|
AlexHuSecondPaper 2 - 16 Apr 2009 - Main.AlexHu
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | I accidentally posted the edit of my own paper here; I will replace it with my edit when it is finished. | | | | |
<
< | When Ignorance Is Blameworthy | | | | |
<
< | -- By AlexHu - 14 Apr 2009 | >
> | The Institution of Monogamous Marriage and Alternatives
-- Original Work by YinanZhang - 26 Feb 2009, Edited by AlexHu - 15 Apr 2009 | | | | |
<
< | This paper was revised as part of the second-paper assignment | >
> | Introduction | | | | |
<
< | Why is the layman ignorant of the law? | >
> | The institution of monogamous marriage has an undeniably significant impact on our society. There is a rich historical basis for marriage as primarily a matter of business between two families, but this basis has largely vanished today in modern American culture. Why, then, do people get married today? I propose that there are two major factors in perpetuating the institution of marriage: the “real” benefits of marriage, and societal expectations. As we will see, an exploration of these factors reveals that societal expectations may play a larger role than we would initially expect. | | | | |
<
< | The layman is often ignorant of both the state of the law and how it functions in reality. Two major factors give rise to this ignorance: fear and apathy. | >
> | There are real benefits of marriage | | | | |
<
< | The layman’s fear of the law stems from his recognition of its enormous coercive power. The law can be abused to wreak havoc upon unfortunate have-nots (those who have lost the lottery), twisted to execute personal vendettas or prejudices, and cleverly manipulated by an elite few to destroy the life of practically any individual. Faced with these stark realities, the layman, like the primitive man who is terrified, trapped, or baffled, turns to magic as a way of coping. Thus, he chooses to believe that there is some “function” upon which the law utilizes to scientifically arrive at the “truth.” This belief serves as the tranquilizer that keeps the layman in an ignorant but relatively blissful state. | >
> | Undoubtedly, marriage confers many “real” benefits. Marriage carries personal benefits; it caters to human nature because we are all social beings that desire feelings of stability and security. We want to acquire the peace of mind that when we go home from a long day of hard work, or when we are ill, someone will be there to comfort and take care of us. Marriage also carries significant legal benefits, such as tax reduction and unique property status. This is unsurprising due to the fact that society sees marriage as a beneficial institution that promotes order. | | | | |
<
< | The layman’s apathy stems from the reality that governs his existence. Firstly, a detailed understanding of the law is impractical for the layman. The law is highly intricate and arcane, often difficult to understand even by the lawyer, much less the layman who has to perfect another craft to make his living. Secondly, as Professor Murphy noted in his paper, The Lawyer and the Layman: Two Perspectives on the Rule of Law, “most citizens have little conscious contact with the law.” This alienation makes the law somebody else’s problem in the eyes of the layman. Together, these factors create a formidable barrier between the layman and the law, resulting in the apathy that leads to ignorance. | >
> | But, there are also drawbacks to marriage | | | | |
<
< | The layman’s ignorance is dangerous, but not blameworthy | >
> | Marriage is wonderful—when it works. However, we often fail to consider the disadvantages of marriage when they crumble, a dangerous oversight in light of the fact that in the U.S., approximately 40% to 50% of couples divorce. | | | | |
<
< | As it is ultimately the layman who enacts statutes and elects politicians through his vote, his ignorance of what the law actually does is dangerous, because his uninformed decisions may inadvertently inflict harm upon himself and his society in general. However, for the layman, ignorance of the law is hardly more blameworthy than not thinking about how all the food gets into New York City and all the garbage gets out of it. The layman is confronted with enormous barriers in simply understanding the system; it would be absurd to expect him to somehow gain the mastery necessary to contribute knowledgeably and helpfully to it. | >
> | When marriage fails, there are significant financial consequences: divorce proceedings are prohibitively expensive and often lead to the inequitable division of assets between divorcees in addition to divorce attorney fees. But just as important, there are severe emotional consequences: divorced couples feel betrayed, confused, and lost after they lose the other’s companionship. | | | | |
<
< | However, even a lawyer may be ignorant of the law | >
> | Marriages that don’t completely fail are still subject to a number of potential dangers. Couples who experience infidelity but decide against separation suffer long-term emotional pain and distrust. And even a stable, long-term marriage may lack passion and eventually deteriorate into a daily monotony of work, chores, grocery shopping, and child-rearing. | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer, too, may be ignorant of the law; similar to the layman, his ignorance also stems from fear and apathy. | >
> | Thus, we see that when one considers the benefits of marriage alongside its drawbacks, marrying solely for its potential benefits is quite a dangerous gamble. So why do people, who are risk-adverse by nature, continue to undertake this gamble? | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer is not immune to a fear of the coercive power of the law. He too, would like to believe that the law utilizes some sort of scientific function to arrive at the truth. This belief is so powerfully comforting that even a lawyer, who should know the true nature of the law, is tempted by its wiles. | >
> | Social expectations may be the real driving force behind this institution | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer is likewise not immune to the apathy stemming from the reality that governs his existence. A lawyer has to make a living and sustain the lifestyle that he desires; while he is in constant contact with the law, he only needs to contact that law upon which he can make a living. Like Urquart implies, he needs only to find a pool of money and attach himself to it. | >
> | Perhaps, marriage is truly being driven by societal expectations. Society promotes the image that a life spent with our spouses until death is the only way to reach emotional happiness. The concept of a soul mate stems from the mindset that obtaining a spouse is analogous to acquiring the best good in a limited market of goods, without which our value would go to waste. Simply put, we are indoctrinated with the belief that we must find the best offer for which to exchange our value in order to produce additional value for both parties. Such a concept is so ingrained into our view that we often fail to think beyond the boundaries of societal restraints and consider alternatives. | | | | |
