Types of laws

I created this breakdown while writing notes for Apocalypse Now part 3 and thought it was good enough to share on its own.

Natural laws: God can violate these, man can’t.
Moral laws: Man can violate these, God can’t.
Logical laws: Neither God nor man can violate these.
Manmade laws: Both God and man can violate these.

A great deal of the confusion in modern life is due to conflation of two or more of these rulesets within a materialist framework. I.e. “All moral laws are abstractions, all abstractions are manmade because the mind is material ephemera, and all manmade laws are natural because man is a purely natural animal, Therefore all laws are natural.” This leads to confusion about the scope of moral prescriptions, because if moral laws are manmade norms then whoever sets the norms can make or break moral laws as well. And who sets the norms will be determined by the law of nature, which is social darwinism. (I’ve recently been discussing with Patrick how this is the Hegelian synthesis of right and left political discourse now: both sides agree that the inferior side deserves, morally speaking, to be bred out of the population.) Thus you have the idea of the ubermensch, the norm/morality-setting leader selected by inscrutable metaphysical laws of nature. It’s a mess.

What reasons might everyday leaders use to justify their behavior? In the chapters to follow, I consider several lines of justification, most of which are variations on the reasons any person might give for breaking rules that apply more generally to others. The morally relevant difference is that leaders who appeal to these reasons seem to be in a relatively better position to build a special case for their rule-breaking behavior. Consider, for example, the leader who lies to followers. What might the response be to questions about why the leader behaved this way? Some plausible responses include the following: the leader did it…

because he has his own morality.
because she does not care about morality.
because he could. because she is special.
because we said he could.
because she had to.
because he has special obligations to his group.
because it was for a higher cause.

Again, any of these responses could be similarly applied by one of the rest of us in an attempt to justify our own behavior. What distinguishes an appeal to these reasons in the leadership context, however, is that the rule breaker’s standing as a leader generally gives (at least the impression of) greater substance to the justification. More so than the rest of us, leaders may well be in a position to develop a convincing argument based on one or more of these reasons.


However, not all mistaken moral beliefs are about the content of morality. Leaders can also be mistaken about its scope – the application of moral rules. These mistakes come in two varieties: mistakes about who is bound by moral rules and mistakes about who is protected by these rules. With respect to the first kind of error, the leader mistakenly believes that he is justified in breaking a moral rule because it does not apply to him at all or, at least, not in his situation. With respect to the second kind of error, the leader mistakenly believes that some individuals do not merit the protection of moral rules. In some cases, beliefs about who is protected by morality will be connected to beliefs about who is bound by morality. For example, social contract approaches to morality generally assume that the protection of morality’s requirements extends only to those who have the requisite abilities for being bound by them.17 For thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, the rationale for extending the protections of morality to an individual in the first place is to create an incentive for him to adhere to the requirements of morality, thus bringing benefits or preempting harms to other parties to the contract.18


In other words, an abused and deprived person can come to see himself as being outside of the moral community. Given the assumption that he is not a member of the moral community, he is not bound by the rules of morality. This assumption, of course, is false. Abused and deprived individuals are genuine members of the moral community, fully meriting its protections. In some cases, they simply fail to recognize their moral worth. And we can certainly understand why they are completely ignorant on this point. We can also understand the conclusion that they might draw from it – namely, that they are not bound by the rules of morality either.


But a deprived or abusive background is hardly necessary for one to become an adult who engages in ruthless and brutal conduct.28…How do we explain King Farouk’s behavior? One relatively straightforward explanation is that he was reared to see himself as outside of the scope of morality. Throughout his childhood, “[a]s the object of all this attention, he already was preparing for his later role as king…”37 It would not be surprising, then, if he came to believe that generally accepted moral rules applied to him neither as a child nor as an adult, even though these rules applied to others.

-Terry Price
Leadership Ethics

(This book has been helpful but it actually starts with the same flawed assumption that morality and normativity are the same thing. I’ll probably do a summary and review sometime in January.)

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Types of laws

  1. Milk says:

    Good post. Seems providential. I’ve been thinking and praying a lot about this subject.

  2. Obadiah says:

    Speaking of autism…

    Vaan: BigOcc TM
    Penelo: Also TM
    Basch: Koanic
    Ashe: TT
    Baltier: Arch-Melon
    Fran: ManPlayboyBunnyPig
    Larsa: Obadiah but a little pint-sized nibba
    Serpents intertwining/DNA double helix necklace Larsa wears: magical bloodline/future behelit myth
    Vayne: Owl melon w/ full dark triad suite
    Vossler: Also owl melon
    Ghis: The Eternal Nobilid
    Moogles: Mexicans
    Cid: Cave Bear(?)
    Reddas: Mousterian(?)
    (I haven’t gotten to the point in the game where we meet either Cid or Reddas)

    Archadian Empire: Anglo-Kwanzstanian/Western Power Bloc
    Dalmasca: Germany/Japan “Ritter” personality countries (http://gamdptheory.com/GAMDP_German_Ethnopsychology.asp)
    Rozarria: Spanish Russia

    (Vossler’s attempt to compromise with Anglo-Kwanzstania is punished with death by the game’s Strict Ritter Japanese writers)

    Hyena: Hybrid speciation of hyena and rhinoceros
    Wooly Gator: Hybrid speciation of mammoth and alligator
    Viera: Hybrid speciation of pornographic actresses and rabbits
    Urstrix: Hybrid speciation of owl and bear
    Suriander: Hybrid speciation of frog and ram
    Yensa: Hybrid speciation of whale and dragon

    (Manbonobo is strong in this game)

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      *autism applause: autists rocking in unison

    • boneflour says:

      DBZ Abridged Accents I would pick for a FF12 Abridged Series:

      Vayne: Frieza

      Balthier: The Red Aussie Guy (Jaice? Really?) Because “Yeah, I’m an Aussie. Why do you think I’m banging this kangaroo?”

