The Joy of Insomnia
So, I really need to sleep, given that this is finals week, so naturally that means I can't. Which means that my mind goes on really weird tangents. I'll save the baldness/least interesting number/can anything completely lack power? discussion for later. For now, it'll be the discussion of lawful good vs. lawful neutral.
As you may or may not know, one of the odder elements of Dungeons & Dragons is a system of 'alignment', based on two axes. One axis is clear enough -- is the character good, evil, or somewhere in between. The more difficult axis is the lawful/chaotic axis. It's hard to describe, even if one has an intuitive understanding oneself, what it means to be lawful or chaotic. So this gives rise to a lot of philosophical musing on my part. (Hey, I'm not saying it's inherently philosophically interesting, I'm just saying I find it interesting. But then again, I find the merits of cauliflower over broccoli interesting.)
But anyway, I was thinking about the difference between Lawful Neutral (a character who's lawful on the one axis, but neutral on the good/evil axis) and Lawful Good, and sort of thought the following. For someone who's Lawful Neutral, one could almost say that the law exists for its own sake, not for the sake of a higher good. Put perhaps a bit more sympathetically, we could say that this person views the law as primarily a tool for promoting social order, rather than some higher good. But someone who's Lawful Good views the law as tool for promoting a higher good, the good of Justice.
What does this mean in more concrete terms? It seems to mean, among other things, that those favoring a strict, literal construction of laws are going to tend more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. (Of course, this whole discussion points to the inadequacy of D&D alignment to explain real world behavior...) It also seems to indicate that the US system of law is Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral. The law -- and by this, I mean statutory, case, and common law -- reflects a bias towards justice and against literality all over the place. How often does a court or a legislature use a phrase like "shall do so when in the interest of justice" or "when not inconsistent with the demands of justice." This seems to indicate that the legislature or court is trying, not so much to create a consistent rule, as to create a system as best they can that serves the interest of justice. And as we all know, justice is more than a matter of mere law.
As you may or may not know, one of the odder elements of Dungeons & Dragons is a system of 'alignment', based on two axes. One axis is clear enough -- is the character good, evil, or somewhere in between. The more difficult axis is the lawful/chaotic axis. It's hard to describe, even if one has an intuitive understanding oneself, what it means to be lawful or chaotic. So this gives rise to a lot of philosophical musing on my part. (Hey, I'm not saying it's inherently philosophically interesting, I'm just saying I find it interesting. But then again, I find the merits of cauliflower over broccoli interesting.)
But anyway, I was thinking about the difference between Lawful Neutral (a character who's lawful on the one axis, but neutral on the good/evil axis) and Lawful Good, and sort of thought the following. For someone who's Lawful Neutral, one could almost say that the law exists for its own sake, not for the sake of a higher good. Put perhaps a bit more sympathetically, we could say that this person views the law as primarily a tool for promoting social order, rather than some higher good. But someone who's Lawful Good views the law as tool for promoting a higher good, the good of Justice.
What does this mean in more concrete terms? It seems to mean, among other things, that those favoring a strict, literal construction of laws are going to tend more towards Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. (Of course, this whole discussion points to the inadequacy of D&D alignment to explain real world behavior...) It also seems to indicate that the US system of law is Lawful Good, not Lawful Neutral. The law -- and by this, I mean statutory, case, and common law -- reflects a bias towards justice and against literality all over the place. How often does a court or a legislature use a phrase like "shall do so when in the interest of justice" or "when not inconsistent with the demands of justice." This seems to indicate that the legislature or court is trying, not so much to create a consistent rule, as to create a system as best they can that serves the interest of justice. And as we all know, justice is more than a matter of mere law.
posted by Mad Jurist at 12:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home