This is a topic I’m fuzzy on, and probably don’t have the right opinion on, so I thought I’d bring it here and get some discussion on it.
Are the laws of society good for personal character, or are they a hinderance to personal freedom by which we fulfill ourselves as creative beings? On the side of law, obedience to law might being humility and apprentices a person to societal laws, and great thinkers (Aristotle) have seen the lawmaker as doing the highest creation in society. On the side of freedom, are not laws limiting to personal creation of ethics, especially in a Rousseauean scheme where society is a bondage for the man born free?
On the other hand, if the laws are minimally ethical, can not a creatively ethical person keep these bounds and surpass them, as long as the laws meet with natural law and justice?
And on another hand, for positivists, law is only what you make of it. But I’m not sure what makes such laws a good except for keeping the peace Hobbes-wise.
Okay, Imp, I’ll play. Is following the guy with the gun good for us spiritually, or just physically? I’ve been reading a book (on existentialism) that poses that your position is not far from the truth about justice, but I have trouble seeing it that way. This was the same book that claimed that law is good for your soul, helps us to be creative beings.
I guess I can see this if your ruler is a king, to be loved and cherished by the people, but not if he were an autocrat to be served out of positivistic fear. Or a democratic republic where laws are made under analogy to business or sports without the force of moral authority by those making it – it’s hard to love a company.
Shocking observation. We’ll more startling, really. Never would have expected it from Impenitent, a comment about the guy with the gun.
my real name,
The reason you’re fuzzy on this topic is because the law is all those things. For some people it is good for personal character, for others a hinderance to personal freedom. For some a blessing, for others a bane.
Well Imp., some people would define a law system’s purpose as providing for the rights of man: life, liberty, and happiness – which last I identify in this post with authentic creativity (with its prerequisites). We could term that the good for man and society, if that’s okay with you.
As for “soul”, i’m using that in a very loose sense, I hope you realise. In some of Plato’s works they try to define soul as a harmony – sounds very insubstantial. Here I just mean that with which we identify the spiritual in man.
As for the Christian God, the evil fear him and the just love him. So he follows the pattern of the beloved king to those who are justified or seek the good.
Hi,
I’d say that ultimately, human law is as trivial as all else - as out comfort, out homes, our cars, our tv programs and what have you - when chaos, war or death comes, the law is as meaningless as if it never existed. But stil, when it is operational, it an ingenious tool, man has conceived of to increase the order and structure of his functionality, as a whole.
So my take on it is; use the law, be part of the system, learn the system and operate within it from your own desires and interests, so as to reach a position within the system that enables you to use the system to your own interests. I think this is the purpose of human law. It serves humans - it must be obeyed if you want it to serve you.
I personally have a lot of trouble with this approach, but still it is the only way I, who do not have the upbringing which would make me fit for unscrupulous crime, can make sense of it.
Ironically, when “chaos, war, or death comes,” I’d think human law would have a lot of meaning.
Thanks for the idea of using the system to your own ends by playing the game,
but can you really get what you want out of another’s system of positive law?
I just hope they aren’t the judges of my vices…or of my virtues. I’d like to keep them – even if I’m not a Party member.
After all, “Statecraft is soulcraft.”
