i am divine creation

8/3/2019 i Am Divine Creation

1/28

"I think, therefore I exist, as a thing that thinks."

"...And as I observed that this truth 'I think, therefore I am' (Cogito ergo sum) was so certain and of such

evidence ...I concluded that I might, without scruple, accept it as the first principle of the Philosophy I

was in search."

"...In the statement 'I think, therefore I am' ... I see very clearly that to think it is necessary to be, I

concluded that I might take, as a general rule, the principle, that all the things which we very clearly anddistinctly conceive are true..."

consciousness n.

1. The state or condition of being conscious.

2. A sense of one's personal or collective identity, including the attitudes, beliefs, and sensitivities held by or considered

characteristic of an individual or group: Love of freedom runs deep in the national consciousness.

3.

a. Special awareness or sensitivity: class consciousness; race consciousness.

b. Alertness to or concern for a particular issue or situation: a movement aimed at raising the general public's

consciousness of social injustice.

4. In psychoanalysis, the conscious.

"PERSON, as I take it, is the name for this self. Wherever a man finds what he calls himself, there, I think, another may

say is the same person. It is a forensic term, appropriating actions and their merit; and so belong only to intelligent

agents, capable of a law, and happiness, and misery. This personality extends itself beyond present existence to what is

past, only by consciousness, --whereby it becomes concerned and accountable; owns and imputes to itself past actions,

just upon the same ground and for the same reason as it does the present. All which is founded in a concern for

happiness, the unavoidable concomitant of consciousness; that which is conscious of pleasure and pain, desiring that

that self that is conscious should be happy. And therefore whatever past actions it cannot reconcile or APPROPRIATE

to that present self by consciousness, it can be no more concerned in it than if they had never been done: and to receive

pleasure or pain, i.e. reward or punishment, on the account of any such action, is all one as to be made happy or

miserable in its first being, without any demerit at all. For, supposing a MAN punished now for what he had done in

another life, whereof he could be made to have no consciousness at all, what difference is there between that

punishment and being CREATED miserable? And therefore, conformable to this, the apostle tells us, that, at the great

day, when every one shall 'receive according to his doings, the secrets of all hearts shall be laid open.' The sentenceshall be justified by the consciousness all person shall have, that THEY THEMSELVES, in what bodies soever they

appear, or what substances soever that consciousness adheres to, are the SAME that committed those actions, and

deserve that punishment for them.

John Locke's chapter XXVII "On Identity and Diversity" in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

(1689)

According to Locke, personal identity (the self) "depends on consciousness, not on substance" nor on the soul. We are

the same person to the extent that we are conscious of our past and future thoughts and actions in the same way as we

are conscious of our present thoughts and actions. If consciousness is this "thought" which doubles all thoughts, then

personal identity is only founded on the repeated act of consciousness: "This may show us wherein personal identity

consists: not in the identity of substance, but ... in the identity of consciousness". For example, one may claim to be a

reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul. However, one would be the same person as Plato only if one had

the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and actions that he himself did. Therefore, self-identity is not based on thesoul. One soul may have various personalities.

The following are Excerpts from Chapter XVI - Of PERSONS, AUTHORS, and things Personated from Leviathan,

1651 A.D., by Thomas Hobbes:

'A person, is he, whose words or action are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of another man, or any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.'

'When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person: And when they are considered asrepresenting the words and action of an other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.'

'Of Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person

is the Actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the AUTHOR.'

'And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or the Representer, not knowing the Authority he hath, dothit at his own perill.'


2/28

'An Idol, or meer Figment of the brain, may be Personated; as were the Gods of Heathen; which by such Officers asthe State appointed, were Personated, and held Possessions, and other Goods, and Rights, which men from time to

time dedicated, and consecrated unto them. But Idols cannot be Authors: for an Idol is nothing.'

'Of Authors there be two sorts. The first is simply so called; which I have before defined be him, that owneth theAction of another simply. The second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another conditionally; that is to

say, he undertaketh to do it, if the other doth it not, at, or before a certain time. And these Authors conditionall, are

generally called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and Sponsores; and particularly for Debt, Proedes; and forAppearance before Judge, or Magistrate, Vades.'

I AM THAT I AM

The Image of God (Hebrew: ; tzelem elohim, lit. "image of God", often appearing in Latin as Imago Dei

The primary source and documentation for this concept of the essential nature of human beings is found first in Genesis

1:26,27, and it appears in two other places:

And God said: Let us make a human in our image/btsalmeinu, as our likeness/kidmuteinu. And they will have

dominion over [the animals] And God created the human in His image /btsalmo, in God's image/tselem He

created him, male and female He created them. And God blessed them and God said to them: Bear fruit and

multiply and fill the land and occupy her, and have dominion over the seas fish and the skies bird and every

animal crawling over the land. (Gen 1:2728)

This is the book of Adams generations: on the day God created Adam, in God's likeness/dmut He created him;

male and female He created them, and He blessed them, and called their name Adam in the day of their being

created. And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years and bore in his likeness/bidmuto like his image/ktsalmo

and called his name Seth. (Gen 5:13)

One who spills the blood of the human, through/by the human, his blood will be spilled, for in God's

image/tselem He made the human. (Gen 9:6)

Imago Dei

There are three common ways of understanding the manner in which humans exist in Imago Dei: Substantive,

Relational and Functional.

Substantive

The substantive view holds to the idea that there is some substantial characteristic of the human race that is like God.

Some may argue that we are a mirror image of God's essential nature. Other substantive views suggest a spiritual

commonality with God, God being a spirit and not having a physical body. Throughout the ages there have been

different interpretations of substantive likeness to God. Irenaeus put forward a distinctive difference between image and

likeness. Humankind before the fall (the moral and spiritual failure of its original progenitors) was in the image of God

through the ability to exercise free will and reason. And we were in the likeness of God through an original spiritual

endowment. Medieval scholars suggested that this was the holiness (or "wholeness") of humankind which was lost after

the fall, though free will and reason remained. Calvin and Luther agreed that something of the Imago Dei was lost at the

fall but that fragments of it remained in some form or another.

Relational

The relational view argues that one must be in a relationship with God in order to possess the image of God. Those

who hold to the relational image agree that humankind possess the ability to reason as a substantive trait, but they argue

that it is in a relationship with God that the true image is made evident. Later theologians like Karl Barth and Emil

Brunner argue that it is our ability to establish and maintain complex and intricate relationships that make us like God.

For example, in humans the created order of male and female is intended to culminate in spiritual as well as physical

unions Genesis 5:1-2, reflecting the nature and image of God. Since other creatures do not form such explicitly

referential spiritual relationships, these theologians see this ability as uniquely representing the imago dei in humans.

Functional

This third view differs from the previous two in that it argues that the image of God imprinted on us resides in function

rather than in form or relationship, this function being primarily our task of ruling over earth.


3/28

Genesis 1:26 speaks of humankind being made in the image of God and given the function of naming and ruling over

the fish of the sea and the animals on land, reflecting Gods rule over all the universe, ourselves included. This view

sees this ruling function of dominion as best expressing the imago dei, or our likeness to God.