      Ashe: I really just did this to make that kangaroo joke.

      Penelo: No, seriously, that’s the whole bit.

    • Heaviside says:

      In my opinion, all personality systems are pretty much only useful for recreation, but the most complicated and fun is natal astrology.

      • Obadiah says:

        These various personality classification systems are generally fun and interesting–and quite often true from what I’ve seen–but their trouble is in their limited utility. Any given person is like a tapestry made of umpteen-however-many individual threads, and any given classification system (e.g. Edenic phrenology, Overwatch Theory ranks, Jungian psychological types, Gervais Principle developmental levels etc) is only describing one “thread” of that person who is inherently more than the sum of their individual components.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          Basically the Austrians were right about predicting human action with models. Factor analysis predicts well but doesn’t tell you how to fix anything, so it’s useless except to say “avoid poor people”.

          • bicebicebice says:

            sapes are very poor people indeed avoiding them fixes a lot of things maybe even 80% of all problems… there was this austrian chap who ended up as german chanchellor who…

        • Heaviside says:

          One of the strengths of natal astrology is that every person’s birth chart is unique, so it is not really a classification system. Even considering a handful of factors discretely leads to thousands of possible combinations.

  3. Obadiah says:


    Koanic: Architect/Universalist
    Verjiortan: Seeker
    Obadiah: Alchemist
    Heaviside: Leadsman(?)

    • Obadiah says:

      Archetypal Technocrat: Dedicated

      • Obadiah says:

        (GAMDP, The Gervais Principle, Edenism, MBTI/Jungian Psychology, etc are all true at the same time and each only cover a “thread” or “cross section slice” of a given person)

        • Obadiah says:

          I keep spelling it “Kwanzstania”, but Tex’s original spelling is “Kwanzstainia”, implying corruption and impurity

  4. Obadiah says:

    >*autism applause: autists rocking in unison


    *Laugh track plays*

    • The Radically Hyper-Fascistic Anti-Bazagna League says:

      After we get around to establishing the Edenistical LARPnostate, can we create a lossily-compressed manmade law against liking or even mentioning that show, this harshly enforced law being, of course, merely based upon a description of a specific application of a more general moral proscription against putting things that are hip and fringe into little plastic packets to facilitate their purchase and consumption by normies? Also, maybe we could conduct sodium-pentothal-fuelled interrogation sessions in order to identify any secret fans of the show so that we can put them into death ca–I mean, reeducation camps. Look, even though, since I don’t want to become gay and, therefore, face the likelihood of eternal darnation, I’ve never seen a single moment of that awful show, its very existence profoundly offends my delicate sensibilities, which means that y’all have to tiptoe around my feelings and do what I say. Even the thought of mentioning the theory after which the show that shall not be named was named makes me want to throw myself into oncoming traffic, and this makes trolling fedora tippers by pretending to believe in a 6000-year-old universe, even though we can see stars which are more than 6000 light-years away, somewhat awkward. So, in conclusion, atheism is the easiest religion to troll.

      • Aeoli Pera says:

        What on God’s flat earth are you people talking about?

        • Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

          Lol nice. We’re talking about terrible nerd-culture-appropriating sitcoms which are named after a probably-truthful-enough (but let’s not be unnecessarily dogmatic about it) model of cosmic origins, and I can’t say any more than that without becoming a massive hypocrite.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Oh, okay. Normie memes. Basically marijuana then, strictly banned from the Aeolistate.

            • Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

              Well, it’s more about using the NAP-violating guns of the state to stop the unwashed normie masses from culturally repropriating our memes, which are for initiates only. So, merely banning normie memes isn’t enough; we have to stop the globalistical corporations from converting esoteric memes into easily understandable memes so that we won’t have to go full Doolittle and ban all memes. It makes perfect sense. Trust me.

        • Obadiah says:

          >What on God’s flat earth are you people talking about?

          The “autists applauding by rocking back and forth” seemed like something you might see on Big Bang Theory with a laugh track behind it. Then again maybe not–I’ve only seen about 15 min of the show and it hurt to watch; your joke might be too high level for it

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            I suppose if Sheldon started talking in 8chan memes it would give the game away.

            • Obadiah says:

              I want Sheldon to look and dress like Sam Hyde and go on 45-min long Sambo-style adderall rants about how being aspie sucks because he’s surrounded by a bunch of fucktarded normies

            • Schrödinger's Psych Evaluation says:

              HUGE improvement. I’d pay for a cable subscription and sit through 15 minutes of advertisements in order to see that, especially if all of the ads were for obscure, untranslated anime series and racist role-playing games.

  5. Koanic says:

    Laws are just compressed justice, lossy. Flawed, see? Tase me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s