Letter of the Law Vs. Spirit of the Law

[derekrvr]

I am about to start a debate in one of my courses on this subject, and I'm wondering what peoples' opinions are. The resolution is:
Resolve that When in conflict, the spirit of the law ought to take priority over the letter of the law.
What are arguments/opinions for each side? I'm writing my own debate, but it's an interesting discussion and I'm curious what people think.

[Republicanman]

Shouldn't this be: Conservatives like a strict law because it makes them feel safe (by putting away victimless criminals) vs. Liberals like a loose law because it allows them to create social just (which, ironically, helps to make those victimless criminals the right will incarcerate later).

That being said, the state will always pick the "spirit of the law" when it's opportunistic to do so.

[rawspinner]

Don't really know how I would interpret this as a politician, but when applied to spiritual law, going by the letter can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Especially if a clear understanding of the purpose of the law is non-existant.

[Debut_Fin]

I tend to prefer principle based systems over rules based systems

[Debut_Fin]

Don't really know how I would interpret this as a politician, but when applied to spiritual law, going by the letter can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Especially if a clear understanding of the purpose of the law is non-existant.

I think you misunderstood his question

[caveBEAR]

Don't really know how I would interpret this as a politician, but when applied to spiritual law, going by the letter can be EXTREMELY dangerous. Especially if a clear understanding of the purpose of the law is non-existant.

'Spirit of the law' refers to the 'idea' behind the law (where as 'letter of the law' has to do with strict adherence to the wording of the law itself). It has nothing to do with 'spiritual law'.

[Love As Arson]

The letter of the law presents a set of universal standards and is the antithesis of justice, and can only be founded on a form of violence. The spirit of the law allows for modifications on the road to fulfilling the possibility of justice.

[open mind]

see post above.

[GuitarR0cker1]

It's more important to stay attached to the idea of a more just and equal society than it is to be attached to archaic laws, many of which were formed in times in which humanity didn't have the same understanding as it does now. The "founding fathers" used examples in ancient Greece as models for a better society and Locke. We have hundreds of years of struggles to learn from yet our constitution is too rigid and ignores the problems we are faced with the idea that "the founding fathers would be against this!" or that it goes against the enumerated powers of the constitution.

If an idea or structure is better and has been shown to be better, we should use it.

[rawspinner]

I think you misunderstood his question

'Spirit of the law' refers to the 'idea' behind the law (where as 'letter of the law' has to do with strict adherence to the wording of the law itself). It has nothing to do with 'spiritual law'.

I understand that this thread has to do more with decisions in government (such as when the Supreme Court interprets old laws, I guess I should have replaced "politicians" with "judges"). It was off topic, but I wanted to give my opinion when the tension between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law can be applied to spiritual law, not only governmental law.

[derekrvr]

This is really interesting. I took it to mean things like this:
the speed limit, according ot th eletter of the law, might be 55. But in the spirit of the law, it's acceptable to go as much as ten miles above, and going the speed limit, to some people, is an example of "bad," or "slow," driving.
This is interesting because it's showing me how many ways this can be interpreted.

[InExile]

It's more important to stay attached to the idea of a more just and equal society than it is to be attached to archaic laws, many of which were formed in times in which humanity didn't have the same understanding as it does now. The "founding fathers" used examples in ancient Greece as models for a better society and Locke. We have hundreds of years of struggles to learn from yet our constitution is too rigid and ignores the problems we are faced with the idea that "the founding fathers would be against this!" or that it goes against the enumerated powers of the constitution.

If an idea or structure is better and has been shown to be better, we should use it.

Any specific examples in the Constitution you would change or add to? Just curious :-)

[Wm D Crain]

The constitution was formed with much consideration, men at the time studied history, and saw what worked the best and wanted the best for themselves and their posterity, our country was meant to be a republic, the founding fathers, knew all to well the results of democracy, and abhorred it. The constitution was and is to be read and understood just as it was written, any changes are to be held pursuant to the original constitution, as designated so in the supremacy clause, interpretation is not to be. If the constitution, is not agreeable, then a new constitutional convention is in order. The constitution should be taken to mean just what it says, otherwise we will have more and more of what our country has degenerated into.