Thomas Hobbes also proposed an early variant of equality among men in his treatise The Leviathan:

Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man

sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together

the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim tohimself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the

weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with

others that are in the same danger with himself. And as to the faculties of the mind, setting aside the arts

grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon general and infallible rules, called

science, which very few have and but in few things, as being not a native faculty born with us, nor

attained, as prudence, while we look after somewhat else, I find yet a greater equality amongst men than

that of strength. For prudence is but experience, which equal time equally bestows on all men in those

things they equally apply themselves unto

The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one living and true God, Creator and

Lord of heaven and earth, omnipotent, eternal, immense, incomprehensible, infinite in intellect and will and in all

perfection Who, being One, singular, absolutely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, is to be regarded as

distinct really and in essence from the world most blessed in and from Himself, and unspeakably elevated above allthings that exist, or can be conceived, except Himself

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (or CCC) is the official text of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A

provisional, "reference text" was issued by Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992 "the thirtieth anniversary of the

opening of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council" with his apostolic constitution, Fidei depositum. The new

Catechism was first published[3] in the French language in 1994 and was then translated into many other languages.

On August 15, 1997 the Solemnity of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Pope John Paul II promulgated

the Latin typical edition, with his apostolic letter, Laetamur Magnopere.The Latin text, which became the official text of

reference (editio typica), amended the contents of the provisional French text at a few points. As a result, the earlier

translations from the French into other languages (including English) had to be amended and re-published as "second

editions".

The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was published in 2005, and the first edition in English in

2006. It is a more concise and dialogic version of the CCC. The text is available in twelve languages on the Vatican

website,which also gives the text of the Catechism itself in eight languages.

Divinity and divine (sometimes "the Divinity" or "the Divine" ) are broadly applied but loosely defined terms, used

variously within different faiths and belief systems and even by different individuals within a given faith to refer

to some transcendent or transcendental power or deity, or its attributes or manifestations in the world. The root of the

words is literally "godlike" (from the Latin deus, cf. Dyaus, closely related to Greek zeus, div in Persian and deva in

Sanskrit), but the use varies significantly depending on which god is being discussed.

And God said: Let us make a human in our image/btsalmeinu, as our likeness/kidmuteinu. And they will have

dominion over [the animals] And God created the human in His image /btsalmo, in God's image/tselem He

created him, male and female He created them. And God blessed them and God said to them: Bear fruit and

multiply and fill the land and occupy her, and have dominion over the seas fish and the skies bird and everyanimal crawling over the land. (Gen 1:2728)

To refer to powers or forces that are universal, or transcend human capacities

To refer to qualities of individuals who are considered to have some special access or relationship to the divine

Overlap occurs between these usages because deities or godlike entities are often identical with and/or identified by the

powers and forces that are credited to them in many cases a deity is merely a power or force personified and these

powers and forces may then be extended or granted to mortal individuals. For instance, Jehovah is closely associated

with storms and thunder throughout much of the Old Testament. He is said to speak in thunder, and thunder is seen as a

token of His anger. This power was then extended to prophets like Moses and Samuel, who caused thunderous storms to

rain down on their enemies. (See Exodus 9:23 and 1 Samuel 12:18.)


4/28

Divinity always carries connotations of goodness, beauty, beneficence, justice, and other positive, pro-social attributes.

In monotheistic faiths there is an equivalent cohort of malefic supranormal beings and powers, such as demons, devils,

afreet, etc., which are not conventionally referred to as divine; demonic is often used instead. Pantheistic and

polytheistic faiths make no such distinction; gods and other beings of transcendent power often have complex, ignoble,

or even irrational motivations for their acts. Note that while the terms demon and demonic are used in monotheistic

faiths as antonyms to divine, they are in fact derived from the Greek word daimn (), which itself translates as

divinity.

There are three distinct usages of divinity and divine in religious discourse:

Divinity as entity

In monotheistic faiths, the word divinity is often used to refer to the singular God central to that faith. Often the word

takes the definite article and is capitalized "the Divinity" as though it were a proper name or definitive honorific.

Divine capitalized may be used as an adjective to refer to the manifestations of such a Divinity or its powers:

e.g. "basking in the Divine presence..."

The terms divinity and divine uncapitalized, and lacking the definite article are sometimes used as to denote

'god(s) or certain other beings and entities which fall short of godhood but lie outside the human realm. These include

(by no means an exhaustive list):

The multiple gods of pan- and polytheistic faiths (as in the ancient Greek and Roman)

Elementals such as the dragons of traditional Chinese religion and sylphs and salamanders from Alchemical

traditions

Anthropomorphized aspects of nature, like the tree and river spirits of Roman mythology

Animal beings, many of which populate the stories of Native Americans and Indigenous Australians

Conceptual beings like the Muses and Fates of ancient Greek belief

In certain instances, individual humans are elevated to divine status without becoming actual gods: the eight immortals

of taoism, for instance. Compare with the section on divinity and mortals given below.

Divine force or power

As previously noted, divinities are closely related to the transcendent force(s) or power(s) credited to them, so much so

that in some cases the powers or forces may themselves be invoked independently. This leads to the second usage of the

word divine (and a less common usage of divinity): to refer to the operation of transcendent power in the world.

In its most direct form, the operation of transcendent power implies some form of divine intervention. For pan- and

polytheistic faiths this usually implies the direct action of one god or another on the course of human events. In Greek

legend, for instance, it was Poseidon (god of the sea) who raised the storms which blew Odysseus' craft off course on

his return journey, and Japanese tradition holds that a god-sent wind saved them from Mongol invasion. Prayers or

propitiations are often offered to specific gods of pantheisms to garner favorable interventions in particular enterprises:

e.g. safe journeys, success in war, or a season of bountiful crops. Many faiths around the world from Japanese Shinto

and Chinese traditional religion, to certain African practices and the faiths derived from those in the Caribbean, to

Native American beliefs hold that ancestral or household spirits offer daily protection and blessings. In monotheistic

religions, divine intervention may take very direct forms: miracles, visions, or intercessions by blessed figures.Transcendent force or power may also operate through more subtle and indirect paths. Monotheistic faiths generally

support some version of divine providence, which acknowledges that the divinity of the faith has a profound but

unknowable plan always unfolding in the world. Unforeseeable, overwhelming, or seemingly unjust events are often

thrown on 'the will of the Divine', in deferences like the Muslim inshallah ('as God wills it') and Christian 'God works in

mysterious ways'. Often such faiths hold out the possibility of divine retribution as well, where the divinity will

unexpectedly bring evil-doers to justice through the conventional workings of the world; from the subtle redressing of

minor personal wrongs, to such large-scale havoc as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah or the biblical Great

Flood. Other faiths are even more subtle: the doctrine of karma shared by Buddhism and Hinduism is a divine law

similar to divine retribution but without the connotation of punishment: our acts, good or bad, intentional or

unintentional, reflect back on us as part of the natural working of the universe. Philosophical Taoism also proposes a

transcendent operant principle transliterated in English as tao or dao, meaning 'the way' which is neither an entity

or a being per se, but reflects the natural ongoing process of the world.


5/28

Modern western mysticism and new age philosophy often use the term 'the Divine' as a noun in this latter sense: a non-

specific principle and/or being that gives rise to the world, and acts as the source or wellspring of life. In these latter

cases the faiths do not promote deference, as happens in monotheisms; rather each suggests a path of action that will

bring the practitioner into conformance with the divine law: ahimsa 'no harm' for Buddhist and Hindu faiths; de or

te 'virtuous action' in daoism; and any of numerous practices of peace and love in new age thinking.

