Revolution in Law

Joao Carlos Holland de Barcellos

The Scientific Meta-Ethics advocates that the fairest lawsuits, or ethically correct and
fair, are the ones that provide the greatest happiness in the maximum period of time in
which this happiness could be evaluated.

Likewise, we know that the role of law institutions, that is, the goal of the people who
work with law, like lawyers, prosecutors and judges, in short, the judiciary, is to make
justice: all the facts must be investigated in order to make the judgment as fair as
possible. If by any chance facts and evidence cannot be analyzed and judged, justice can
make a mistake.

However, it is necessary to expose the truth in order to investigate the facts with
strictness. The truth would be composed of a set of facts and evidence that are relevant
in the case to be judged.

Nevertheless, we know that the lawyers are not formally or legally committed to
showing each evidence they might have when they contact their clients, especially if
this evidence is against his client’s objectives. Nowadays, there is no formal
commitment to Justice that obliges lawyers to show facts and evidence they know of, or
that might come to their knowledge and incriminate their clients, even if these facts and
evidence are crucial for the verdict. No lawyer will take criminal responsibility if he/she
omits evidence that could incriminate his/her client. Such possibility exists and is
supported by law: no lawyer can be incriminated for defending a respondent.

This ethical and judiciary mistake, as a flaw in Justice, must be corrected. Besides
preventing justice from obtaining all possible data for a fair judgment, it promotes
criminality, since it enhances the possibility for a criminal to be condemned by lack of
evidence (or evidence consciously omitted).

In case there was a change in Law that obliged lawyers to expose all data and evidence
they acknowledge, even if they are against their clients, as long as they are relevant to
the case, so they could be appreciated by the judge and jury, there would be a more
transparent, ethical and fairer lawsuit. In this principle it is necessary that everyone,
especially the defenders, exposes the truth even if it can eventually go against the
clients. This alteration in justice would also prevent lawyers from working against their
nature of justice, for they would not be obliged to defend at any cost, even with moral
and emotional harm, their criminal clients. That way lawyers, not being obliged to
eventually become “semi-accomplice” of their criminal clients, would be at peace with
their consciousness. They would know that their main duty is with justice and, only
after that, with their clients.

Obviously, the prosecutor, the state department and the police would also have the legal
obligation of showing evidence that might pronounce the respondent not guilty, in case
they knew any. The prosecutors’ function of incriminating the respondent is not a
reason for the other parts to omit evidence that could pronounce the respondent not
guilty. This is not a game where the target is to win or to lose: the objective is to make
justice, and everyone should be engaged in this, including justice itself, by altering laws
that are necessary to reach this goal.

This is a proposal so truth and justice can prevail again.

The Philosophical Uncertainty Principle (PUP)

Jocax, November 2008

Summary: We will establish a philosophical scientific principle similar to Heisenberg’s

uncertainty principle, but more comprehensive.

Key Words: Philosophy, Uncertainty, PUP, Philosophical Uncertainty Principle.

Quantum mechanics, a branch of Physics that study the micro cosmos, has a
fundamental principle known as “Uncertainty Principle”. This principle, discovered by
Heisenberg, establishes the physical impossibility of knowing (or measuring),
simultaneously, the position and speed of a particle with a precision larger than a given
constant [1]. This imprecision is considered to be a fundamental law in quantum
mechanics, and such uncertainty does not depend on any technology, it is considered to
be an attribute of the universe.

Since the advent of the “Expanded Science” [2], we know it is impossible to refute a
theory as Popper thought. Everything indicated a more comprehensive and less
uncertain view of the universe. Such uncertainty must comprehend our observations.
Based on these conclusions, I shall propose a principle, which I called “Philosophical
Uncertainty Principle”, or PUP. The PUP establishes that:

“It is impossible to know if some observation, measure or perception corresponds in

fact to reality”.

We can take reality as something that exists regardless of any interpretation, processing
or imagination.

Many should probably have already had this idea, but have not formalized it yet
because, since the advent of the concept of “Solipsism” [3], we know it is impossible to
prove that anything can be in fact reality. And worse than that, even the Solipsism itself
can be an illusion, since the “I” that realizes can also be unreal, as shown in “I think,
therefore it exists” [4]. That is, it is possible that the “being” itself that observes thinks
and feels, does not exist in another level of interpretation.

Besides that, and more important, even if we assumed our reality as real, that is, it exists
regardless of any interpretation of a higher level as it is supposed by science, we would
still have problems: even so we could not take any observation as real. In order to
understand that, we must steal the “shoe box” example from the essay “Expanded
Science” [2]:

Suppose we are walking on the street and we observe a shoe box with a brick inside.
Can we infer from our observation that what we saw was a shoe box with a brick
inside? Unfortunately the answer is no. In principle, one of the following situations can
occur – from infinite possible ones – when we observe a brick that is not a brick:

- It was the volume of a radio imitating a brick.

- It was something similar to a brick, but not a brick.
- A momentary cerebral short-circuit made you imagine a brick inside an empty
box.
- A new alpha-waves gun was tested on you so you could imagine the brick.
- Someone created a holographic image of the brick so you would think it was
real.
- Etc

Such mistakes, although improbable, can happen in any level of observation, be it

scientific or not. And that justifies PUP as a fundamental philosophic-scientific
principle about the limit of knowledge.

Empathism: Happiness through the OTHER

By Jocax, April 2007

The Empathism is a doctrine that promotes happiness mainly through EMPATHY.

----------

Empathy

From em+Gr. Páthos, state of soul

Noun. the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be
like to be in their situation

-----------------

Empathy is a felling that makes us feel what the others feel: if he/she suffers, I suffer. If
he/she is happy, I am happy too.

The “others” are all the other beings that are related to us.
Therefore, empatism wants us to be happy not through selfishness or simple sensorial
pleasures, but through our fellow creature’s happiness.

It is a way of promoting the altruism and goodness through the sensation this goodness
causes in another person.

We all have basically the same mental apparatus which forms consciousness, thus, it is
not very different if others feel pleasure or us. Pleasure is contributing to happiness and
we must nourish it in everyone that can feel it.