This is the kind of thing I would've come up with in my early teens when I first discovered sociology.

Flaws... Flaws everywhere!

What, so today you decided to fix the worlds problems and then post on Lemmy with the goal of arguing with anyone who might disagree at all?

number 1 is a nothing rule, unless you change it to "One must act with compassion and empathy". Then you have to define compassion and empathy, and what it means to act with them, in a way that respects rules 2 and 3.

number 2 renders all other laws meaningless unless you have some objective measurement of a person's sense of justice, whatever that is.

number 3, ok, supreme over what? over someone else's sense of justice?

number 4: you don't get to demand my respect. My mind is in my body, therefore rule 4 is a violation of rule 3

number 5: LMAO unscientific belief is the progenitor of science, also rule 3 so kick rocks telling me what I can and cannot believe.

number 6: who defines and adjudicates wrongdoing and remedies thereof if not the law? How can anyone contradict my own sense of justice without violating rule 2?

number 7 is another do-nothing law until you define common sense and everyone agrees that the definition conforms to their own sense of justice. Good luck with that.

number * a.k.a. optional taxation: Taxes are already optional. Optional doesn't mean consequence free. Who are you to contradict the tax collector's sense of justice?

overall score .25/7*, I do not endorse these rules and judge them unpopular to the extremity.

P.S. I think you're on the right track. Reading back over my criticisms they sound harsh, and I stand by them, but I think it's good to think about these things. Creating rules for groups of people is really, really hard, and I am of the opinion that no one has ever done a very good job at it, so in this respect you are in esteemed company. I hope you post another draft at some point.

P.P.S. A lot of my criticism revolves around the expansive nature of Rule 2 and the phrase "sense of justice". The tension between one's personal sense of justice and the relative inflexibility of the law is a huge philosophical problem known as Civil Disobedience and reading up on some other thinkers on the topic may help you sharpen your own thoughts on the matter. As a start I'd recommend some Thoreau for the reason that he's the first person I thought of, since he figuratively wrote the book on it.

There is a guy that wrote like 7 books about the 3 absolute law any robot must obey.

I don't even imagine the number of paradox and contradiction your 7 law could generate😅. This would create great stories.

2 is an issue. I interpret that in two ways and both are problematic.

A) You as an individual are allowed to ignore a law that conflicts with your own sense of justice. Historically, there was a period in the US where a black man touching a white woman, literally making physical contact, was seen as a capital offense. Those involved in the linching ignored the law to follow their own sense of justice. This would be just as permissable as noble crimes like stealing food to avoid starving or rebelling against a corrupt government.

B) The law cannot penalize a crime committed by someone who believes the actions they commited upholds their sense of justice. Ignoring the fact that one could just lie and say that it was justice that compelling them to do something, we again have to account for conflicting views of justice. That guy that burned down the wearhouse believed wholly that it was justice for the mistreatment levied by the company, but the executives of that company likely feel justified in paying them so poorly because that could just get a different job.

It would likely be better to incode a sense of justice that can't be argued against tusk allow the individual to make their own.

Yeah, they tried that before with a book called The Bible. We all know how well that went.

You cannot forced good behavior. You can only punish bad behavior.

I see you’re trying to solve social ills through these seven rules. I read your comments, and I noticed something that’s worth talking about. It might bring some clarity to our words.

I see your idea of freedom, and it very much sounds like negative freedom. This kind of freedom is not empirical or scientific. It is a-priori. In other words, you close your eyes and assume everyone is equally free.

The problem with this stance is that it is not empirical or scientific. A truly empirical ad scientific view of freedom is positive freedom. In it, your freedoms exist to the extent that you’re capable to be free.

Can’t talk? You’re less free than someone who can talk. Can’t learn? You’re less free than someone who can learn. Can’t bribe politicians? You’re less free than someone who can.

Positive freedom is also known as human development. And a society that takes human development seriously is a society that invests in their people.

I personally think adopting a pragmatic view of human development is better than assuming good rules will save us.

Another issue I noticed is that common sense is not the same everywhere. Some people are convinced they’re in the right while someone else thinks they’re in the wrong. That is why I prefer the clarity that scientific positive freedom or human development brings. It brings clarity. It’s less ambiguous.

Also, your rules sound a hell of a lot like one of the secular satanist groups. I wouldn’t be surprised if they inspired yours! I actually think they did.

Anyway, have a good one!

\2. One’s own sense of justice must be put above the law

Shariah law anyone? It's your own sense according to god who is above all. It never ends well.

\5. Unscientific beliefs are not allowed

We used to give cocaine to cure people when we didn't know better. Or "bloodletting" to remove ghosts from bodies. It was scientific at the time. And we now have chemotherapy which is basically "we are killing your body to prevent your body from killing itself because we don't know better and cannot cure cancer." There is science in that, but it's weird.

The rest is fine.

Like most systems, it fails in that it doesn't account for human nature. We're dumb and we fuck shit up.

many are to interpretation dependent. maga could totally say they are following the rules and its you who are not and that is why its all above the low. also the law is the rules we agree to. the constitution is basically the law above law which is far more specific and the high court is easily disregarding enforcing/protecting it from the executive violating it as a matter of policy. also the legislative branch is not acting and lends words of encouragement to it all. well one party anyway.