• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Purpose of law

Upchurch

Papa Funkosophy
Upchurch
Joined
May 10, 2002
Messages
34,265
Location
St. Louis, MO
So, a post in another thread got me thinking about what the purpose of law is. Or, rather, a purpose.

Is law meant to deal with society as it is and make the best of what we've got or is it meant to push society to what it should be?

For example, gay marriage: That gay couples exist is not diputed. Should the law, then be organized to deal with the reality of gay couples or should the law be arranged in such a way that society is pushed towards an idea of what society should be? In this case, there are many who believe that gay couples are harmful to society and the laws/amendments to ban gay marriage seem to me to be pushing society toward that ideal.

Of course, there is always the question of who decides what is ideal, but that is, I think, another discussion. For now I'm just curious what the scope of law is.
 
Want that in 10 words or less? :)
You first ask what is the purpose of law, and then the scope of law. Different. I'm probably being too pedantic.
You may be asking "What is the purpose/scope of any particular piece of legislation, be it statute or constitutional amendment?"

The purpose of "law" (and in my lexicon "law" encompasses legislation and judicial proceedings), in my humble opinion, in 10 words or less, is "to maintain a civil (non-violent) society."

That's probably not what you're asking, but that's all you're going to get from me. If you're lucky.
 
Upchurch said:
Is law meant to deal with society as it is and make the best of what we've got or is it meant to push society to what it should be?
Click to expand...

Very good question, and that's probably why no-one's replied yet...

I would say that the purpose of law was to prevent civil unrest, and hence it should broadly reflect the views of the society it is imposed on. However, it is also there (for the benefit of the society as a whole) to promote, for example, business and commerce. So while the population generally believes they should have free bread, the law should enforce payment for it. Otherwise no-one would have bread at all...

Occasionally someone will get into some position of power where they will be tempted to bend society to their own viewpoint ("how it should be"), by amendment of the laws. This is why some sort of "mission statement", or constitution, is a good idea - laws that are against the spirit of the constitution - i.e. against the broad views (in the broadest sense...) of society - can be declared "unconstitutional" and struck off.

So, by construction, law is the former (anything too radical will not get passed unless the ruler has dictatorial power), but by amendments and nudges, society is pushed into acceptance of other ways of thinking. Whether this is good or bad is up to you. Personally, I think it's a good thing, provided there are plenty of checks and balances...
 
The purpose of law is to keep society from collapesing and keep the current government in power. For example, a state really cant just up and leave the union.


Theres lots of talk about "justice" and "right n wrong" but thats kinda BS. Those attitudes change over time. Whats right today may be wrong tomorrow.
 
So, what I'm getting, and maybe I'm reaching, is that law should conform to the purposes of its society rather than society conforming to the purposes of its laws?

Is that a reasonable statement or am I mixing ideas?
 
Law establishes the stable predictability necessary for economic and social decision making.

Law is a creation of society, not the other way around. Society conforming to the purposes of the law sounds circular to me. What are you getting at?
 
I think your right.'

Otherwise all you would need is a set # of laws and you wouldnt have to change add or delete laws.

Look at Congress, all they do is change laws every year. Thats to appease socieital changes.
 
Upchurch said:
So, a post in another thread got me thinking about what the purpose of law is. Or, rather, a purpose.

Is law meant to deal with society as it is and make the best of what we've got or is it meant to push society to what it should be?

For example, gay marriage: That gay couples exist is not diputed. Should the law, then be organized to deal with the reality of gay couples or should the law be arranged in such a way that society is pushed towards an idea of what society should be? In this case, there are many who believe that gay couples are harmful to society and the laws/amendments to ban gay marriage seem to me to be pushing society toward that ideal.

Of course, there is always the question of who decides what is ideal, but that is, I think, another discussion. For now I'm just curious what the scope of law is.
Click to expand...

Gott in heimmel! An intellectual sounding post from Upchurch instead of a botched attempt at witty nonchallance? Did someone hijack his account?
 
The purpose for having law at all is so that people know what is expected of them by law enforcement. Laws with consistent underlying themes are more easily understood and followed. Inconsistency in age-related laws in the USA is a prime example of how not to make laws - if your intent is for people to understand and follow them.

