關於愛，我是個小學生。

Term Summary for Jurisprudence

Q. Why are there ‘rules’ pre-existing before the formation of ‘morality’ or ‘laws’, i.e. why are such ‘rules’ omni-prevalent among cultures, experience surpassing or cognition precedential?

A. It is to be pitiful to admit that such issue still remains uncertain to these days, regardless of bunches of academic sparks have to this focus laid as much emphasis and attention, which could, a bit farfetched but not to least referable, be categorized and summarized into aspects as follows:

1. These ‘rules’ are ‘absolutely’ universal. They are of universal laws:
In law and ethics, universal law or universal principle refers as concepts of legal legitimacy actions, whereby those principles and rules for governing human beings' conduct which are most universal in their acceptability, their applicability, translation, and philosophical basis, therefore considered to be the most legitimate and deservedly self-evident, referring to that which is true for all similarly situated individuals. Rights, for example in natural rights, or in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, for those heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment and its conception of a human nature, could be considered as universal.
In logic, or the consideration of valid arguments, a proposition is said to have universality if it can be conceived as being true in all possible contexts without creating a contradiction. Some philosophers, especially Kant (1724~1804) have referred to such propositions as universalizable. Truth is considered to be universal if it is valid in all times and places. In this case, it is seen as eternal or as absolute. The relativist conception denies the existence of some or all universal truths, particularly ethical ones (through moral relativism). Mathematics is a field in which those truths discovered, in relation to the field of mathematics, are typically considered of universal scope. Though usage of the word truth has various domains of application, relativism does not necessarily apply to all of them.
This is not to say that universality is limited to mathematics, for there exists a large number of people who apply the standard to philosophy, theology and beyond, which exactly explains the ‘undecodibility’ of such ‘rules’.
In metaphysics, a universal principle is a type, a property, or a relation. The noun universal contrasts with individual. Instead, it is of axiom. While the adjective universal contrasts with particular or sometimes with concrete, maybe it contains somewhat a slight trace of being arbitrary.

2. These ‘rules’ are dominated by our sub-consciousness:
Freud (1856~1939) believed that mind has two components, the conscious and the unconscious mind. Conscious mind encompasses everything that we are aware of and is usually under the complete control of an individual. If cognitions of such super-experiences were subject to the brain control, then we can definitely conclude a reason why we may want to behave like this. Since the homo sapiens act spontaneously and unanimously, therefore, Freud termed moral instinct as preconscious or unconscious.
Freud explained unconscious or preconscious mind as a reservoir of perceptions, needs, feelings and reminiscences. These aspects of the unconscious mind are away from the conscious mind, which dominate the cognitive part to some degree. The contents of the unconscious mind are mostly those which are intolerable or repulsive in nature like hurt, nervousness and disagreement. These contents affect our behavior outside even though we may not be aware of these feelings lying dormant within us. Therefore, the unconscious morality or such rules are not under our control, and it is vital to realize that aspects that we store in our mind have long term implications on our behavior. The unconscious mind normally stores information that is carried out repeatedly. Affirmative actions and inputs fill the unconscious mind with positivism that makes the person act so-called ‘positively’. To these day, the unconsciousness has yet to be researched to a satisfactory degree.

3. These ‘rules’ are collectively practiced:
Collective unconsciousness is quite different from individual unconsciousness. It is that layer of reality which cannot be derived from personal experiences. In fact, it is considered an inborn or universal psyche which is present in every individual.
Carl Gustav Jung (1875~1961) pioneered the concept of collective unconsciousness while talking to the Zurich School of Analytical Psychology. According to Jung, it ranges from a warehouse that consists of records of human reactions to the world to an active reality out of which the actions emerge. He initially believed that the components that make up the collective unconsciousness are prehistoric and are mostly related to ancient images. However, he later modified this version stating that the clear images of the conscious mind have strong effects over collective unconsciousness. When the entire energy from the collective unconsciousness emerges and enters into consciousness, the conscious mind changes leading to insanity and major alterations in the regular temperament.
In addition, the observing ego was considered to be lying in between the two, accessing the collective unconscious through anima and external world through persona. Jung regarded his idea of collective unconscious as an experimental fact endorsed by experiences of the human race since ages, that is, each race not only has their own unique unconscious mind, but also shares some elements of unconsciousness with all other races. He called this shared unconscious, the collective unconscious. Jung suggested that there are archetypes (images and memories of important human experiences) that are passed down from generation to generation. These archetypes can be common experiences, colors and figures, or moral rules seen and practiced over and over again throughout time.

4. These rules are the presentation of refraining from mutual evils:
Glaucon (445BC?~?) believes that to do injustice is, by nature of ideology, ego-beneficial; but to suffer injustice, evil. Nevertheless the evil is more powerful than the good. So when men have both done and suffered injustice and have had experience of both, not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other, they think that they had better agree among themselves to have neither; hence there arise laws and mutual covenants; and that which is ordained by law is termed by them lawful and just. This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice. It is a means or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did. Such is the received account, Socrates, of the nature and origin of justice.
Now, if we are to form a real judgment of the life of the just and unjust, we must isolate them; there is no other way; and how is the isolation to be effected? I answer: Let the unjust man be entirely unjust, and the just man entirely just; nothing is to be taken away from either of them, and both are to be perfectly furnished for the work of their respective lives.

5. Team summary: These rules are implanted by our Ancestors
According to Bible, Man, later with his Woman, are created into a paradise with knowing nothing about being good or evil but with an absolutely clear mind formed and controlled by their FREE WILL (Ge2:25). That the rules we discussed above that are pre-existing the morality and laws lie essentially in such WILL, and the scale and degree of such being FREE. That is, how free can Man and Woman be in a space assigned to and what is their WILL for as they behave and act there?
I don’t think Man and Woman then have abilities to be aware that they do have concepts of WILL or RIGHT to do something, nor that of being FREE; they just do, act, and cognate, totally freely and at ease as systematically built-in until they ‘open’ their eyes and thus can tell being good from evil by their own misdeeds. (Ge2:17, 3:7)
The moment their eyes were opened is exactly when these ‘rules’, the unwanted crime from the Creator, began to instill into the minds of them and their off-springs, including us till nowadays.
It is obviously an ordeal to this world if we humans ‘illegally’ acquired the ‘rules’ for humans couldn’t stand the test of it. Humans are initially not designed for that purpose, so humans, in contrast to the criterions, are more willingly do the contrary: our heart is fully deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked, and thus lost control of ourselves. (Jer17:9)

To sum up, these rules came as unwanted, maybe against our wills, yet they were deeply implanted in our minds, and therefore we, as descendants of Man and Woman, might not deserved to be suffered and sinned from the very beginning. Besides the love and cherishing Mercy the Creator has ever granted, I believe that is the only very reason left we humans from all over the globe get redemption from Him. (Ge3:21, John3:16)

And we’d better not waive it.