double standard

[FArchivist]

Even if you assume that our society is decent, what's to stop individual members from being cruel and callous?

The answer of Legalism: Fear of punishment.
Laws must be harshly and constantly enforced, with public punishments, so that people will fear the law and obey it, thus creating an orderly society that functions. Otherwise, you have absolute chaos, with every man for himself.
Frankly, I've always been on the side of the Legalists.

[Hyena Dandy]

The problem with legalism is that it assumes people always consider the consequences of their actions.

If you try to create an orderly society by publically punishing criminals, it might lower crime a little, but its not going to stop it. Because most criminals aren't thinking "What happens if I get caught" when they commit their crimes. (Also, I believe that in the US at least, 'cruel and unusual punishment' is forbidden)

Sure they say under Vlad III you could leave a bag of gold in the town square overnight without worries, but I don't think that was really the case.

[Mytical]

The answer of Legalism: Fear of punishment.
Laws must be harshly and constantly enforced, with public punishments, so that people will fear the law and obey it, thus creating an orderly society that functions. Otherwise, you have absolute chaos, with every man for himself.
Frankly, I've always been on the side of the Legalists.

Which leads to abuse of power, and smarter criminals. Ones who DON'T get caught. Doesn't eliminate crime. A completely ordered society is as corrupt as it gets. Questioning the actions of the people in charge of said system is absolutely forbidden, thus they can do no wrong. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Don't believe me? Look at the Salem witch trials. The people who were in charge of the witch trials could do anything they wanted, including torture, to get a person to 'confess'. Nobody questioned their methods, because if they did they could get labeled a witch or helper of a witch. Abuse of that power was rampant until the trials were put to a halt.

Somebody 'in power' didn't like somebody? Label them a witch or in league with one, eliminate them

That is not the only example however. How many people were beheaded (wrongly) by some King or Queen because they were political, romantic, or financial rivals?

No an ordered society like that may on the surface look 'pristine', but under it is filthy and horrid.

[Gravekeeper]

No an ordered society like that may on the surface look 'pristine', but under it is filthy and horrid.

I think you're both perhaps going a bit to far to an extreme. In opposite directions. Neither extreme order or total anarchy are desirable. But the fact remains that some order needs to be maintained for society to function and it is best maintained by having rules which are enforced. However, punishment cannot be overly harsh nor overly lenient. Lenient is not a deterent. Harsh is too open to abuse and breeds resentment within the populance.

Which is why we largely function on the loss of freedom being punishment. Rather than flogging, stoning, quartering, dismembermet, etc.

[Mytical]

Sorry I was not advocating the opposite, just pointing out the dangers of too strict of a society. I believe in much harsher sentencing then we currently have, and a system where money/fame plays ZERO part in deciding punishment (a pipe dream I know). If the President of the United States breaks a law, he should have to do as hard of time, and as long, as if John Q. Public does.

[FArchivist]

The problem with legalism is that it assumes people always consider the consequences of their actions.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. It would be more accurate to say that legalism does not care if people always consider the consequences of their actions. Or, as is famously put, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

(Also, I believe that in the US at least, 'cruel and unusual punishment' is forbidden)

Yes, but cruel and unusual punishment has always been defined by the courts and so is subject to change. Tarring and feathering was once considered acceptable; so was public hanging. Definitions of cruel and unusual can be changed at will if necessary; all it takes is legislation to the effect.

[FArchivist]

Questioning the actions of the people in charge of said system is absolutely forbidden, thus they can do no wrong. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ah, but in correct Legalism as propounded by the Chinese originally, one can question the actions of anyone, ESPECIALLY the people in charge. The principles of legalism are as follows:

* Fa (Chinese: 法; pinyin: fǎ; literally "law or principle"): The law code must be clearly written and made public. All people under the ruler were equal before the law. Laws should reward those who obey them and punish accordingly those who dare to break them. Thus it is guaranteed that actions taken are systematically predictable. In addition, the system of law ran the state, not the ruler, a statement of rule of law. If the law is successfully enforced, even a weak ruler will be strong.

* Shu (Chinese: 術; pinyin: shù; literally "method, tactic or art"): Special tactics and "secrets" are to be employed by the ruler to make sure others don't take over control of the state. Especially important is that no one can fathom the ruler's motivations, and thus no one can know which behaviour might help them getting ahead; except for following the 法 or laws.

* Shi (Chinese: 勢; pinyin: shì; literally "legitimacy, power or charisma"): It is the position of the ruler, not the ruler himself or herself, that holds the power. Therefore, analysis of the trends, the context, and the facts are essential for a real ruler.

And the ruler is subjected to those same laws under the principle of the Mandate Of Heaven; should the ruler violate the law, he is removed by the ministers and replaced with the heir-apparent.

[Mytical]

Which looks good on paper, and if we lived in Utopia. Unfortunately reality has a tendency to not work that way. The 'ruling class' tends to get special privileges and consideration. Thus things are not metted out equally. Heck even under the Shu, it clearly states that people are not supposed to understand the 'ruler' so they don't know how to progress right? So how can somebody question what they don't understand?

Then there is the 'Mandate of Heaven' who decides that? Again, the system is open to abuse. Don't like somebody..replace them cite 'Mandate of Heaven', and nobody is allowed to question it.

No system is perfect, because to have a perfect system..the people have to be perfect. If you have perfect people, you don't need the system. People WILL abuse power.

[Andara Bledin]

No system is perfect, because to have a perfect system..the people have to be perfect. If you have perfect people, you don't need the system. People WILL abuse power.

There are a lot of great systems out there that work great until you add people.

^-.-^

[Ninja_Sushi]

Is it kinda weird that when I think of a perfect society I get a little creeped out? I mean, am I the only one who likes a little chaos in the order? A little hell in the heaven?
I dont feel right having my day go absolutely wonderful. I want a small bit of chaos during the day. Small, but still there.

[Andara Bledin]

Is it kinda weird that when I think of a perfect society I get a little creeped out?

No, it's not weird.

If we don't have a decent helping of disappointment, we can't be happy. It's the anticipation of rewards that keep us striving for more. More than the actual rewards.

The brain is funny like that.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

Its like I've said about communism, but its pretty much every society. It would be perfect if you didn't have to have all these damn people in it.