[mcm1610]

What's the one quote... something like "Democracy is the worst form of government aside from all other forms."

[mattgoods]

The constitution was formed with much consideration, men at the time studied history, and saw what worked the best and wanted the best for themselves and their posterity, our country was meant to be a republic, the founding fathers, knew all to well the results of democracy, and abhorred it. The constitution was and is to be read and understood just as it was written, any changes are to be held pursuant to the original constitution, as designated so in the supremacy clause, interpretation is not to be. If the constitution, is not agreeable, then a new constitutional convention is in order. The constitution should be taken to mean just what it says, otherwise we will have more and more of what our country has degenerated into.

second this

[mattgoods]

The letter of the law presents a set of universal standards and is the antithesis of justice, and can only be founded on a form of violence. The spirit of the law allows for modifications on the road to fulfilling the possibility of justice.
I'm trying to make sense of this. Care to elaborate?

[Love As Arson]

I'm trying to make sense of this. Care to elaborate?
The first sentence refers to the nature of laws that are on the books. Its aims are to apply a strict standard by which we must live. The problem is, universal standards have nothing to do with justice, which is an evolving concept. As for the comment on violence, it is the basis for the letter of the law insofar as the state has an apparatus that is armed to enforce the laws and the establishment of laws often has violence at its root, e.g., in order for the Constitution to be made possible there needed to be a war between the thirteen colonies and Britain.

[mattgoods]

The first sentence refers to the nature of laws that are on the books. Its aims are to apply a strict standard by which we must live. The problem is, universal standards have nothing to do with justice, which is an evolving concept. As for the comment on violence, it is the basis for the letter of the law insofar as the state has an apparatus that is armed to enforce the laws and the establishment of laws often has violence at its root, e.g., in order for the Constitution to be made possible there needed to be a war between the thirteen colonies and Britain.
The laws prescribed in the US Constitution are generally designed to protect the liberty of citizens (from government), not to "apply a standard to which we must live." It seems to be a contradiction that one would view justice as an evolving concept. If the law is applied differently from one person to the next, how can this be viewed as justice?

[Love As Arson]

The laws prescribed in the US Constitution are generally designed to protect the liberty of citizens (from government), not to "apply a standard to which we must live.
Except if you were black, a woman or didn't have any property. See how the Constitution creates a standard by which people live.

t seems to be a contradiction that one would view justice as an evolving concept. If the law is applied differently from one person to the next, how can this be viewed as justice?
As I said, the law, as a set of universal standards, has nothing to do with justice. In many cases, what is sought after in justice is against a nation's laws.

[mattgoods]

Except if you were black, a woman or didn't have any property. See how the Constitution creates a standard by which people live.


As I said, the law, as a set of universal standards, has nothing to do with justice. In many cases, what is sought after in justice is against a nation's laws.
You corroborate my point: laws applied differently among people is not justice. You'll notice in the constitution these injustices were eventually corrected. The concept of justice did not evolve; the laws did.

[Love As Arson]

You corroborate my point: laws applied differently among people is not justice. You'll notice in the constitution these injustices were eventually corrected. The concept of justice did not evolve; the laws did.
You managed to conflate law and justice. You asked:

If the law is applied differently from one person to the next, how can this be viewed as justice?

This demonstrates the misinterpretation of the application of law being linked to justice. I never made no such link. As for your example regarding the Constitution, many people died or were put into prison for violating what was considered the law of the land. This did not mean there actions were less just. It simply proves the point that the law and justice can never fit.

[mattgoods]

You managed to conflate law and justice. You asked:



This demonstrates the misinterpretation of the application of law being linked to justice. I never made no such link. As for your example regarding the Constitution, many people died or were put into prison for violating what was considered the law of the land. This did not mean there actions were less just. It simply proves the point that the law and justice can never fit.
I have delineated law and justice in my previous post by noting the injustices in the original constitution. I wouldn't, however, suggest that law and justice are forever mutually exclusive.

