Law, Morality, and Justice (mixed with fever and headache)
I took a legal philosophy class over the summer and have to wonder, as I rot away in my boring procedural and rules classes this semester, is law more and more about just plain law and less and less about morality and justice? I drew my pretty little vin diagram this summer of circles (one representing each Law, Morality, and Justice) all intertwined. In my diagram, law and justice were intertwined greater than with morality.
So, as more and more reality sets in, the less and less I see morality. For example, is there really any moral purpose to what law a federal district court chooses to use in a diversity situation? (because there are a lot of damn Supreme Court decisions on venue, so it's an important issue of law suposedly with no moral purpose) Another example--Rape shield laws: there's the "moral" purpose of protecting the victim and privacy rights, but there are so many exceptions that apply to most circumstances of rape that, in the interest of justice, the rape shield law doesn't even apply to evidence about the victim. So, justice trumps morality? Or is it more moral to get the criminal than to protect the victim? Hmmmm, my rose colored glasses are quickly being replaced with cynicism. Morality is slowly being weeded out of my view of the justice system. So, now it's mostly about law and justice--with morality fitting in the very definition of justice, but that's about it. Is it safe to say that true morality does not stand alone as a contender in our system of justice? I'm beginning to believe so.
So, where are you in your view of law, morality, and justice? Has it changed as you've gained experience. Should it? Or should we be strong and stick with our moral ideals, regardless of whether or not we see them being able to be applied to realistic situations? Am I rambling? Well, yes I am.
Moving on, so what do you believe? (All you people who have been reading this and telling me you did, you better comment!) If you had to draw your own diagram--assigning Law, Morality, and Justice different values of what should be in our justice system, what would you do? Would they relate at all? Does one encompass all? Or are they all completely separate, with only one or two belonging in our justice system? Does this even make sense because my brain is all foggy because I've had a fever for a couple days. So, forgive me if it doesn't make sense. But, if it does, let me know what you think.
So, as more and more reality sets in, the less and less I see morality. For example, is there really any moral purpose to what law a federal district court chooses to use in a diversity situation? (because there are a lot of damn Supreme Court decisions on venue, so it's an important issue of law suposedly with no moral purpose) Another example--Rape shield laws: there's the "moral" purpose of protecting the victim and privacy rights, but there are so many exceptions that apply to most circumstances of rape that, in the interest of justice, the rape shield law doesn't even apply to evidence about the victim. So, justice trumps morality? Or is it more moral to get the criminal than to protect the victim? Hmmmm, my rose colored glasses are quickly being replaced with cynicism. Morality is slowly being weeded out of my view of the justice system. So, now it's mostly about law and justice--with morality fitting in the very definition of justice, but that's about it. Is it safe to say that true morality does not stand alone as a contender in our system of justice? I'm beginning to believe so.
So, where are you in your view of law, morality, and justice? Has it changed as you've gained experience. Should it? Or should we be strong and stick with our moral ideals, regardless of whether or not we see them being able to be applied to realistic situations? Am I rambling? Well, yes I am.
Moving on, so what do you believe? (All you people who have been reading this and telling me you did, you better comment!) If you had to draw your own diagram--assigning Law, Morality, and Justice different values of what should be in our justice system, what would you do? Would they relate at all? Does one encompass all? Or are they all completely separate, with only one or two belonging in our justice system? Does this even make sense because my brain is all foggy because I've had a fever for a couple days. So, forgive me if it doesn't make sense. But, if it does, let me know what you think.
posted by Nik | 7:00 PM
2 Comments:
I'd say that Law is, at best, an approximate consensus of society's morals. Morality is inherently complicated, where one moral can mean different things to different people at different times in their lives. Sin to one person is merely a rule that he or she broke whereas another person will view it as more ingrained and larger in scope.
Given that we each have a different understanding of morality at varying depths, it only makes sense that the law which approximates it will not appear to work in certain circumstances: sometimes it will appear amoral. Small examples are the ones you listed. Bigger ones resulted in landmark Supreme Court cases like Brown v Topeka Bd.Ed and such.
The major difference between the two, as I see it, is that morality is something with which we interact on a personal level and social law is something that defines how we interact as a society.
But what do I know, huh? I'm not a law student
Non-law student views are often refreshing, Sasquatch.
Post a Comment
<< Home