Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White
Silent enim lēgēs inter arma. — Ciceronianus the White
.All is fair in [love and] war — John Lyly's Euphues
Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White
The encounter between the two groups passed without incident until the last pair at the back of each train began a scuffle. It was then believed that Clodius turned back and was wounded by a javelin thrown by one of the gladiators in Milo's party. — Wikipedia
In what sense was disregarding the law proper? Is there any evidence that doing so achieved anything? — Ciceronianus the White
Is there evidence that doing so achieved anything? From whose perspective are we asking? — Brett
What supports the claim there is such a need? If the claim is unsupported, another question should be asked: Why should the law be disregarded? — Ciceronianus the White
Cicero's "maxim" may be factual in the sense that we typically dispense with the law in what we think are times of war or emergency situations, but can't be used to support doing so. — Ciceronianus the White
What situation could there be, where the law was to be dispensed with, that could prove it necessary before dispensing the law. It seems to me that from the point of view of those dispensing with the law they’re saying that it’s only by dispensing the law in the first place that we will know how necessary it was. — Brett
Did Cicero make a legitimate point, or is this a case where Cicero the lawyer overcame Cicero the philosopher/statesman, and sanctioned violence? — Ciceronianus the White
He was addressing whether ordinary law ... should have application in circumstances ... it wasn't intended to be applied ... due to extraordinary circumstances. — Ciceronianus the White
For me, that's an inadequate response--X is necessary because we must do X in order to know X is necessary isn't an argument I find acceptable. — Ciceronianus the White
What might be acceptable evidence is information establishing with certainty or to a reasonable degree of probability (sorry for using this lawyer-language) that if the law isn't disregarded, then great harm will result. That's a heavy burden of proof, but I think that burden should be applied when the rule of law is threatened. — Ciceronianus the White
That is not quite what is going on. If you have a look at that part in the full speech you see that Cicero is making a very orthodox legal argument, namely, "this is a clear-cut case of self-defense. We all have right to defend ourselves. The law lets us kill robbers who come to us in the night. Logically, this principle should apply in this situation." — afterthegame
What would a reasonable degree of probability, how can we decide that before it’s required? Especially under conditions of stress, or too little time or limited information. Maybe this depends to a large degree on the people who make these decisions, who we elect to govern us? Then again the same people governing during a period of peace may not be the people needed in more stressful times.
How do you think you might respond in a similar situation? Is there a situation where if you could, or had to, you might disregard the law? — Brett
The problem, though, is determining whether those in question seek to do harm. The assumption that a person intended to do harm is one that's in opposition to the position that one is innocent until proven guilty, and must be tried before conviction. — Ciceronianus the White
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.