Do you believe a duty to care could be called the foundation of most of our laws?

VintageBetter

VintageBetter

Senior Member
I'm talking both criminal and civil laws. Are they, at least in large part, based on this principal that citizens of a free society have a duty to care about their community no matter if they are wealthy or poor, highly educated or illiterate?

(I am not posting this to be contrary or controversial. I'm just wondering what others think.)
 

I believe that a duty to care is not only the foundation of at least some of our laws but also a main reason for us making it to the top of the food chain (whether you think that's a good thing or not; I confess I have my doubts some days). Humans can cooperate with each other (which a duty to care will facilitate) to an extent much greater than any other animal on earth.
 
99% out of 10 drivers speed every day, all day. In other words they are doing the speed limit 1% of the time.
Mini Vans are the ? You never know what ones gonna do.
 
Both criminal and civil laws are largely rooted in the idea of social responsibility and the notion that all members of a society, regardless of their socio-economic background, education, or any other factor, have a duty to act in a way that promotes the well-being of the community.

For instance, criminal laws aim to protect citizens from harm, uphold public order, and ensure justice when someone's actions cause harm to others. Similarly, civil laws help resolve disputes between individuals or entities, enforce contracts, and provide a framework for interactions that are fair, equitable, and contribute to a stable society.

Laws are society's way of codifying and enforcing these shared values and responsibilities, hopefully making them applicable to all members of society equally.
 
VintageBetter said:
I'm talking both criminal and civil laws. Are they, at least in large part, based on this principal that citizens of a free society have a duty to care about their community no matter if they are wealthy or poor, highly educated or illiterate?

(I am not posting this to be contrary or controversial. I'm just wondering what others think.)
Click to expand...
We do not have a 'duty to care'. Our duty is to obey the laws of the land as far as we are morally able, and to protest the evil ones as far as we can.
 
I'd change the word "duty" to "responsibility". Duty infers obligation. Our society has a responsibility to care, but no one has a legal (or moral) obligation to care. People are free to be uninvolved.

So, it could be said that the laws of the land are founded on our society's responsibility to care.
 
I don't think our laws were enacted because of the need to 'care' for one another. For me, it's more for what lawyers call "making whole". I stole $25 from you, the laws states you should get $25 from me- making you whole. I think that's the basis of civil law????? Criminal law works in like the same way. If I commit a crime, like speeding, murder, you have to "repay" with fines and prison time.
 
Two contributing sources of original law in Canada and the U.S. are English common law and the influential theory of John Locke. John Locke - Wikipedia

Obviously, early leaders in both the U.S. and Canada saw the need to curtail theft, assault, coercion, property damage, chicanery, and so on. Law is basically kind of impersonal. Of course, both the U.S.and Canada, like Britain the mother country, saw the need for taxation and laws supporting it. Maybe we could generalize that even the simple historical basis of law involves some ethical ideas, or all least common sense? We could give it an interpretation that suggests caring.

Social anthropologists have pointed out the customs and norms of primitive societies generally evolved to support the overall welfare of the band, tribe, or group.
 
A duty to care seems like something a public servant would swear allegiance to, law enforcement, medical, fire fighters etc.
 
A few weeks ago I was walking at the fake lake trails near where I live. People can fish there and I have noted people fishing.

I noticed fishing line on the trail and I started to pull it up. It had clearly been walked on multiple times and was partially covered. As I pulled the line up I became enraged as it wrapped around my foot and ankle. I finally wrestled it into a ball, tied it in a couple of knots and disposed of it back at the apartment. If that got me caught up, imagine wildlife, a duck, goose.

No way people didn't see this fishing line. Why did no one else get it out of the way? I'm glad it didn't make it into the water. And there are very, nice houses in that area and people who live in and afford them But they can't pick up fishing line that is hazardous?
 
Remy said:
No way people didn't see this fishing line. Why did no one else get it out of the way? I'm glad it didn't make it into the water. And there are very, nice houses in that area and people who live in and afford them But they can't pick up fishing line that is hazardous?
Click to expand...
Yes, but why lay blame? It's not productive. You saw the danger, did your duty, you picked up the line and disposed of it, thank goodness. Case closed.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top