“Law” is Not Determinative of Conduct. Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter

Human action and inaction are, without question, deemed subject to being determined and originated by a given language known as "law"; while, since 1939, existential ontologist J.P. Sartre (1901-1980), realized and demonstrated that given states of affairs are not, cannot, possibly be determinative/originative of human action, or, inaction.

For example, the magistrate sentencing a person to death thinks he is "bound and determined by law" to do so; while all the while, the given language of law, whereby the magistrate deems himself to be acting is not, cannot, in fact, be determinative of the magistrate's conduct, for:

J.P. Sartre’s: “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, can not 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.”

“Law” whereby the magistrate purports to originate his act of capital punishment, is an ontologically illegitimate/dishonest/dishonorable, and, defeasible theoretical construct.

 

I am not debating. I am merely laying down the law...

 

We are delusional in believing law to be determinative among human beings for whom all determination is actually negation.

 

Spinoza's "...determinatio negatio est.."; and, Hegel's "All determination is negation." underlie Sartre's position, and, Sartre's position is ontologically in line with how a human act actually originates; whereas the magistrate is an unthinking positivist, wrongly thinking a human act arises on the basis of givens...

 

I have been searching such sites for many days, they are all dead; this is the only law-oriented site actually alive. This is the US of A, are you, another member, attempting to abridge my freedom of speech?! Mind your own business Mr. Prohibitive.

 

I am not debating; rather, am confronting jurisprudentially oriented persons with their error; and, this site is inside a free country, with freedom proceeding just fine without your much too prohibitive perspectival view!
I am indeed positing precisely a real life situation for which I am seeking counsel.

 

Fine, let us contact the owner to see if he, like you, wishes to hide his head in the sand too, regarding my ascriptions...