Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sunday Reflection: Laws and Principles
One of the most striking things Jesus does, to my mind, is when he answers the trick questions of the Pharisees and scribes. At one point, they ask "which of the laws is most important?" The obvious answer is "they are all important" or something like that, given that there were hundreds of religious laws. But Jesus, instead, says that their are two great commandments: To love God and to love your neighbor.
That's a pretty revolutionary idea-- to start with principles instead of laws. Looking to principles is harder for us as individuals, because it forces us to decide for ourselves what loving God and loving our neighbors will be in real life. We can't get away with just formulaic following of the law, but must see our law-following as love for something.
When I teach criminal practice, this lesson comes back to me again and again. Because prosecutors have so much discretion, they must act not only from the law, but from principle, and the first step in that is deciding what those principles will be. Too often, it is that first step which fails.
That's a pretty revolutionary idea-- to start with principles instead of laws. Looking to principles is harder for us as individuals, because it forces us to decide for ourselves what loving God and loving our neighbors will be in real life. We can't get away with just formulaic following of the law, but must see our law-following as love for something.
When I teach criminal practice, this lesson comes back to me again and again. Because prosecutors have so much discretion, they must act not only from the law, but from principle, and the first step in that is deciding what those principles will be. Too often, it is that first step which fails.
Comments:
<< Home
This mirrors a concept in ethics between those of us that see ethical norms as expressions of duty (deontology) and various forms of "good outcomes mean good actions" (consequentialism). Consequentialists routinely (though not in all cases, act utilitarians!) seek to have a perhaps-finite list of "good things" you can do and "bad things," where being ethical would consist of doing only good things and not doing bad things.
The problem with such reasoning is that it leads to contradictions: lying in general is bad, but what about lying to an axe murderer to save the life of a little girl? If you're truly committed to living by your rules, you can't start making exceptions like, "it's OK to lie in x case" because then cases y and z suddenly start looking like valid exceptions as well. In the end, the exceptions swallow any ethical rule and you're left to confront an unknown situation p as if you're starting with no rule at all.
The balance to this, a deontologist claims, is that your life should be guided by maxims: general statements of principle and value that nevertheless leave it up to the rationality of the thinker. For instance, one formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is to act at all times as if you are a legislating member of the "kingdom of ends." In other words, you are a rational, autonomous being that is an end-in-itself, not simply a means to that end. You must act at all times as if your action could be willed as universal law for everyone, including yourself.
In a Kantian scheme, there is no "do as I say, but not as I do." Making exceptions for yourself in your circumstances while forbidding it to others is a guarantee that your actions lack the rational justification necessary to be ethical.
Principles are the only way to guide ethical behavior. Laws from those principles may help with the public, social regulation of that behavior, but ultimately, at a personal level, laws do no matter while principles do.
The problem with such reasoning is that it leads to contradictions: lying in general is bad, but what about lying to an axe murderer to save the life of a little girl? If you're truly committed to living by your rules, you can't start making exceptions like, "it's OK to lie in x case" because then cases y and z suddenly start looking like valid exceptions as well. In the end, the exceptions swallow any ethical rule and you're left to confront an unknown situation p as if you're starting with no rule at all.
The balance to this, a deontologist claims, is that your life should be guided by maxims: general statements of principle and value that nevertheless leave it up to the rationality of the thinker. For instance, one formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is to act at all times as if you are a legislating member of the "kingdom of ends." In other words, you are a rational, autonomous being that is an end-in-itself, not simply a means to that end. You must act at all times as if your action could be willed as universal law for everyone, including yourself.
In a Kantian scheme, there is no "do as I say, but not as I do." Making exceptions for yourself in your circumstances while forbidding it to others is a guarantee that your actions lack the rational justification necessary to be ethical.
Principles are the only way to guide ethical behavior. Laws from those principles may help with the public, social regulation of that behavior, but ultimately, at a personal level, laws do no matter while principles do.
Yes--in answer to Osler's post--from the outside of the legal system looking in, it seems as though the prosecutor's first principle is so often simply WINNING, no matter if the defendant is really guilty.
Of course, this is probably the stereotype rather than the norm. But it seems as thought the system is sort of built that way, and one has to resist it and remember the love, not the winning.
And yes, Lane, I agree . . .
Of course, this is probably the stereotype rather than the norm. But it seems as thought the system is sort of built that way, and one has to resist it and remember the love, not the winning.
And yes, Lane, I agree . . .
# posted by 
: 9:34 PM
: 9:34 PM
So. Loving God is the most important commandment (or one of the top two). But how do you love God? (Or what is the test for determining whether you love God?) You obey his commandments. What does he command? That you love God.
Ergo: to love God is to love God.
Ergo: to love God is to love God.
Jeremy-- the part that you put in there that isn't biblical is that loving God is following the commandments. I think there is something more required.
To say that following the law is loving God would make Jesus's answer tautological. I think he meant something deeper than "follow the law," or else he would have given that easier answer.
To say that following the law is loving God would make Jesus's answer tautological. I think he meant something deeper than "follow the law," or else he would have given that easier answer.
# posted by : 2:41 PM
: 2:41 PM
Jeremy-- I think the full text of 1 John 5 actually supports what I was saying-- that to love God encompasses something more than just following commandments.
It is rare that great meaning should be taken from a single sentence taken out of its context.
It is rare that great meaning should be taken from a single sentence taken out of its context.
# posted by : 5:06 PM
: 5:06 PM
Anonymous---If the #1 rule is to follow the rules, maybe that's why the #2 rule is the Golden Rule.
I'm not trying to say that Christianity is about legalism or is founded on a tautology. It's just an interesting coincidence of language. It's also worth noting that, without due process, nothing else we're "guaranteed" under the law matters. Maybe loving God is the same way: it doesn't matter how much you love your neighbor or sacrifice the annual goat (or bull or whatever), "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams." (1 Sam. 15:22.)
"The law" and "his commandments" are not necessarily the same thing. I think that Jesus and John were both saying that strict, by-the-book obedience misses the mark. What matters is your general attitude of obedience (faith?) and not how many laws you've kept or broken.
Is that the "something more" you're talking about?
Post a Comment
I'm not trying to say that Christianity is about legalism or is founded on a tautology. It's just an interesting coincidence of language. It's also worth noting that, without due process, nothing else we're "guaranteed" under the law matters. Maybe loving God is the same way: it doesn't matter how much you love your neighbor or sacrifice the annual goat (or bull or whatever), "to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams." (1 Sam. 15:22.)
"The law" and "his commandments" are not necessarily the same thing. I think that Jesus and John were both saying that strict, by-the-book obedience misses the mark. What matters is your general attitude of obedience (faith?) and not how many laws you've kept or broken.
Is that the "something more" you're talking about?
<< Home