Divinity applied to mortals

In the third usage, extensions of divinity and divine power are credited to living, mortal individuals. Political leaders are

known to have claimed actual divinity in certain early societies the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs being the premier

case taking a role as objects of worship and being credited with superhuman status and powers. More commonly, and

more pertinent to recent history, leaders merely claim some form of divine mandate, suggesting that their rule is in

accordance with the will of God. The doctrine of the divine right of kings was introduced as late as the 17th century,

proposing that kings rule by divine decree; Japanese Emperors ruled by divine mandate until the inception of the

Japanese constitution after World War II

Less politically, most faiths have any number of people that are believed to have been touched by divine forces: saints,

prophets, heroes, oracles, martyrs, and enlightened beings, among others. Saint Francis of Assisi, in Catholicism, is said

to have received instruction directly from God and it is believed that he grants plenary indulgence to all who confess

their sins and visit his chapel on the appropriate day. In Greek mythology, Achilles' mother bathed him in the river Styx

to give him immortality, and Hercules as the son of Zeus inherited near-godlike powers. In religious Taoism, Lao

Tsu is venerated as a saint with his own powers. Various individuals in the Buddhist faith, beginning with Siddhartha,are considered to be enlightened, and in religious forms of Buddhism they are credited with divine powers. Muhammad

and Christ, in their respective traditions, are each said to have performed divine miracles.

In general, mortals with divine qualities are carefully distinguished from the deity or deities in their religion's main

pantheon. Even the Christian faith, which holds Christ to be identical to God, distinguishes between God the father and

Christ the begotten son. There are, however, certain esoteric and mystical schools of thought, present in many faiths

Sufis in Islam, Gnostics in Christianity, Advaitan Hindus, Zen Buddhists, as well as several non-specific perspectives

developed in new age philosophy which hold that all humans are in essence divine, or unified with the Divine in a

non-trivial way. Such divinity, in these faiths, would express itself naturally if it were not obscured by the social and

physical worlds we live in; it needs to be brought to the fore through appropriate spiritual practices.

Catholic Concept of the Divine is the Catholic Church definition of divine, as published in The Catholic

Encyclopedia Vol. II.

To form a more systematic idea of God, and as far as possible, to unfold the implications of the truth, God is All-

Perfect, this infinite Perfection is viewed, successively, under various aspects, each of which is treated as a separate

perfection and characteristic inherent to the Divine Substance, or Essence. A certain group of these, of paramount

import, is called the Divine Attributes.

Knowledge of God mediate and synthetic

Our natural knowledge of God is acquired by discursive reasoning upon the data of sense by introspection, "For the

invisible things of Him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made;

His eternal power also, and Divinity" (St. Paul, Romans, i, 20). Created things, by the properties and activities of their

natures, manifest, as in a glass, darkly, the powers and perfections of the creator. But these refracted images of Him in

finite things cannot furnish grounds for any adequate idea of the Infinite Being. Hence, in constructing a synthetic idea

of God, before one can apply to the Divinity any concept or term expressing a perfection found in created being, it mustbe subjected to rigorous correction. The profound disparity between the Divine perfection and the intimations of it

presented in the world-copy may be broadly laid down under two heads:

Number: The perfections of creatures are innumerable, the Divine Perfection is one.

Diversity: Created perfections differ endlessly in kind and degree; the Divine perfection is uniform, simple. It

is not a totality of various perfections; absolutely simple, the Divine perfection answers to every idea of actual

or conceivable perfection, without being determined to the particular mode of any. Hence, when any attribute

expressing modes characteristic of the world of being that falls within the range of our experience is applied to

God, its significance ceases to be identical with other cases. Yet it retains a real meaning in virtue of the ratio

that exists between the finite being and its Infinite analogue. In philosophical phrase, the use of terms is called

analogical predication, in contra-distinction to univocal, in which a word is predicated of two or more subjects

in precisely the same sense.


6/28

Source of our natural knowledge of God

To correct, as far as possible, the inadequate character of the concepts through which we must formulate our idea of

God, the first step is to distinguish created perfection into two kinds, i.e. mixed perfections and pure perfections. A pure

perfection is one whose exact concept does not include any note formally expressive of defect or limitation; the content

of the idea is entirely positive. The idea of a mixed perfection, on the contrary, formally or directly connotes, along with

what is positive in the perfection, some privation or deficiency. Examples of the former are power, truthfulness, will; as

an instance of the latter, materiality may be offered. For, though the reality that belongs to matter is, of course, a

participatlon of existence and activity, yet the concept of it connotes the imperfections of that kind of existence that iscomposite and subject to disintegration. Again, personality is a pure perfection; for, as Catholic philosophy teaches,

though the finite character of human personality comes into play in the awakening of self-consciousness, yet limitation

is not an essential constituent of personality. All terms that stand for pure perfections are predicated analogically of

God, and are designated attributes in the wide sense of the word. When terms that signify mixed perfections are

predicated of God, the analogy becomes so faint that the locution is a mere metaphor.

Inductive development of attributes

The elaboration of the idea of God is carried out along three converging lines.

The positive way of causality

In virtue of the principle that whatever excellence is contained in an effect is represented in the efficiency of the cause,

reason affirms that every positive perfection of created being has its transcendental analogue in the first cause. Hence,

from the existence of an intelligent being, man, in the cosmos, we rightly infer that God is intelligent, that is to say, His

infinite perfection is superabundantly adequate to all the operations of intellect.

The negative way

If we fix our attention precisely on the Infinity of God, then, focusing the negation not upon the positive content of any

created perfection but upon the fact that, because it is finite it is determined in kind and limited in degree, we may

affirm that it is not found in God. We may say, e.g., that He is not intelligent. The meaning of the statement is not that

God lacks intelligence but that in Him there is no intelligence exactly as we know it. Again, since there is no

imperfection in God, every concept of defect, privation, and limitation must be negated of God. Many negative names,

it is true, are applied to God; as when, for instance, He is said to be immutable, not caused, infinite. It should, however,be carefully observed that some attributes, which, from the etymological point of view are negative, convey,

nevertheless, a positive meaning. Failure to perceive this obvious truth has been responsible for much empty dogmatism

on the impossibility of forming any concept of the Infinite. The basic note in the idea of the Infinite is existence,

actuality, perfection; the negative note is subordinate. Furthermore, since the force of the latter note is to deny any and

all limitations to the actuality represented by the former, its real import is positive, like the cancellation of a minus sign

in an algebraic formula; or, it discharges the function of an exponent and raises actuality to the nth power.

Way of eminence

The concept of a perfection derived from created things and freed of all defects, is, in its application to God, expanded

without limit. God not only possesses every excellence discoverable in creation, but He also possesses it infinitely. To

emphasize the transcendence of the Divine perfection, in some cases an abstract noun is substituted for the

corresponding adjective; as, God is Intelligence; or, again, some word of intensive, or exclusive, force is joined to theattribute; as, God alone is good, God is goodness itself, God is all-powerful, or supremely powerful.

