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

[Paco Dennis]

I think a 'duty to care' opens up all manner of fanaticism, raw emotion, mobs --the meat of neurotic behavior, whereas the 'call of duty' allows the wheels of justice to turn.

While it's understandable to be wary of the potential pitfalls of a "duty to care" ethos, it's important to recognize that duty and empathy are not inherently opposed to reason and justice. In fact, a "call of duty" devoid of empathy and concern for others can lead to cold, dispassionate, and potentially unjust outcomes.
A balanced approach that integrates both duty and care—one that acknowledges our responsibilities to our community while also seeking to understand the needs and experiences of others—is essential for a just and compassionate society. Empathy doesn't negate the need for reason, nor does duty preclude the importance of caring.

 

[_Apple_]

Our laws were founded on morals. Most of our founding fathers were men of religion.

And we're all familiar with The Golden Rule, "Whatsoever ye would should men do unto you, do ye even so unto them."

"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" is a much earlier version, dating back to 664–323 BCE.

A Sanskrit version; "One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self. In brief, this is dharma. Anything else is succumbing to desire" is dated at 400 BCE and 400 CE.

All versions of The Golden Rule, or Golden Law, prescribe fairness, however, the reasoning is self-serving. Fairness to avoid being treated unfairly can be construed as a duty to care for oneself.

 

[Trade]

Yes. I might consider some laws being unfair but still follow them. If the posted speed limit is 75 mph on deserted highway in the desert I still go 75 mph even though it is a wide open highway.

If I'm in my car I would set my cruise control at 75 and leave it there. But if I am on one of my motorcycles all bets are off.

 

[LoveTulips]

My duty of care is to my family period.

 

[gruntlabor]

While it's understandable to be wary of the potential pitfalls of a "duty to care" ethos, it's important to recognize that duty and empathy are not inherently opposed to reason and justice. In fact, a "call of duty" devoid of empathy and concern for others can lead to cold, dispassionate, and potentially unjust outcomes.
A balanced approach that integrates both duty and care—one that acknowledges our responsibilities to our community while also seeking to understand the needs and experiences of others—is essential for a just and compassionate society. Empathy doesn't negate the need for reason, nor does duty preclude the importance of caring.

The legal system is not interested in what we care about. They're interested in obedience to the law, a law-abiding society, adherence to the correct and proper conduct of a reasonable person.

 

[Paco Dennis]

The legal system is not interested in what we care about. They're interested in obedience to the law, a law-abiding society, adherence to the correct and proper conduct of a reasonable person.

That sounds good to me.

 

[againstthegrain]

A couple examples of duty to care in the law I can think of are motor vehicle operators where another person makes an illegal or unsafe action all other motorists have "duty to care" in that they must try to avoid the accident despite having the right of way.

Another is a fiduciary duty where the fiduciary(a financial advisor for instance) has a duty to care for his client and his own interests must be subservient to those of the client.

Medical professionals and hospitals (required by law) also have a duty to care which has been around for centuries aka Hippocratic Oath.

I'm sure there are many others.

 

[papa tiger]

What did the gaslighter say about honesty?

“It’s overrated – manipulation is the new truth!”
-------------------------------------------------------
Why does a gaslighter become a Lawyer?
To cover up the tracks – and rewrite their own version of the Law.

 

[gruntlabor]

A couple examples of duty to care in the law I can think of are motor vehicle operators where another person makes an illegal or unsafe action all other motorists have "duty to care" in that they must try to avoid the accident despite having the right of way.

Another is a fiduciary duty where the fiduciary(a financial advisor for instance) has a duty to care for his client and his own interests must be subservient to those of the client.

Medical professionals and hospitals (required by law) also have a duty to care which has been around for centuries aka Hippocratic Oath.

I'm sure there are many others.

In your first example, there is a duty to avoid a collision.
In your second, fiduciary duty, there is a special duty because of the position of trust.
In your third, medical professionals have a duty to do their best.
All three examples describe duty to carefulness, not duty to caring.
Carefulness can be measured and proved. Caring cannot. Semantics.

 

[againstthegrain]

In your first example, there is a duty to avoid a collision.
In your second, fiduciary duty, there is a special duty because of the position of trust.
In your third, medical professionals have a duty to do their best.
All three examples describe duty to carefulness, not duty to caring.
Carefulness can be measured and proved. Caring cannot. Semantics.