[Love As Arson]

I have delineated law and justice in my previous post by noting the injustices in the original constitution. I wouldn't, however, suggest that law and justice are forever mutually exclusive.
Law is a betrayal of justice in a sense, because justice isn't a universal standard. Further, the corrections you speak of were in response to extra-legal activities by the public.

[x togepi x]

Look into law as it operates in the United States. The bulk of the letter of the law governs financial and property rights which functionally exist to preserve the status quo as much as possible. what people don't realize is that famous laws that protect rights such as freedom of speech are an insanely small percentage of what makes up law and the government spends way more time and energy enforcing the rest of law rather than promoting justice through legally enshrined freedoms.

in all reality, those trumpeting the greatness of the letter of the law as a way of establishing justice are merely propping up an unjust system, as they justify vast inequalities by pointing to how the rule of law sometimes promotes just ideals in certain highly specific and rare occasions which is a rhetorical tool to blind people from recognizing the function of law in general.

[mattgoods]

Look into law as it operates in the United States. The bulk of the letter of the law governs financial and property rights which functionally exist to preserve the status quo as much as possible. what people don't realize is that famous laws that protect rights such as freedom of speech are an insanely small percentage of what makes up law and the government spends way more time and energy enforcing the rest of law rather than promoting justice through legally enshrined freedoms.

in all reality, those trumpeting the greatness of the letter of the law as a way of establishing justice are merely propping up an unjust system, as they justify vast inequalities by pointing to how the rule of law sometimes promotes just ideals in certain highly specific and rare occasions which is a rhetorical tool to blind people from recognizing the function of law in general.
You write as if property rights have nothing to do with "justice" (whatever that is) or "legally enshrined freedoms" and are mostly used to preserve the "status quo" (whatever that is). Oversimplified and not truly indicative of how corporate/property law is implemented.

[x togepi x]

You write as if property rights have nothing to do with "justice" (whatever that is) or "legally enshrined freedoms" and are mostly used to preserve the "status quo" (whatever that is). Oversimplified and not truly indicative of how corporate/property law is implemented.

Property rights, as defined and enshrined in the current system, have little to do with "justice."

Clearly I oversimplified because I don't feel like typing a Zinn article word for word.

[mattgoods]

Property rights, as defined and enshrined in the current system, have little to do with "justice."

Clearly I oversimplified because I don't feel like typing a Zinn article word for word.
Good, because Zinn is a patent idiot.

[Love As Arson]

Good, because Zinn is a patent idiot.
Nah. The law is representative of the dominant interests in society. In the feudal era, it represented the interests of the aristocracy and the king. As the shift between feudal arrangements and early capitalism came into conflict, there were revolutions, many of which were successful and initiated a series of laws that benefited a class that relied on domination via private ownership of land, tools, machinery, etc.

[peder458]

Law is a betrayal of justice in a sense, because justice isn't a universal standard. Further, the corrections you speak of were in response to extra-legal activities by the public.

I have never thought of it like this before... I don't even have anything interesting to add, this is just really interesting.

[thespearkid]

Spirit over letter.

[mattgoods]

Nah. The law is representative of the dominant interests in society. In the feudal era, it represented the interests of the aristocracy and the king. As the shift between feudal arrangements and early capitalism came into conflict, there were revolutions, many of which were successful and initiated a series of laws that benefited a class that relied on domination via private ownership of land, tools, machinery, etc.
This would be a fantastic theory if there weren't millions of exceptions to it.

[x togepi x]

This would be a fantastic theory if there weren't millions of exceptions to it.

Probably should have pointed out, i don't know, maybe one exception in this post if there are millions.

[mattgoods]

Probably should have pointed out, i don't know, maybe one exception in this post if there are millions.
see: middle class

[caveBEAR]

:popcorn:

[x togepi x]

see: middle class

that doesn't really prove your point, plus it's disappearing anyway.

[Love As Arson]

Many that think they're middle-class are working class.