Deductive development

Having established the existence of God from metaphysical, physical, and moral arguments, the theologian selects some

one of the attributes that these proofs authorize him to predicate of the Divinity and, by unfolding its implications,

reaches a number of other attributes. For instance, if God is Pure Actuality, that is, free from all static potency, it follows

that, since change implies a transition from an antecedent potential condition to a subsequent condition in which the

potentiality is realized, God is immutable. Here we reach the point where the term Attribute is employed in its strict

sense.

Essence and attributesTranscendentally one, absolutely free from composition, the Divine Being is not, and may not be conceived as, a

fundamental substrate in which qualities or any other modal indeterminations inhere. The reality to which the various

attributes are ascribed is one and indivisible.


7/28

"Quae justitia," says St. Augustine, "ipsa bonitas; quae bonitas, ipsa beatitudo."

"What is just, that is good; what is good, that is beautiful"

In this respect, the relation of the attributes to the Divine nature might be illustrated by the various reflections of one

and the same object from a concave, a convex, and a plane mirror. Nevertheless, to systematize the idea of God, and todraw out the rich content of the knowledge resulting from the proofs of God's existence, some primary attribute may he

chosen is representing one aspect of the Divine perfection from which the others may be rigorously deduced. Then

arises a logical scheme in which the derivative attributes, or perfections stand towards one another in a relation

somewhat similar to that of the essence and the various properties and qualities in a material substance. In this

arrangement the primary perfection is termed the metaphysical essence, the others are called attributes. The essence,

too, may be regarded as that characteristic which, above all others, distinguishes the Deity from everything else. Upon

the question, which attribute is to be considered primary, opinions differ. Many eminent theologians favour the

conception of pure actuality (Actus Purus), from which simplicity and infinity are directly deduced. Most modern

authors fix on aseity (Aseitas; a = "from" se = "himself"), or self-existence; for the reason that, while all other

existences are derived from, and depend on, God, He possesses in Himself, absolutely and independently, the entire

reason of His uncaused infinite Being. In this, the most profound and cornprehensive distinction between the Divinity

and everything else, all other distinctions are implicitly expressed. Whether, and in what way, the distinctions between

the attributes and the metaphysical essence, and among the attributes themselves have an ontological basis in the Divinenature itself was subject, which divided Nominalists and Realists, Thomists and Scotists, in the age of Scholasticism (cf.

Vacant, Dict. de thol. cathol., I, 2230-34).

Consciousness and The concept of mind is understood in many different ways by many different traditions, ranging

from panpsychism and animism to traditional and organized religious views, as well as secular and materialist

philosophies. Most agree that minds are constituted by conscious experience and intelligent thought. Common attributes

of mind include perception, reason, imagination, memory, emotion, attention, and a capacity for communication. A rich

set of unconscious processes are also included in many modern characterizations of mind.Theories of mind and its

function are numerous. Earliest recorded speculations are from the likes of Zoroaster, the Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, and

other ancient Greek, Indian and, later, Islamic and medieval European philosophers. Pre-modern understandings of the

mind, such as the neoplatonic "nous" saw it as an aspect of the soul, in the sense of being both divine and immortal,

linking human thinking with the un-changing ordering principle of the cosmos itself.Which attributes make up the mind

is much debated. Some psychologists argue that only the "higher" intellectual functions constitute mind, particularlyreason and memory. In this view the emotionslove, hate, fear, joyare more primitive or subjective in nature and

should be seen as different from the mind as such. Others argue that various rational and emotional states cannot be so

separated, that they are of the same nature and origin, and should therefore be considered all part of what we call the

mind.In popular usage mind is frequently synonymous with thought: the private conversation with ourselves that we

carry on "inside our heads." Thus we "make up our minds," "change our minds" or are "of two minds" about something.

One of the key attributes of the mind in this sense is that it is a private sphere to which no one but the owner has access.

No one else can "know our mind." They can only interpret what we consciously or unconsciously communicate.

In medicine, consciousness is examined using a set of procedures known as neuropsychological assessment.There are

two commonly used methods for assessing the level of consciousness of a patient: a simple procedure that requires

minimal training, and a more complex procedure that requires substantial expertise. The simple procedure begins by

asking whether the patient is able to move and react to physical stimuli. If so, the next question is whether the patient

can respond in a meaningful way to questions and commands. If so, the patient is asked for name, current location, and

current day and time. A patient who can answer all of these questions is said to be "oriented times three" (sometimes

denoted "Ox3" on a medical chart), and is usually considered fully conscious.

The more complex procedure is known as a neurological examination, and is usually carried out by a neurologist in a

hospital setting. A formal neurological examination runs through a precisely delineated series of tests, beginning with

tests for basic sensorimotor reflexes, and culminating with tests for sophisticated use of language. The outcome may be

summarized using the Glasgow Coma Scale, which yields a number in the range 315, with a score of 3 indicating

brain death (the lowest defined level of consciousness), and 15 indicating full consciousness. The Glasgow Coma Scale

has three subscales, measuring the best motor response (ranging from "no motor response" to "obeys commands"), the

best eye response (ranging from "no eye opening" to "eyes opening spontaneously") and the best verbal response

(ranging from "no verbal response" to "fully oriented"). There is also a simpler pediatric version of the scale, for

children too young to be able to use language

Spiritual approaches to consciousnessTo most philosophers, the word "consciousness" connotes the relationship between the mind and the world. To writers

on spiritual or religious topics, it frequently connotes the relationship between the mind and God, or the relationship

between the mind and deeper truths that are thought to be more fundamental than the physical world. Krishna


8/28

consciousness, for example, is a term used to mean an intimate linkage between the mind of a worshipper and the god

Krishna.The mystical psychiatrist Richard Maurice Bucke distinguished between three types of consciousness: Simple

Consciousness, awareness of the body, possessed by many animals; Self Consciousness, awareness of being aware,

possessed only by humans; and Cosmic Consciousness, awareness of the life and order of the universe, possessed only

by humans who are enlightened.

person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e.

natural person), though by statute term may include labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal

representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A

corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word

"person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity

(a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word). -

person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued,

to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers

incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under

some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons"

which, in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships,

corporations or associations. -

person, noun. per'sn. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per,through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]

person. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are

not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be

the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in

society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes.

1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.

2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L

R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

3. But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something

appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of

engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to anypublic office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising.

Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural

liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of

a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are

considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot

in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights.

When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and

infamous persons.