These are duties that are proscribed in law. You can word smith all you want but that doesn't change what's in the law.

 

[gruntlabor]

These are duties that are proscribed in law. You can word smith all you want but that doesn't change what's in the law.

Sure, and I'm sorry sir but I can't get past it. I think we all understand the distinction between:
1. Care: to mind, to be personally involved, verb
and,
2. Care: to use care, to be careful, verb
and
3. Care: the provision of what's necessary for the welfare of someone or something, noun
and
4. Care: attention to doing something correctly, noun

My legal dictionary says that Duty of Care is a noun. The Original Poster used it as a verb with the first meaning above. She wrote, " ... citizens ... have a duty to care about their community ... "
I say they do not, not in the sense that she meant.

 

[Rakaia]

@VintageBetter
Was that a typo?
Did you mean ' duty of care '?

 

[JBR]

Caring about people probably motivates lawmakers sometimes. On the other hand, I suppose caring is more what friends (and sometimes family) are about, more so than law in general.

When I woke up this morning this thread came to mind, I thought of that song that Stevie Wonder recorded, "That's What Friends are For".

On a web site, I found this description of what the lyrics are about:
"The song 'That's What Friends Are For' highlights the meaning and significance of friendship in our lives. The lyrics convey deep emotions and gratitude towards the role friends play in providing support and companionship during both good and bad times."

"The chorus emphasizes the unwavering support and reliability friends offer: 'Keep smiling, keep shining, Knowing you can always count on me for sure, That's what friends are for.' It emphasizes that friends are there to uplift and encourage one another, no matter the circumstances."

 

[Pepper]

Reminds me of last Seinfeld episode where their uncaring blase-ness lands them in jail!

 

[papa tiger]

The other day our neighbors 2 houses down the road brought our lil dog back. It seems she had been in the garage when I lifted the
door to move the Trash out for Garbage pickup. She must have been in it and walked away some bit. That was thoughtful. If it comes
to the law, everyone makes a buck, you get screwed, that's caring for the Money. You even have to pay for your jail time.

 

[JBR]

This may be pertinent to the question in the OP. It's about a body of regulations, or law, probably could be considered "caring" in its intent. This is in the U.S. context: "it was not until 1906, when both the Food and Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) were enacted, that the government took major steps to protect consumers." Since this Act was passed more than a century after the founding of the country, I don't know that it's characteristic of the basis of American law.

What I've quoted there comes from this web page: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/food_and_drug_law

We have a similar regulatory system in Canada and I'm sure Britain, Australia & New Zealand do too, but I've cited the U.S. example since I believe most of our SF members are American.

 

[davey]

you say tomarta I say tomato - I say potato you say potarta - gee whiz lets call the whole thing off??

 

[VintageBetter]

@VintageBetter
Was that a typo?
Did you mean ' duty of care '?

I just searched for "duty to care" and the Internet came up with "duty of care". Perhaps they are interchangeable?

Duty of care - Wikipedia

I find it interesting that one of the tests is "foreseeability". Could the company or individual foresee the harm their bad product or their unsafe actions could cause?

E.g.: Right now Congress is still hesitant to regulate the Internet. I don't know why, but they are afraid of that. And yet, the foreseeability of harm to children from unregulated social media and websites designed for adults only has been well-documented for decades.

What are they waiting for, right? Waiting for Zuckerberg, et al, to give the OK?

 

[gruntlabor]

The other day our neighbors 2 houses down the road brought our lil dog back. It seems she had been in the garage when I lifted the
door to move the Trash out for Garbage pickup. She must have been in it and walked away some bit. That was thoughtful. If it comes
to the law, everyone makes a buck, you get screwed, that's caring for the Money. You even have to pay for your jail time.

Not 'thoughtful'. Doing their best to find the dog's owner was their duty.

 

[Remy]

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.

Case closed. Not in my opinion. Anyone could have done the right thing and picked up that line. From your post, I'd assume you wouldn't. I only give someone a pass if they don't have the ability to pick something up due to physical reasons.