<
< | Unfortunately, these factors often result in a lawyer who is so distant from the law that he is effectively as ignorant as the layman. | >
> | Finding true happiness may require us to explore alternatives or modifications to marriage | | | | |
<
< | Unlike the layman, a lawyer’s ignorance is morally blameworthy | >
> | Singlehood | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer’s ignorance of the law is unjustifiable. | >
> | The most obvious alternative to marriage is singlehood, which has inherent pros and cons. By freeing himself or herself from the obligations of marriage, the individual gains full sexual freedom. From an evolutionary perspective, this may be what is “most natural.” Males desire to pass on their genes by impregnating as many desirable females as possible, and females strive to guarantee the survival fitness of their children by receiving the genes of the most sexually desirable males while securing a nurturing atmosphere from less sexually appealing, but dependable and caring males. Singlehood, therefore, avoids the gap between evolutionary needs and the social realities of marriage. Moreover, an unbound sexual relationship has the benefit of emotional detachment, which diminishes the negative impact that jealousy could play on individual well-being. | | | | |
<
< | Indeed, accepting the nature of the law is frightening; the law is a cruel mistress, often twisted, harsh, and unjust. But for a lawyer to deny this burden in favor of comfortable ignorance is reprehensible; in choosing to become a lawyer, he has voluntarily dedicated himself to be an effective practitioner of the law. However, a lawyer cannot be effective if he shields himself from the true nature of what he claims to practice. Simply put, if the lawyer refuses to acknowledge the harsh reality of the law, he will perpetually remain the novice lawyer in Robinson’s Metamorphosis and do his field a grave disservice. | >
> | On the other hand, singlehood’s benefits are also its drawbacks. Without a long term partner, one would face immense difficulty in raising children. After all, without two dedicated parents, it would be far more difficult to provide the stable environment, which includes a steady source of income and a certain level of parental supervision, necessary for raising successful offspring. Just as importantly, one could not acquire the emotional stability that comes with familiarity. Denying this connection may thusly leave a critical aspect of human nature unfulfilled. | | | | |
<
< | Likewise, a lawyer’s apathy for the law is inexcusable. The ignorant layman has entrusted in the lawyer the ultimate responsibility of working with, crafting, and understanding the law, and the lawyer has voluntarily accepted this responsibility. The lawyer is the only person in society who has the requisite understanding, knowledge, and power to change the law. He cannot pretend that he has another craft to learn or that the law doesn’t directly affect him. He cannot say that the law is somebody else’s problem. Yet, as we see in Jansen, Urquart, Voorhees, and Wylie, he often pawns his license in exchange for a purportedly stable and luxurious lifestyle. | >
> | Controlling the Risks of Marriage | | | | |
<
< | Thus, whether arising out of apathy, fear, or a combination of the two, a lawyer’s ignorance stems from selfish motives and abuses the honorable practice of law, making his ignorance blameworthy. | >
> | Alternately, one who wants the benefits of marriage without the risk could simply try to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of marriage through a prenuptial agreement. However, this only addresses the monetary issue within the overreaching contract of marriage, which involves emotional, physical, and financial commitments. Further, this remedy arguably carries the stigma that a couple already plans for future disintegration, thus undermining the major element of dedication in marriage. Therefore, prenuptial agreements, while possibly resolving the potential division of economic assets, cannot mitigate all of the disastrous effects of a failed marriage. | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer has the duty to know | >
> | Other Types of Relationships | | | | |
<
< | A lawyer, entrusted with the heavy burden as caretaker of the law, has the duty, not only to his career and to himself, but to society in general, to know the law by facing its challenges earnestly and courageously. The best way for a lawyer to fulfill this duty is to be actively involved in the promulgation of justice: fixing the law when it is unjust, broken, or harmful to society. Yet, lawyers are mere mortals, and it would be uncharitable to completely fault the many who put their selfish objectives before their obligations to society. | >
> | Finally, one may try to explore alternate types of relationships that would fulfill the contradictory human desires for sexual freedom and emotional/financial stability. For example, we may instead embrace a polyamory reform movement, in which individuals engage in more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved, with the communal raising of children. A handful of people in our society already embrace this legally unrecognized lifestyle. Unfortunately, it seems impossible that this solution would be recognized by the legal system within the foreseeable future, because it would be a radical toppling of our existing institution. | | | | |
<
< | So, how can we help a lawyer fulfill this duty? | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | One possible method of helping a lawyer fulfill his responsibility to society is to make the bar license contingent on a mandatory number of pro bono hours. This system could require that a certain percent (e.g., 5%) of the attorney’s billable hours per year, up to a hard cap maximum (e.g., 100 hours), be dedicated to pro bono work. After all, it seems only fair that society’s permission to practice law is conditioned on a lawyer’s continued willingness to uphold the tenets of his field. | >
> | While a “solution” to marriage may not be easily discovered or immediately accepted by society, we have an obligation to fully consider the extent of each choice’s consequences. It is only through this inquiry that we will ever be able to intelligently explore alternatives that may, in the long run, be better for our own individual circumstances, and perhaps even societal stability. |
|
|
AlexHuSecondPaper 1 - 14 Apr 2009 - Main.AlexHu
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
I accidentally posted the edit of my own paper here; I will replace it with my edit when it is finished.