7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives;

guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890,note.

artificial person. In a figurative sense, a body of men or company are sometimes called an artificial person, because the

law associates them as one, and gives them various powers possessed by natural persons. Corporations are such

artificial persons. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 177.

legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as

a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to

sue and be sued.

individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes

a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as

distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not

necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."

autonomous being, being, body, character, distinct indivisible entity, human being, integer, monad, monas, one,organism, particular one, party, person, person full of character, personage, personality


9/28

natural person n. a real human being, as distinguished from a corporation which is often treated at law as a fictitious

person.

natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by

influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term

does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it

means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of

law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal

considerations or sanctions."

human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and

inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a

marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct,

at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'colored man'!

man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person

being (i.e. be+-ing, by synecdoche), is an English word used for conceptualizing subjective and objective aspects of

reality, including those fundamental to the self related to and somewhat interchangeable with terms like "existence"

and "living". In its objective usage as in "a being," or "[a] human being" it refers to a discrete life form that has

properties of mind (sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex state than simple organisms (i.e. that

have only "life functions").[citation needed]

In abstract usage, "the being" or "one's being" is the mind's concept of the self as a whole entity including both mindand body wherein the being is in the mind, and the "body" is all sensory aspects within the being.

ethereal beings, according to some belief systems and occult theories, are mystic entities that usually are not made of

ordinary matter. Despite the fact that they are believed to be essentially incorporeal, they do interact in physical shapes

with the material universe and travel between the mystical and the everyday world. Given the lack of scientific evidence

of their existence, science does not acknowledge as factual,

spirit The English word (from Latin spiritus "breath") has many differing meanings and connotations, most of them

relating to a non-corporeal substance contrasted with the material body.The spirit of a living thing usually refers to or

explains its consciousness. The notions of a person's "spirit" and "soul" often also overlap, as both contrast with body

and both are understood as surviving the bodily death in religion and occultism,[1] and "spirit" can also have the sense

of "ghost", i.e. a manifestation of the spirit of a deceased person.

incorporeal or uncarnate means without the nature of a body or substance [1]. The idea of incorporeality refers to thenotion that there is an incorporeal realm of existence, or "place", that is distinct from the corporeal or material universe.

Incorporeal beings or objects are not made out of matter in the way a physical, material being or object exists. The idea

of the immaterial is often used in reference to the Christian God or the Divine. This being has at times been defined as

the Prime Mover or First Cause that exists in an incorporeal or intelligible realm that transcends both space and time,

especially in the physical realm. The notion that incorporeality is even possible requires the belief that something can

exist or affect the physical, matter or energy, without physically existing at the point of effect. A ball can directly effect

another ball by coming in direct contact with it, and is visible because it reflects the light that directly reaches it. An

incorporeal object or being could not perform these functions as it has no material construction with which to perform

these functions and would thus not be visible or able to affect anything that is of a physical construction.

competent adj

1. having sufficient skill, knowledge, etc.; capable2. suitable or sufficient for the purpose a competent answer

3. (Law) Law (of a witness) having legal capacity; qualified to testify, etc.4. (postpositive; foll by to) belonging as a right; appropriate[from Latin competns, from competere to be competent; see compete]competently adv

competentness n

competent adj. 1) in general, able to act in the circumstances, including the ability to perform a job or occupation, or to reason ormake decisions. 2) in wills, trusts and contracts, sufficiently mentally able to understand and execute a document. To be competent to

make a will a person must understand what a will is, what he/she owns (although forgetting a few items among many does not showincompetency), and who are relatives who would normally inherit ("the natural objects of his/her bounty") such as children and

spouse (although forgetting a child in a will is not automatic proof of lack of competency, since it may be intentional or the child hasbeen long gone). 3) in criminal law, sufficiently mentally able to stand trial, if he/she understands the proceedings and can rationally

deal with his/her lawyer. This is often broadly interpreted by psychiatrists whose testimony may persuade a court that a party is too

psychotic to be tried. If the court finds incompetency then the defendant may be sent to a state mental facility until such time ashe/she regains sanity. At that time a trial may be held, but this is rare. 4) in evidence, "competent" means "relevant" and/or "material".Lawyers often make the objection to evidence: "incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial" to cover all bases


10/28

conscious (Awake), adjective able to recognize, acute, alert, alive, animate, astir, breathing, endowed with life, enlivened, existent,existing, extant, imbued with life, in existence, inspirited, live, living, mortal, vivified

live (Conscious), adjective animate, animated, endowed with life, existent, existing, full of life, growing, imbued with life, incarnate,living, mortal, quick, viable, vital

intention n.

1. A course of action that one intends to follow.

2.a. An aim that guides action; an objective.b. intentions Purpose with respect to marriage: honorable intentions.

3. Medicine The process by which or the manner in which a wound heals.4. Archaic Import; meaning.

INTENTION. A design, resolve, or determination of the mind.

2. Intention is required in the commission of crimes and injuries, in making contracts, and wills.3.-1. Every crime must have necessarily two constituent parts, namely, an act forbidden by law, and an intention. The act is

innocent or guilty just as there was or was not an intention to commit a crime; for example, a man embarks on board of a ship, atNew York, for the purpose of going to New Orleans; if he went with an intention to perform a lawful act, he is perfectly innocent; but

if his intention was to levy war against the United States, he is guilty of an overt act of treason. Cro. Car. 332; Fost. 202, 203; Hale, P.C. 116. The same rule prevails in numerous civil cases; in actions founded on malicious injuries, for instance, it is necessary to provethat the act was accompanied, by a wrongful and malicious intention. 2 Stark. Ev. 739.

4. The intention is to be proved, or it is inferred by the law. The existence of the intention is usually matter of inference; and proof

of external and visible acts and conduct serves to indicate, more or less forcibly, the particular intention. But, in some cases, theinference of intention necessarily arises from the facts. Exteriora acta indicant interiora animi secreta. 8 Co. 146. It is a universal rule,

that a man shall be taken to intend that which he does, or which is the necessary and immediate consequence of his act; 3 M. & S. 15;Hale, P. C. 229; in cases of homicide, therefore, malice will generally be inferred by the law. Vide Malice' and Jacob's Intr. to the Civ.

Law, Reg. 70; Dig. 24, 18.5. But a bare intention to commit a crime, without any overt act towards its commission, although punishable in foro,

conscientiae, is not a crime or offence for which the party can be indicted; as, for example, an intention to pass counterfeit banknotes, knowing them to be counterfeit. 1 Car. Law Rep. 517.

6.-2. In order to make a contract, there must, be an intention to make it a person non compos mentis, who has no contracting mind,cannot, therefore, enter into any engagement which requires an intention; for to make a contract the law requires a fair, and serious

exercise of the reasoning faculty. Vide Gift; Occupancy.7.-3. In wills and testaments, the intention of the testator must be gathered from the whole instrument; 3 Ves. 105; and a codicil

ought to be taken as a part of the will; 4 Ves. 610; and when such intention is ascertained, it must prevail, unless it be in opposition tosome unbending rule of law. 6 Cruise's Dig. 295; Rand. on Perp. 121; Cro. Jac. 415. " It is written," says Swinb. p. 10, " that the will

or meaning of the testator is the queen or empress of the testament; because the will doth rule the testament, enlarge and restrain it,and in every respect moderate and direct the same, and is, indeed, the very efficient cause. thereof. The will, therefore, and meaning

of the testator ought, before all things, to be sought for diligently, and, being found, ought to be observed faithfully." 6 Pet. R. 68.Vide, generally, Bl. Com. Index, h. t.; 2 Stark. Ev. h. t.; A 1. Pand. 95; Dane's Ab. Index h. t.; Rob. Fr. Conv. 30. As to intention inchanging a residence, see article Inhabitant.

Synonyms: intention, intent, purpose, goal, end, aim, object, objective

These nouns refer to what one plans to do or achieve. Intention simply signifies a course of action that one proposes to

follow: It is my intention to take a vacation next month.

Intent more strongly implies deliberateness: The executor complied with the testator's intent.

Purpose strengthens the idea of resolution or determination: "His purpose was to discover how long these guestsintended to stay" (Joseph Conrad).

Goal may suggest an idealistic or long-term purpose: The college's goal was to raise ten million dollars for a new

library.

End suggests a long-range goal: The candidate wanted to win and pursued every means to achieve that end.

Aim stresses the direction one's efforts take in pursuit of an end: The aim of most students is to graduate.

An object is an end that one tries to carry out: The object of chess is to capture your opponent's king.

Objective often implies that the end or goal can be reached: The report outlines the committee's objectives.


11/28

In testamentis plenius voluntates tessantium interpretantur.In wills, the intentions of the testaaors should be fully

regarded. Non efficit affectus nisi seeuatur effectus. The intention amounts to nothing unless some effect follows. In

conventionibus, contrahentium voluntas potius quam verba spectari placuit. In contracts, it is the rule to regard the

intention of the parties rather than the actual words. Culpa lata dolo aequiparatur. Gross negligence is held equivalent to

malice. In maleficiis vollntas spectatur, non exitus. In offenses, the intention is regarded, not the result. Intentio

inservire debet legibus, non leges intentioni. The intention of a party ought to be subservient to the laws, not the laws tointentions. Benigne faciendae sunt interpretationes, propter simplicitatem laicorum, ut res magis valeat quam pereat; et

verba innentioni, non e contra, debent inservire. Interpretations should be liberal, because of the lack of training of

laymen, so that the subject matter should be valid rather than void; and words should be subject to the intention, not the

innention to the words.

Qui jure suo utitur, nemini facit injuriam

One who exercises his legal rights, injures no one.

In Law there is a general principle nullum crimen sine lege

if there is NO HARM then there is NO CRIME

Harm principle refers to a theory of crime that an action can only be banned if it causes harm to someone. The

principle does not say that if an action is harmful, it must be banned ; instead it says that harmful actions are the only

ones that can be banned.

The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals.

John Stuart Mill first articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "the only purpose for which power

can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to

others."

The belief "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts

are not invasive of the free acts of others" has become one of the basic principles of libertarian politics. The harmprinciple was first fully articulated by the English thinker John Stuart Mill (18061873) in the first chapter of On

Liberty (1859),where he argued that:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society

with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of

legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are

warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-

protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized

community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient

warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will

make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the

conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely

concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individualis sovereign.

John Stuart Mill

The offense principle

Mill's harm principle is distinct from the offense principle. The basis of comparison is that in some cases, psychological

or social harm may be comparable to physical harm. The difference is based on the assumption that offense may cause

harm, but does not necessarily cause harm. An offense meets the offense principle only if it is a wrong and also causes

harm.

The ethical question as to what extent there should be constaints on free speech is often grounded in both the harm

principle and the offense principle. If the exercise of free speech can be casually linked to violence or similar physicalharm, it is constrained under the harm principle. Free speech actions such as burning the flag or holding controversial

rallies usually fall under the offense principle instead, based on the corresponding question of what constitutes harm (or,

alternately, weighing harm caused by limiting a freedom vs harm caused by the exercise of that freedom).


12/28

In the abstract, criminalizing all wrongs which cause harm will make the offense principle almost synonymous with the

harm principle. However, the definition of what constitutes a wrong may change over time, such that harm may be

caused by actions which were not considered wrongs at the time, and vice versa.

Broader definitions of harm

In the same essay, Mill further explains the principle as a function of two maxims:

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the

interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary

by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation

of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable,

and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is

requisite for its protection. (LV2)

The second of these maxims has become known as the social authority principle.

However, the second maxim also opens the question of broader definitions of harm, up to and including harm to the

society. The concept of harm is not limited to harm to another individual but can be harm to individuals plurally,

without specific definition of those individuals. Mill's essay presupposes that a society exists and that it can be harmed,

and concludes that the society may use coercive means for its own self-protection. As such, it acts as Mill's solerestriction upon positive liberties as well as negative liberties.

This is an important principle for the purpose of determining harm which only manifests gradually over time, such that

the resulting harm can be anticipated, but does not yet exist at the time that the action causing harm was taken. It also

can be applied to a wide range of issues ranging from the right of an entity to discharge broadly polluting waste on

private property to broad questions of licensing, and even to the right of sedition.

(John Stuart Mill (1859). On Liberty. Oxford University. pp. 2122.Retrieved 2008-02-27)

A crime generally consists of both conduct, known as the actus reus, and a concurrent state of mind, known as the

mens rea.

In order to have a crime, need: 1) Actus Reus 2) Mens Rea 3) Actus reus and mens rea concurring in time

Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime.

The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi

mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty".

Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute

the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule,

criminal liability does not attach to a person who acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability

crimes.

In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract

or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent

may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff.

Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions,

the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology.

In Australia, for example, the elements of the federal offences are now designated as "fault elements" (mens rea) and

"physical element" (actus reus).

Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty

act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal

liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand,

England, Ireland and the United States.

The terms actus reus and mens rea developed in English Law, are derived from the principle stated by Edward Coke,namely, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means: "an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind

is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in

behaviour and mind.


13/28


14/28

harm n.

1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.

2. Wrong; evil.

harm tr.v. harmed, harming, harms

To do harm to.

harm n

1. physical or mental injury or damage2. moral evil or wrongdoing

harm vb

(tr) to injure physically, morally, or mentally

harm n

: loss of or damage to a person's right, property, or physical or mental well-being

: injury

Courts classify mens rea requirement into groups General Intent Crimes - intent to do the act. It is the intent to

commit the forbidden act.

The proscribed MR is the MR to commit the particular act, the MR that attaches to the AR.

If the MR is acting recklessly or negligently=General Intent

1. Negligence is a meas rea term but negligence does not mean guilty mind

2. This does not involve a state of awareness

3. Person acts negligently when he inadvertently creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he ought to

be aware.

4. There is a risk and the person should have been aware of the risk

ii. Recklessness requires actual foresight

1. Recklessness requires conscious risk creation

2. Here the person is aware of the risk and acted anyway

3. The risk must be of a substantial order4. The risk must also be unjustifiable

recklessness n

: the quality or state of being reckless

;also

: reckless conduct compare negligence

NOTE: Recklessness may be the basis for civil and often criminal liability. Unlike negligence it requires conscious

disregard of risk to others.

Rashness; heedlessness; wanton conduct. The state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its

probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such

knowledge.

Recklessness transcends ordinary Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to

consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others.

In criminal law, recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting

mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind"). To commit an offence of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution

must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus, i.e., a person cannot be guilty of the offence for their actions

alone. There must also be an appropriate intention, knowledge, recklessness, or criminal negligence at the relevant

time . Recklessness may constitute an offense against property or involve significant danger to another person.


15/28

crime n

1 : conduct that is prohibited and has a specific punishment (as incarceration or fine) prescribed by public law compare

delict, tort

2 : an offense against public law usually excluding a petty violation see also felony, misdemeanor NOTE: Crimes in the

common-law tradition were originally defined primarily by judicial decision. For the most part, common-law crimes arenow codified. There is a general principle nullum crimen sine lege, that there can be no crime without a law. A crime

generally consists of both conduct, known as the actus reus, and a concurrent state of mind, known as the mens rea.