But there is trash everywhere people leave. When I owned that house a few miles out of town, I used to see an older man walking and I noted him to pick up trash. I drove by him many times. That's my kind of people.

 

[VaughanJB]

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.)

We need laws to draw boundaries. To ensure fair play. Fair play is not the same as an equitable split of resources. We also exist in a society, and the rules of that society need to be respected for the best of all.

The thing is, we don't like to define terms. For example, what does "free society" mean? What does being "free" mean? What is "personal freedom" when we share streets, roads, stores, and buildings with other human beings?

Like capitalism. Capitalism is a great system, and the best man has come up with thus far. But with controls (laws and regulations) it leads to destruction, greed, and avarice. It's human instinct. Rampant capitalism does not lead to the betterment of society. So yeah, we need some level of control.

When it comes to the poor, disadvantageous, of just plain people who have made mistakes, I say we should help them. Why? Pure and simply - because we can. And because it's better for the whole.

 

[StarSong]

We need laws to draw boundaries. To ensure fair play. Fair play is not the same as an equitable split of resources. We also exist in a society, and the rules of that society need to be respected for the best of all.

Well said.

Like capitalism. Capitalism is a great system, and the best man has come up with thus far. But with controls (laws and regulations) it leads to destruction, greed, and avarice. It's human instinct. Rampant capitalism does not lead to the betterment of society. So yeah, we need some level of control.

The control used to be very high income taxes for the uber wealthy. Unfortunately, political leaders have rewritten those income tax laws to benefit the very wealthy - including themselves and their friends.

To protect those laws, they convince low income voters that these laws will also benefit them, should they win the lottery or otherwise stumble into great wealth. Without pointing out, of course, that the liklihood of that is literally less than one in a hundred million.

These people vote against their own best interests, continuing to live in poverty with far fewer services than they'd get with a more liberal government. So very foolish.

When it comes to the poor, disadvantageous, of just plain people who have made mistakes, I say we should help them. Why? Pure and simply - because we can. And because it's better for the whole.

Agreed. And most people try to help, but are cautioned against enabling, which is actually hurting the person you want to help. It's often difficult to discern the difference.

 

[VaughanJB]

The control used to be very high income taxes for the uber wealthy. Unfortunately, political leaders have rewritten those income tax laws to benefit the very wealthy - including themselves and their friends.

I watched a documentary about Japan in the 1980's this morning. Fascinating stuff.

Cutting a long story short, the Japanese economy hasn't been great. Growth is slow, and the birth rate is low presenting its own challenges. But it was the economics that truly interested me. In the 80's, Japan and the US had an issue on trade deficits. So a meeting was held in the US with Japan, France, the US and the UK to discuss what can be done to reel the Japanese economy in. Steps were taken to increase the value of the Yen.

This led to a financial bubble, and a few years of extreme wealth in Japan, which turned into a land grab as people used this new wealth to buy everything up. When the bubble burst, we have the issues we see today.

Why is this interesting? Well for me it's down to so called capitalism. You see, from one angle, this is capitalism is supposed to work. On the other, it was the interference in the capitalist structure that created extreme wealth and the makings of a housing crisis. Capitalism hadn't failed, it had been spoiled.

Fascinating. Short term gain traded for long term pain.

I was also reading an article about traffic patterns in the UK. Essentially, Councils (local governments) are trying introduce quiet streets by blocking off traffic. There are concerns, because some claim they're not working. But here's the thing - 42% of the projects where the council blocked off roads went ahead without no data and analysis whatsoever. No traffic data, no consequences considered. Can you imagine? Given the line of work I was in, this is both shocking and, frankly, pathetic. But again, government at its worse.

Which leads me all the way back to those who think governments are secretly controlling us to some great plan. Nah. They're just doing stuff, some of it dumb.

 

[Ruthanne]

Some of them yes to answer your question. I also think a lot of laws are made out of people's fears and stupid or obsolete.

 

[jpstrap]

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 think I agree with what you are meaning to say by that comment. I think the idea of a duty to care (or other such duties) is taken from one of the utilitarian American and British philosophers (could it be Jeremy Bentham??). Utilitarianism is an interesting concept. If it isn't part of the foundation of our laws, maybe someone could make a case for it. But be cautious about slipping into a dictatorship of the self-righteous moralist.