[mattgoods]

that doesn't really prove your point, plus it's disappearing anyway.
Love as arson, although a smart guy who usually brings up interesting points, is off the mark with his assertion that laws (speaking for American society) were instituted to preserve the dominant culture. American capitalist society was implicitly designed to provide for the free(est) exchange of wealth as possible. Millions of immigrants, many coming from abject poverty, who were/are able to elevate their status to middle class and above, often within a generation or two, are further testament against this assertion.

[Wm D Crain]

The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

[x togepi x]

American capitalist society was implicitly designed to provide for the free(est) exchange of wealth as possible.

If this were the case, we wouldn't have had slavery or we would have had women's rights way earlier than they occurred. We also had laws in the books that, for example, banned Asians from owning land in California. Stealing Native land was also not really a free exchange of wealth.


Millions of immigrants, many coming from abject poverty, who were/are able to elevate their status to middle class and above, often within a generation or two, are further testament against this assertion.

I'm also unsure why you think this proves your point. I mean, while it is true that immigrants were able to elevate their status to the middle class, your analysis leaves out how profitable this was for the upper classes. it was definitely in the rich's best interest to have a middle class so that they could sell more products than just basic human needs. In this case, the elites benefit both from upward mobility of people lower on the socioeconomic scale as well as the barriers that existed against this mobility.

It's still entrenching the status quo (and not just) when you see a system where very few people control a large amount of wealth while they are getting tax breaks that the lower classes do not get.

[x togepi x]

The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

Yeah insane crazy dude, the nothing about the federal reserve is at all socialist.

[caveBEAR]

The Federal Reserve is at the root of most of our present statutory regulations, "laws", in the control and regulation of virtually all aspects of human activity in the United States, through successively socialistic constructions laid upon the Commerce clause of the Constitution. Basically, the Federal Reserve is the "STATE" of the United States.

Holy fuck, the Federal Reserve made me jack off, smoke weed and clean the kitchen today?
:jawdrop:

[mattgoods]

If this were the case, we wouldn't have had slavery or we would have had women's rights way earlier than they occurred. We also had laws in the books that, for example, banned Asians from owning land in California. Stealing Native land was also not really a free exchange of wealth.




I'm also unsure why you think this proves your point. I mean, while it is true that immigrants were able to elevate their status to the middle class, your analysis leaves out how profitable this was for the upper classes. it was definitely in the rich's best interest to have a middle class so that they could sell more products than just basic human needs. In this case, the elites benefit both from upward mobility of people lower on the socioeconomic scale as well as the barriers that existed against this mobility.

It's still entrenching the status quo (and not just) when you see a system where very few people control a large amount of wealth while they are getting tax breaks that the lower classes do not get.
Geez Louise, we get it, there have been injustices in the past, and news flash...there will continue to be injustices. You seem to view the opportunity to mobilize upward in society as a bad thing.

[mattgoods]

Holy fuck, the Federal Reserve made me jack off, smoke weed and clean the kitchen today?
:jawdrop:
at least you got some work done

[x togepi x]

Geez Louise, we get it, there have been injustices in the past, and news flash...there will continue to be injustices. You seem to view the opportunity to mobilize upward in society as a bad thing.

Way to completely skirt the issue.

I've never claimed upward mobility (which by the way, is a lot harder than your rosy scenario implies) is a bad thing, I just don't think you can use it as an example of how "the system" isn't rigged for the interests of the rich and powerful rather than out of a commitment to justice.

My listing of injustices was answering your claim that the system was built to " the free(est) exchange of wealth possible." it clearly wasn't if we completely ignored these injustices for decades and decades (and still haven't really fixed them.)

[Wm D Crain]

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/united_states_british_colony_index. htm

[Wm D Crain]

http://www.cephas-library.com/nwo/nwo_how_the_world_really_works.html

[mattgoods]

Way to completely skirt the issue.

I've never claimed upward mobility (which by the way, is a lot harder than your rosy scenario implies) is a bad thing, I just don't think you can use it as an example of how "the system" isn't rigged for the interests of the rich and powerful rather than out of a commitment to justice.

