Can law reform human nature?
87740
I do not believe law itself changes people. It is their own conscience that changes them. However, it can also be that they are punished and do not wosh to go through it again. so they decide to change.
179228
Trying to change the laws of physics is harder than trying to eat just one potato chip, but it sounds as if you are asking about determinism, which is the belief that we do not in fact have free will and that our actions are not of our own choosing.\n\nOne way to look at it is that in our bodies, all the forces are balanced. This means that the force of gravity and the force of electromagnetism counterbalance each other. Neither one of them wholly dominate our minds or bodies. Sure, we are on the ground, but we can stand up, climb trees, walk up hills, etc., partially or temporarily defying gravity. \n\nThe strong nuclear interactive force and the weak nuclear interactive force are not the major thing in our lives, either. We are too big to be totally contollled by the nuclear interactive forces, and too small to be controlled entirely by gravity or electromagnetism. There is a YOU that is not determined (controlled) by those things. And YOU are able to pull the strings of your body, so that it obeys you, so that you consciously (not conscientiously) do things. \n\nOtherwise, there would be no such thing as good or evil. A vicious murderer, arsonist, terrorist, rapist, could say, "Your Honor, it's not my fault. I had no choice but to act that way, according to the laws of physics." If he could give convincing proof of this, the judge would have no choice but to let him off. \n\n(We can't have laws determined by voting, either, because man-made laws are just that-- man-made, finite, limited, and not necessarily fair. What if the bad guys got the majority of the vote? Would that make their laws right? No, of course not.)\n\nNo responsible judge would allow a criminal to escape justic based on an argument like this. The very existence of a justice system indicates that-- regardless of what we might say-- we believe in free will, we believe in the existence of right and wrong. Even the most materialistic person, when ill-treated, will protest the injustice. They may like to reason that we do not have free will (especially when it helps them get out from some responsibility) but when they are the one getting hurt, they suddenly remember that it isn't fair. \n\nWe can't have it both ways. If there is no free will, justice is an illusion and might makes right after all.\n\nSo, which one do you believe in?
126399
One way would be to eliminate all laws. No laws, no breaking of laws. But that's probably not what you're looking for.\n\nYou need to examine what causes crime. Laziness, poverty, greed, passionate feelings, etc. Then you need to develop a theory on how to get rid of the causes.
531802
Yeah! Law would be perfect. Lawyers are all crooks.
858548
No, the law is the law, it was made by people. If you need the law to be something different then make your case and get people to vote for it. If you can't then the law is probably right as it stands.\n\nIf you abandon the rule of law then you are heading for dictatorship.
749184
The power to act with a specif law
154698
By my ethics: Yes\n\nBy the law: No
1063730
Morally, if we were to universally follow The Law given to Man by his Maker, then it is a resounding "YES!"\n\nHowever, our man-made laws have yet to acquiesce to being held accountable and liable to such a MORALITY clause...
422492
Yes, as humanity evolves people tend to extend basic human rights to more and more people.
365621
Both seek to decide what is right and wrong. Ethics is more of a personal opinion. Law is the collection of views of society members.
764718
Law of unintended consequences?
452360
fuedal systems obiding by  the laws of Nature.\nkeeping in mind human nature\nwhich is a local form of self government.\nwith a freemarket system
745911
the role of law has changed to the "roll" of law,\nie bankroll of law. example: OJ Simpson, Ken Lay,Ted Kennedy, and Micheal Jackson.\nthe law is only relevant to those who are bound\nto live by it.
454755
As long as there are conflicting interest between individual impulses and the overall needs of the community, there will be laws. Laws set boundaries so that people can interact positively, causing minimum damage to each other. Whether it's following traffic laws (e.g. who gets to go first, where each car can drive in what direction, etc. to avoid accidents) to international trade (how much different currencies are worth, how much has to be paid for items, etc.), it is all about creating a benefit for the overall community so that we all can have better lives.
694139
We have every conceivabe law available already, it`s how they are implemented and interpreted, that`s where the trouble starts. Too much law and not enough justice. It seems that the demands of the elite few are being addressed long before the needs of the many. It`s upside down if you ask me.
446204
In a ideal situation we should remove the laws that restrict posession by law abiding citizens.\n\nBut more importantly...\n\nENFORCE the laws we already have.
159157
law,history,sci and philosophy