3 : criminal activity

crime n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public

and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties.

Criminal law recognizes recklessness as one of the mens rea elements to establish liability. It shows less culpability than

intention, but more culpability than criminal negligence. The test of any mens rea element is always based on an

assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those

consequences to occur.

The three types of test are:

1. subjective where the court attempts to establish what the accused was actually thinking at the time the actus

reus was caused;

2. objective where the court imputes mens rea elements on the basis that a reasonable person with the same

general knowledge and abilities as the accused would have had those elements, although R v Gemmell and

Richards deprecated this in the UK; or

3. hybrid, i.e. the test is both subjective and objective.

The most culpable mens rea elements will have both foresight and desire on a subjective basis. Recklessness usually

arises when an accused is actually aware of the potentially adverse consequences to the planned actions, but has goneahead anyway, exposing a particular individual or unknown victim to the risk of suffering the foreseen harm but not

actually desiring that the victim be hurt. The accused is a social danger because they gamble with the safety of others,

and the fact they might have acted to try to avoid the injury from occurring is relevant only to mitigate the sentence.

Note that gross criminal negligence represents such a serious failure to foresee that in any other person, it would have

been recklessness. Hence, the alternative phrase "wilful blindness" acknowledges the link representing either that the

accused deliberately engineered a situation in which they were ignorant of material facts, or that the failure to foresee

represented such a danger to others that it must be treated as though it was reckless.

Criminal systems of the civil law tradition distinguish between intention in the broad sense (dolus directus and dolus

eventualis), and negligence. Negligence does not carry criminal responsibility unless a particular crime provides for its

punishment Strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation

to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge

may be required in relation to other elements of the offence. The liability is said to be strict because defendants will beconvicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal.

The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least

blameworthy level of mens rea.

motive n.

1. An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action.

2. A motif in art, literature, or music.

adj.

1. Causing or able to cause motion: motive power.

2. Impelling to action: motive pleas.

3. Of or constituting an incitement to action.

tr.v. motived, motiving, motives

To motivate.


16/28

Strict liability laws were created in the 19th century to improve working and safety standards in factories. Needing to

prove mens reas on the part of the factory owners was very difficult and resulted in very few prosecutions. The creation

of strict liability offences meant that convictions were increased. Common strict liability offences today include the

selling of alcohol to underage persons.

These laws are applied either in regulatory offences enforcing social behaviour where minimal stigma attaches to a

person upon conviction, or where society is concerned with the prevention of harm, and wishes to maximise the

deterrent value of the offence. The imposition of strict liability may operate very unfairly in individual cases. Forexample, in Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) 2 ALL ER 635, a pharmacist supplied drugs to

a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription, but was convicted even though the House of Lords accepted that

the pharmacist was blameless. The justification is that the misuse of drugs is a grave social evil and pharmacists should

be encouraged to take even unreasonable care to verify prescriptions before supplying drugs. Similarly, where liability

is imputed or attributed to another through vicarious liability or corporate liability, the effect of that imputation may be

strict liability albeit that, in some cases, the accused will have a mens rea imputed and so, in theory, will be as culpable

as the actual wrongdoer.)

The Australian Criminal Code Act of 1995, defines strict liability and absolute liability in division 6

Traditionally speaking, there are two broad categories that are used to classify all of the crimes that exist in society

today. These two sets of crimes have nothing to do with federal or state jurisdiction but are rather umbrella terms that

can be applied across all states and even globally to describe the actions that have been prohibited or criminalized bythe various legislatures and law-making bodies.

In the English common law system which forms the basis of the United States' legal traditions and histories and has

played a role in a number of other countries' legal systems as well. The common law tradition created a number of

crimes over its history, dating from about the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066. These common law crimes have

become the foundation of what we now view as offenses that are "malum in se."

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase

used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct evil in

and of itself, or malum in se. Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it

was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for

example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct

assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished

from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

For example, most human beings feel that murder, rape, and theft is wrong, regardless of whether a law governs such

conduct or where the conduct occurs, and is thus recognizably malum in se. In contrast, consider driving laws. In the

U.S., people drive on the right-hand side of the road.

In the UK and other states of the Commonwealth, people drive on the left-hand side. Violation of these rules is an

example of a malum prohibitum law because the act is not inherently bad, but is forbidden by law, as set forth by the

lawmakers of the jurisdiction. Malum prohibitum crimes are criminal not because they are inherently bad, but because

the act is prohibited by the law of the state.

This concept was used to develop the various common law offences.

Another way to describe the underlying conceptual difference between "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum" is

"iussum quia iustum" and "iustum quia iussum," namely something that is commanded (iussum) because it is just

(iustum) and something that is just (iustum) because it is commanded (iussum).

Distinguishing Malum in Se from Malum Prohibitum - Although the distinction is somewhat slippery, these concepts

are helpful in distinguishing between traditional and modern forms of strict liability.

Most of the core common law crimes ( murder and manslaughter, arson, rape, theft, etc.) are considered to be malum in

se, because in most cases it should be obvious to the ordinary person that his conduct is wrong. (Of course, in law

school you usually cover the cases on the margin, where it is less clear whether the conduct should be treated as wrong.)

By contrast, crimes that are malum prohibitum usually involve conduct that is not considered self-evidently

wrong, but is made illegal for public welfare or regulatory purposes.


17/28

Common law A body of English law of law which originated with an oral tradition of tribal justice in Britain thousands

of years ago and which developed into a unique, cohesive national body of law (the realm) developed and set to writing

by English judges over time, and which was eventually imported as the law of British colonies throughout the world

such as the United States of America (except Louisiana), Canada (except Quebec), Australia and India.

"The common law is judicially created law that is developed on a case by case basis," wrote Chief Justice Hannah of the

Supreme Court of Arkansas in Mason v State.

In R v Rusby, Justice Kenyon wrote:

"The common law, though not to be found in the written records of the realm, yet has been long well

known. It is coeval with civilized society itself, and was formed from time to time by the wisdom of

man."

Two other sources have contributed to the common law although often described as exceptions thereto: equity and laws

imposed by parliament (statutes), both of which have been stated to have, where they differ with the common law,

precedence over it.

William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England (1756), that common law was:

"... to be found in the records of our several courts of justice in books of reports and judicial decisions,

and in treastises of learned sages of the profession, prescribed and handed down to us from the times ofancient antiquity. They are the laws which gave rise and origin to that collection of maxims and customs

which is now known by the name of common law."

Because it is not written by elected politicians but, rather, by judges, it is also referred to as unwritten law or lex non

scripta. Judges sought those principles out when trying a case and applied the precedents to the facts to come up with a

judgment.

Baker wrote:

"There was probably never a time when the common law was not in some sense case law.... "(T)the student cites the

Roman maxim that one should follow reasons rather than precedents but the master qualifies this by saying that where

the reasons for things are obscure, it is enough to follow precedent.

"By the time of Bracton, the influence of judicial practice is clear on the face of the text. The author of the preface

stated that he had written the book in order to prevent the newer generation of judges from unwittingly leaving the right

course settled by their wise predecessors."

Civil law pundits have had their fun with this; the French, for example, chiding the English with having a case law

obsession (la superstitition du cas).