My listing of injustices was answering your claim that the system was built to " the free(est) exchange of wealth possible." it clearly wasn't if we completely ignored these injustices for decades and decades (and still haven't really fixed them.)
quite the contrary, I addressed these injustices earlier in the thread. The scenario you claim I imply as "rosy" is only in comparison to the rest of the world. Why do you see the interests of the "rich and powerful" as being separate from a "commitment to justice"?

[Love As Arson]

quite the contrary, I addressed these injustices earlier in the thread. The scenario you claim I imply as "rosy" is only in comparison to the rest of the world. Why do you see the interests of the "rich and powerful" as being separate from a "commitment to justice"?
Because there are material differences in the interests of the respective parties. The CEO's of the largest companies received bail-outs and subsequently fired thousands of people in order to increase their profits. A worker, whose interests lies in providing for themselves or others, does not benefit from this. In fact, the average person is being asked to sacrifice more, because the health of the nation is intrinsically linked with the profitability of companies, so, for example, it is legitimate for Barack Obama to say to union workers at a car company that they need to give up their benefits and a portion of their wages. Is this just? The worker had no place in the decision-making that made the company vulnerable, they simply did their job to the best of their abilities. This links up with the earlier discussion regarding justice, since justice would be paying the workers their original salaries, along with their benefits or them taking of the factory they work in. The latter would be considered illegal and the former is impossible because of the legal contracts drawn up between the ceo's and the government.

[mattgoods]

Because there are material differences in the interests of the respective parties. The CEO's of the largest companies received bail-outs and subsequently fired thousands of people in order to increase their profits. A worker, whose interests lies in providing for themselves or others, does not benefit from this. In fact, the average person is being asked to sacrifice more, because the health of the nation is intrinsically linked with the profitability of companies, so, for example, it is legitimate for Barack Obama to say to union workers at a car company that they need to give up their benefits and a portion of their wages. Is this just? The worker had no place in the decision-making that made the company vulnerable, they simply did their job to the best of their abilities. This links up with the earlier discussion regarding justice, since justice would be paying the workers their original salaries, along with their benefits or them taking of the factory they work in. The latter would be considered illegal and the former is impossible because of the legal contracts drawn up between the ceo's and the government.
You make quite a few broad statements; it's hard to address each, but quickly, you say that union workers have no say in the decision making of car companies?? The UAW has been collectively bargaining with American auto companies for decades. Many would say they have a direct link to the vulnerability of those companies, especially with their unwillingness to make concessions amidst changing global economies. I'm not a bail-out supporter, but it seems bail-outs were for the benefit of the unions as much as any CEO. Workers as innocent bystanders is simply not true.

[Love As Arson]

You make quite a few broad statements; it's hard to address each, but quickly, you say that union workers have no say in the decision making of car companies?? .
I was referring to production.
Many would say they have a direct link to the vulnerability of those companies, especially with their unwillingness to make concessions amidst changing global economies.
The changing global economy in which ceo's make four hundred times that of their workers. Why isn't there a curb on that as opposed to the pay of workers, especially if we take into consideration their ability to subsist is fragile to begin with? Again, this is demonstrative of the issue Togepi and I have brought up: The dominant interests are considered the default.

I'm not a bail-out supporter, but it seems bail-outs were for the benefit of the unions as much as any CEO. Workers as innocent bystanders is simply not true.
How's that? The bail-out and crisis provided a justification for scaling back the gains workers have made. The problem with your analysis is, the average worker shares some of the blame. Given the disempowerment in the workplace and the stagnation of wages, I'm uncertain as to how this is the case.

[Wm D Crain]

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-002.htm

[x togepi x]

quite the contrary, I addressed these injustices earlier in the thread. The scenario you claim I imply as "rosy" is only in comparison to the rest of the world. Why do you see the interests of the "rich and powerful" as being separate from a "commitment to justice"?

because the interests of the upper classes are seen as inherently based on exploitation which is not just.

[mattgoods]

because the interests of the upper classes are seen as inherently based on exploitation which is not just.
exploitation of whom?