How laws should be written depends on who makes them and the makers' purpose for making them. You may not want your laws understood, for some reason.
 
Wow, good question.

I don't think laws as they exist today were written like rules to a board game. In other words, the laws evolved to meet and balance the needs of individuals and society. However the Constitution was written like the rules of a board game. It limits the powers of government and enumerates the rights of citizens. Of course those rights were mostly limited to white males. Though it was written to accomadate changes in society.

That is the best that I can do.

...law should conform to the purposes of its society rather than society conforming to the purposes of its laws?[/b]
Click to expand...
The sabbath was made for man and not man for the sabbath.

Sorry but I think the philosophy fits. Democracy dictates that the majority of society can pressure their leaders to write laws to accomodate society and the courts to protect the rights of the minority.
 
the official party line goes
to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
Click to expand...
Vague enough to allow a multitude of abuses.
 
Upchurch said:
So, what I'm getting, and maybe I'm reaching, is that law should conform to the purposes of its society rather than society conforming to the purposes of its laws?

Is that a reasonable statement or am I mixing ideas?
Click to expand...

That is a the great moral debate and the rason that people get so worked up over issues like gay marriage or alcohol.
there are societies that feel laws are absolute and to never be changed, laws are 'ordained', there are societies that feel laws are a tool of society for the regulation of interaction and therefore subject to change.
 
I think the purposes behind laws are varied. Some may be to satisfy the wants of a despot, some may be to protect the people from themselves, some may be to protect people from each other, while others may be to direct society toward a goal. The wording of the law will reveal the motive of the person(s) who wrote it.

edited to add: In America, we are fortunate that the laws were written by the same people who would have to live by them. In other countries and/or times, though, the laws were written by a minority that intended to control a majority and had no intention of living by the laws themselves.
 
Kullervo said:
Vague enough to allow a multitude of abuses.
Click to expand...
I imagine that's why they didn't stop after writing the Preamble.

(See, corplinx? It's still me.)

So, continuing the gay marriage example, what is the correct thing to do? Is banning gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal? Or is allowing gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal?
Originally posted by RandFan
Democracy dictates that the majority of society can pressure their leaders to write laws to accomodate society and the courts to protect the rights of the minority.
Click to expand...
That certainly seems to be what is happening now.
 
Upchurch said:
So, continuing the gay marriage example, what is the correct thing to do? Is banning gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal? Or is allowing gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal?
Click to expand...
Determining the propriety of gay marriage is pushing the society towards an ideal.
 
Laws are neccessary for the functioning of a society of a certain size. Actually, I expect they are neccessary for the functioning of any group of people >= 2, albeit they may be unwritten laws.

That is the purpose of laws. I.e. to make possible the continued cohesion and functioning of a group.

Whether the laws being made should be at the forefront of what is acceptable or at the back cleaning up, I don't know. I expect that whatever best preserves cohesion is the way to go.
 
originally posted by Upchurch
So, continuing the gay marriage example, what is the correct thing to do? Is banning gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal? Or is allowing gay marriage an act of pushing society towards an ideal?
Click to expand...
Excellent topic. Here are my 10 words worth (approx).
There is no correct thing to do.

The law is up for grabs in many different areas.
To some, banning gay marriage would be a righteous alliance of political ambition and religious distaste. To others it would be a restriction of evolved civil liberties and an abuse of power.

Slip enough politicians enough money and the law is yours.
 
Upchurch said:
Good point, but how does change come about?
Click to expand...
I still don't get what you're after. Change in what, exactly? Our ideals? The Law? Are you asking if law should push society toward better behavior, or should only better (or different) motives already agreed upon be codified into law?
 
The late posting ninja strikes again!

Society dictate laws. When society was first being built, when barely human humans started to settle down and grow agriculture, they said, "We don't want to be mere animals anymore, in order to keep our agricultural ways we are going to have to do something about problems of property." So, laws come about because of problems in civilization that need to be addressed. The illusion of "pushing people towards the future" comes when other places that are behind the times get caught up in seemingly bizarre laws, like applying internet privacy laws to deep jungle villages.

This also addresses my thoughts on gay marriage: people are using old marriage laws to try and define this "new" concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom