EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF LAW

It is unacceptable among humans to kill another person, or to do ten thousand other vile acts; nonetheless, law is not an honorable, honest, or ontologically authentic means to deal with inacceptable acts.

Law is existentially nonsensical and unintelligible, for there is no human ontological rationality attendant upon the mistaken jurisprudential presupposition that language of law is determinative of behavior.

Supposed law mediated jurisprudential/prosecutorial/police conduct is neither true to, nor accordant with, the only authentic human ontological process of originating an act, which sole true human action originative/determinative mode is Spinoza's "determinatio negatio est" (determination is negation), posited by Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) in 1674. G.W. Hegel (1770-1831) subsequently recast the phrase to be all inclusive, thus: "Omnis determinatio est negatio." (All determination is negation.). J.P. Sartre (1901-1980) additionally explained the existential ontological rationale attendant upon Spinoza's dictum thus:

“No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, cannot get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (“Being and Nothingness: An Essay in Phenomenological Ontology.” J.P. Sartre, Part Four. 1943.)

Law is an existing written factual theoretical construct which, because it is a given state of affairs, cannot possibly be determinative of the acts of human beings, who act solely on the basis of not yet achieved absences.

Extant human civilization can uplift beyond existentially inauthentic "law", by first raising divers law enforcement consciousnesses up unto being reflectively aware of, and true to, the actual human ontological doubly nihilative process of free action origination, i.e., by constituting all law-oriented persons as being reflectively free persons.

Via first raising jurisprudentially oriented persons up to possession of a reflectively free selfhood, we position ourselves to advance and uplift the honor, decency, honesty, dignity, and freedom of both jurisprudence, and, of civilization.

Lawfully requiring that persons be determined or determine themselves to act, or to decline to act, by given written law, is wholly ontologically unintelligible, and, is actually an impossibility; ---(for all determination concerning human action is strictly predicated upon: what is not/negation/lack/absence/expectation/non-being, while, all the while, law is a wholly positive, extant, given, established, state of affairs); --- and, to punish persons for impossibly/nonsensically not determining themselves to act by given law, is a radically unethical inhuman jurisprudential misconduct:

Would persons being in possession of reflective understanding of his or her existential ontological freedom uplift the dignity and honorable behavior of all persons constituting extant human civilization ? Or, would such understanding result in greater common abominable conduct among persons?
Would generally knowing that law is an ontologically bogus state of affairs prompt persons to perform openly radical misconduct? Or, is a state of absolutely openly free human conduct necessarily an existential ontological normative state of civilizational affairs?

The current state of civilization is a situation wherein police freely and openly murder citizens in the name of our pitifully ontologically unintelligible law; which state of affairs already constitutes an absolutely free and completely open sphere of free human conduct/misconduct. Hence, we already have absolute chaos under our so-called rule of law.