I’m listening to the lecture Responsibility from the Command of Theta lectures, and came across the following from LRH which I thought interesting:
In this section of the lecture, LRH is humorously describing some of the illogics of the way people behave, in the context of whether or not people could actually be responsible for things (good or bad) which they cause to occur. He said:
“When I tell you some of these things about Earth, you’ll think I’m romancing. You’ll think I’m telling you long, drawn-out stories and things when I tell you they have what they call a court of law that has nothing to do with ethics. Now don’t laugh. I mean, it’s true. They have courts of law whcih have nothing to do with ethics but have only to do with arbitraries.”
He then goes on to explain:
“These courts judge solely on the basis of whether or not it has been written down someplace, not on whether or not it’s bad cause or good cause. And this whole thing is devoted to just answering this question: ‘You were bad cause, but was it justified – not by reason, but by something somebody wrote in a lawbook?’”
I thought it a very interesting point, one worth reflecting a bit on. How may parts of our judicial system are built around determining if someone acted rationally or if he acted unethically? And then how much is just built around figuring out whether or not what he did was written down in some lawbook somewhere?
Take the most recent school-shooting conviction, in which (thankfully) the psychs on the case did not succeed in convincing the court that the defendant was “legally insane” just because he was on psych meds.
That our current system even allows people to be represented as “legally insane” is itself a bizarre illustration of the above.
In any case, I thought it an interesting quote worthy of some more reflection.