Now the gentlement at Left2Right, Academic philosophers in past essays in response to for example remarks by the Pontiff Benedict, that nobody “really” is a relativist from an ethical point of view. However, Peter Wall at Res Ipsa Loquitur seems to be from a legal standpoint. Now the reason the academics at Left2Right didn’t think moral relativists really exist was because it is just such a … well … too logically inconsistent and flimsy. But Mr Wall (hopefully) isn’t a reall life moral relativist I suspect … but he is it seems a self professed “legal-relativist”.
In this post (in the 2nd comment) he writes:
governments at any scale ought to give everything a strong presumption of being allowed and then very strictly scrutinize the issues of public policy at stake before restricting anything.
Mr Wall in a response to the execution of innocents in this post at The Debate Link, wrote that
Law and morality are not set by public interest; only law is (or should be) determined by public interest, while morality is a private decision. If one chooses to determine morality by the law of the land, as Eichmann allegedly did, that is one’s own decision. But if the law of the land is clearly immoral to all the people in the land, then the legal system of that land is clearly not functioning. On the other hand, if the majority of the people are not morally opposed to the law of the land, there is no reason for the legal system to change it. (Thus, if the Japanese people have no objection to executing criminals by what are essentially surprise hangings, then Japanese law will reflect that.)
This is an unusual point of view. It seems to have to features to it that are, to me, unusual. First, that Mr Wall is unwilling to pass judgement (externally) on another cultures laws. Thus sati, slavery, (human) blood sports and the like are not opposed by a majority of the people of a land, there is no reason to change the law, I guess. The second, is the idea that the relationship between law and ethics/morals of a society is a one way mirror. The idea that law should reflect the majorities morals and might play no part in shaping them is unusual.
Ah, I just noticed a new comment. Mr Wall is basically a strict libertarian.
- That government is best which governs least.
- The least possible governing is best achieved by limiting government power to proscription (limitation), rather than extending it to prescription (mandate).
- Proscription or limitation should only be used where (a) there is a clear public benefit that is likely to result and would not otherwise occur outside of government action; and (b) the cost of enforcement is lower than the value of the benefit.
But, one might wonder, if the prescriptive laws applied to remove and reduce racial tensions and disparity in this country were best left untouched. I wonder what methods Mr Wall might have supported to remove slavery from our land not to speak of segregation. So how is one to combat evils perceived in society but that the majority abides?
But the other part, is historically untenable. The idea that law should be a passive player in the practice and ethics of a culture is just historically blind. It has never happened. Law and the morals and practice of a culture are and have always been intertwinned inextricably. Sometimes one bends the other, sometimes its the reverse. That only one of these two factors should always be passive
(Note: while I’d like to write more, It’s running late, so (perhaps) to be continued)
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion