interpet the law codes, unlike what you've
said, provide greater evidence to "un-monolithic law".
fundementally, while the PAP has been baseless in revising certain
sections of the law, namely the political dissidence section, our
criminal law codes stems still from the british code. and i need to
reexert the point: law by itself contains different philsophies of
different times which are than amended in. as such it is varied
from place to place, time to time.
2) Utilitarian theory ahs been debunked time and time again
because it is extremely cruel and inaccurate. How do you measure
harm? Can't you say that hanging a man causes psychological harm to
those who hang him and thsoe who support hanging him, since it
makes them more vicious, and the aim of society is supposed to be
inculcating grace? But how do you measure the exact level of
satisfaction gained?
please provide evidence on the debunk-ing of utilitarian theory.
as i've said, there are flaws to every single form of political
control. you're merely making a regress argument. i can counter by
claiming "that the psychological harm to the people who are
directly involved with his hanging would be less than the potential
harm to people, by potential perpetrators of the crime". as such,
it's not wise of you to counteract an argument by your logic.
utilitarian theory is present even in the theory of economics,
which in case you didn't know, is taught universally and applied
universally. if it has been debunked, academics are sure slow to
react. please do not generalise.
3) Then we should hang Durai. After all, this criminal did wrong
to a much larger proportion of society than Ram Tiwary did. In Ram
Tiwary's case, at most it was 20 people, considering that the
victim's family is that big. In Durai's case, you could say it was
1/3 of our national population. So, by your utilitarian
justification, it is much more expedient to hang Durai than to hang
Tiwary.
i clearly stated that another constituent of law would be the
level of social consciousness. and it's proper to say that we as a
society do not view embezzlement as serious as say, murder. in
fact, if we were to go in depth into the utilitarian theory, i
would say that the effect of embezzlement of the NKF and the murder
of another human would be fundementally different. but that would
be digressing.
utilitarian theory cannot be expected to account fully for the
lawful justification of hanging. BUT it provides a justification.
you will not find a single justifcation for any law code, as such
it boils down to the non-monolithicality of law.
