Law

I've become more interested in Law lately. If I entered uni now, I'd probably consider studying it.

Generalising here - lawyers are highly intelligent, articulate people. Lawyers of some specialisations are sometimes unduly criticised for being 'unethical', that is, for fulfilling their professional responsibilities, despite reservations they may have about about the ethical details of a case.. I could dissect lawyers, discussing what aspects (beyond money), draws students to study Law. That could be interesting. Somebody else, do it. I'm more interested in what this beast, the Law, is really all about.

We know what the Law is. It tells you what you can or can't do, without running the risk of being punished. Many think the law actually prescribes what one SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do, if one is to be 'moral'. A modern example: to not kill others. Sometimes, the idea that the Law is somehow related to the question of what is good and/or what is moral seems obvious. At other times, it seems to simply allow the powerful to discharge their will. That could mean letting the majority have its way, or letting the aristocracy or the wealthy or the King's bloodline have its way etc etc. Depends on the time and place.
I should also point out that The law is obviously a diverse field of study. One can study contracts, criminal law, property law, intellectual property. Etc Etc. Some have more relation to ethics than others.

Some see The Law as a benevolent force, as in "the long arm of the law will eventually catch up with that criminal".
Some see The Law as a structure to preserve unjust power structures or as one to tear them down, to undermine their legitimacy through a creed of universalism.
Some see The Law as a way of limiting our thoughts, our imaginations.

What I personally find curious to note that the Law is constantly trying to cover the new lawless domains which technological innovation creates. The Law here looks more like a dogmatic, old-fashioned, conservative mother. Or even a priest, potentially unnecessarily regulating our behaviour from a position of inexperience, from a viewpoint of fear, with little understanding of technology itself and the nature of innovation and of general societal change.

Perhaps more dangerous is this possibility:
The scientist tries to understand how the real world works. But the Law often seems to try to "bring ideology" to the world. To impose an ideology as to how the world SHOULD work, 'hopefully' effectively enough to actually MAKE the world work a little bit more like that. As in, convincing people that stealing guarantees punishment, murder guarantees jail etc. Here, the Law is a weeping, altruistic child, disgruntled by things about the world which upset it. Or a religious zealot, convincing heathens or criminals of the hell which awaits in response to their sins. What is illegal has changed drastically. Apartheid was once legal, as was the stoning of blasphemers etc. The Law slooowly changing to reflect our changing circumstances is more an admission of its impotence, of its confusion in the face of change, where properly considered ethical systems give one better guidelines about how to react to change . And of the Law's reluctance to admit that it has almost nothing valid to say on the eternal question of what is desirable and what is not. It certainly does not admit that its judgements are often arbitrary, individual interpretations of vague dogmas. It cannot admit the contextually relevant reasons of an intelligent defendent if it is to serve its purpose. Luckily, judges don't care much about this in practise, and do "stretch" the law as they see fit, given additional circumstantial information.

It's true, I've always felt science was a nobler pursuit than law. Because most scientific work is less, or could be less ambiguously good for mankind than the law is. Obviously, again, Law is a diverse field, my argument isn't great. Whatever, it's 3am.

I've never felt civilisation could be enforced by policemen. I believe in 'justice' in some sense. But I think it cannot arise from the words from a judge's mouth, a lambasting by a jury, or from shaming or societal norms. It cannot be ordered by the will of the democratic majority or enshrined eternal in the sacred texts of the Constitution. This is not to advocate anarchism. The Law is ENTIRELY necessary. A law which seeks not to punish, but to understand, and then prevent, would not be something anybody reasonable could complain about.
It's just that I've always felt the Law has almost nothing to do with civilisation. I've always felt civilisation was more about understanding how things work. That we stopped burning witches AND stopped wanting to burn them because we realised they weren't witches, not because we grew a conscience or because it became illegal to do so.
Law doesn't give you such civilisation, only the surface appearance of it. Not to dismiss the possibility that certain law systems are more conducive to civil arrangements than others. Understand the difference?

Lawyers may learn case studies for reasons of precdent, defend or rebut against the laws as they exist today, become brilliant at manipulating or interpreting the meaning of the words which laws are made out of, find loopholes etc. Just please, please, lawyers: recognise that the Law has very little relation to the more vexing questions of morality, and none to truth. If you believe in such a thing. I'm not suggesting one must, but just don't be pretentious and think the Law has anything serious to say about how to justify your own behaviour.


----
Cannibals don't eat clowns as they taste funny