Common law is often contrasted with civil law systems which require all laws to be written in a code or written

collection. Common law has been referred to as the:

"... common sense of the community, crystallized and formulated by our ancestors".

The roots of common law can be found in customs for resolving disputes which had evolved in England since theRoman occupation of the Island some 2,000 years ago.

But the Germanic invaders of Britain, as the Romans left, tore up most of the roots Roman law had planted. Gibbon

wrote:

"The ferocious Saxons trampled on the laws of Rome. The proceedings of civil and criminal jurisdiction, the titles of

honour, the forms of office, the ranks of society, and even the domestic right of marriage, testament and inheritance

were finally suppressed, and the indiscriminate crowd of noble and plebian slaves was governed by the traditional

customs, which had been coarsely framed for the shepherds and pirates of Germany."

In order to sustain economic order and predictability, the Crown gave its name to (King's Bench) and supported a roving

Court which began to amass and consolidate - pick and choose - the customs until a fairly coherent body of law existed,

the first version of the common law.


18/28

This continued to develop and gained universal acceptance even through, although with some changes to accommodate

the conquering Normans in 1099. Equity law developed after the common law to offset the rigid interpretations

medieval English judges were giving the common law.

And yet, ironically, the common law can be said to be more flexible than civil law, civil code and other fully statute-

dependent legal systems because the latter are inflexible law built on the past, unable to respond to the present or the

future. Many common law lawyers find solace in the words of Allen:

"Common law is living and human. Statutes have neither humanity nor humour."

Or these words of Justice Cockburn in Wason v Walter (1868):

"Whatever disadvantages attach to a system of unwritten law, and of these we are fully sensible, it has at least this

advantage, that its elasticity enables those who administer it to adapt it to the varying conditions of society, and to the

requirements and habits of the age in which we live, so as to avoid the inconsistencies and injustice which a rise when

the law is no longer in harmony with the wants and usages and interests of the generation to which it is immediately

applied."

In McFaul v Ramsey, Justice Grier of the United States Supreme Court wrote, of the common law:

"This system, matured by the wisdom of ages, founded on principles of truth and sound reason, has been ruthlesslyabolished in many of our States, who have rashly substituted in its place the suggestions of sciolists, who invent new

codes and systems of pleading to order. But this attempt to abolish all species, and establish a single genus, is found to

be beyond the power of legislative omnipotence....

"The result of these experiments, so far as they have come to our knowledge, has been to destroy the certainty and

simplicity of all pleadings, and introduce on the record an endless wrangle in writing, perplexing to the court, delaying

and impeding the administration of justice."

In Smith v Harris, Justice Parcq took square aim at Roman law and civil law:

"The common law of this country has been built up, not by the writings of logicians and learned jurists, but by the

summings-up of judges of experience to juries consisting of plain men, not usually students of logic, not accustomed tosubtle reasoning, but endowed, so far as my experience goes, as a general rule, with great common sense, and if an

argument has to be put in terms which only a schoolman could understand, then I am always very doubtful whether it

can possibly be expressing the common law."

Statute law started its gradual replacement of much of the common law but not before England had begun to colonize

the world. Many jurisdictions began their legal system with whatever the state of the law was at the time their colony

was established, thereby perpetuating their union with the British common law system.

For hundreds of years, there were separate courts in England and its dependents: one for common law and one for

equity (aka Chancery) and the decisions of the latter, where they conflicted, prevailed.It is a matter of legal debate

whether or not common law and equity are now fused. It is certainly now common to speak of the common law to refer

to the entire body of English law, including common law and equity.

As to the flexibility of the common law, Justice McCardie said in Prager (England):

"The object of the common law is to solve difficulties and adjust relations in social and commercial life. It must meet, in

so far as it can, sets of fact abnormal as well as usual. It must grow with the development of the nation. It must face and

deal with changing or novel circumstances. Unless it can do that, it fails in its function and declines in its dignity. An

expanding society demands an expanding common law."

REFERENCES:

Allen, C., The Law in the Making (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927), page 302.

Baker, J. H., An Introduction to English Legal History (London: Butterworths LexisNexis, 2002), pages 196-197.

Buckland, W. and McNair, A., Roman Law and Common Law (Cambridge: University Press, 1965).

Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Lex Non Scripta Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Lex Scripta

Gibbon, Edward, The History of the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire.

Mason v State, 206 SW 3d 869 (2005)


19/28

McFaul v Ramsey, 61 U.S. 523 (1858)

Prager v Blatspiel and others 1924 K.B. 599

R v Rusby [1801] Peake's N.P. Cases 192

Smith v Harris (1939) 3 All ER 960

Wason v Walter 4 Q.B. 93 (1868)

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CommonLaw.aspx

Roman law is the source of modern civil law.

When the Roman Empire began, circa 500 BC, it benefited greatly from a code of laws that was published in all the

major centers for the people to read and for the judges to enforce: the Twelve Tables.

This tradition of written law stuck and culminated in the Corpus Juris Civilis of one of the last emperors of the Roman

Empire, Justinian (482-565).

The Romans expanded upon the Twelve Tables, tentatively at first, benefiting from great legal minds and writers such

as Tiberius Coruncanius (281-241 BC) and, later, Cicero (106 to 43 BC) as well as direct forays into amendment such as

Lex Aquila of 286 BC.

The law they developed was logical and for the most part, commensurate with most people's common sense. In a

nutshell, although it often provided rough justice, it was a hit with the people who knew what to expect in their private

lives and in regards to commercial dealings.

By the time of Justinian, Roman law had become a massive body of written law mostly polluted by the writings of too

many jurists, making it difficult for the judges to know which law to apply. The Law of Citations had brought some

order but not enough.

Justinian ordered that the law be struck anew into a single publication (it turned out to be several publications) which

became known by several names such as the Pandects, Justinian's Institutes and Corpus Juris Civilis (literally, the body

of civil law).

Gradually, from the time of its publication in 533, this bible of Roman law permeated Europe and formed the basis ofthe civil law of Europe. Germany, in particular, took to Justinian's Roman law. Indeed, to a German jurist, the term

Roman law is taken to mean Justinian's Institutes.

Many have contributed to Roman law including Tribonian, Justinian's foremost jurist, and those who from who

Tribonian drew, Gaius and Ulpanius.

No system of law has more influenced the law. Most systems of law, whether stated to be civil or common law, borrow

extensively from Roman law as evidenced by the plethora of fundamental Latin legal principles such as caveat emptor,

res judicata or salus populi est supreme lex, or laws related to contracts, torts, families, wills and estates.

REFERENCES:

Cumin, Patrick, A Manual of Civil Law (London: Stevens and Norton, 1854). Duhaime, Lloyd, 450 BC The Twelve Tables

Duhaime, Lloyd, Civil Law

Duhaime, Lloyd, Civil Code

Duhaime, Lloyd, 533 Justinian's Institutes

Duhaime, Lloyd, Justinian (482-565)

Duhaime, Lloyd, Timetable of World Legal History

Schultz, F., Principles of Roman Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936), page 66.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/RomanLaw.aspx


20/28

Roman law substance

Concepts

jus civile, Jus gentium, and jus naturale - the jus civile ("citizen law", originally jus civile Quiritium) was the

body of common laws

i am divine creation

Documents