When Ignorance Is Blameworthy
-- By AlexHu - 14 Apr 2009
This paper was revised as part of the second-paper assignment
Why is the layman ignorant of the law?
The layman is often ignorant of both the state of the law and how it functions in reality. Two major factors give rise to this ignorance: fear and apathy.
The layman’s fear of the law stems from his recognition of its enormous coercive power. The law can be abused to wreak havoc upon unfortunate have-nots (those who have lost the lottery), twisted to execute personal vendettas or prejudices, and cleverly manipulated by an elite few to destroy the life of practically any individual. Faced with these stark realities, the layman, like the primitive man who is terrified, trapped, or baffled, turns to magic as a way of coping. Thus, he chooses to believe that there is some “function” upon which the law utilizes to scientifically arrive at the “truth.” This belief serves as the tranquilizer that keeps the layman in an ignorant but relatively blissful state.
The layman’s apathy stems from the reality that governs his existence. Firstly, a detailed understanding of the law is impractical for the layman. The law is highly intricate and arcane, often difficult to understand even by the lawyer, much less the layman who has to perfect another craft to make his living. Secondly, as Professor Murphy noted in his paper, The Lawyer and the Layman: Two Perspectives on the Rule of Law, “most citizens have little conscious contact with the law.” This alienation makes the law somebody else’s problem in the eyes of the layman. Together, these factors create a formidable barrier between the layman and the law, resulting in the apathy that leads to ignorance.
The layman’s ignorance is dangerous, but not blameworthy
As it is ultimately the layman who enacts statutes and elects politicians through his vote, his ignorance of what the law actually does is dangerous, because his uninformed decisions may inadvertently inflict harm upon himself and his society in general. However, for the layman, ignorance of the law is hardly more blameworthy than not thinking about how all the food gets into New York City and all the garbage gets out of it. The layman is confronted with enormous barriers in simply understanding the system; it would be absurd to expect him to somehow gain the mastery necessary to contribute knowledgeably and helpfully to it.
However, even a lawyer may be ignorant of the law
A lawyer, too, may be ignorant of the law; similar to the layman, his ignorance also stems from fear and apathy.
A lawyer is not immune to a fear of the coercive power of the law. He too, would like to believe that the law utilizes some sort of scientific function to arrive at the truth. This belief is so powerfully comforting that even a lawyer, who should know the true nature of the law, is tempted by its wiles.
A lawyer is likewise not immune to the apathy stemming from the reality that governs his existence. A lawyer has to make a living and sustain the lifestyle that he desires; while he is in constant contact with the law, he only needs to contact that law upon which he can make a living. Like Urquart implies, he needs only to find a pool of money and attach himself to it.
Unfortunately, these factors often result in a lawyer who is so distant from the law that he is effectively as ignorant as the layman.
Unlike the layman, a lawyer’s ignorance is morally blameworthy
A lawyer’s ignorance of the law is unjustifiable.
Indeed, accepting the nature of the law is frightening; the law is a cruel mistress, often twisted, harsh, and unjust. But for a lawyer to deny this burden in favor of comfortable ignorance is reprehensible; in choosing to become a lawyer, he has voluntarily dedicated himself to be an effective practitioner of the law. However, a lawyer cannot be effective if he shields himself from the true nature of what he claims to practice. Simply put, if the lawyer refuses to acknowledge the harsh reality of the law, he will perpetually remain the novice lawyer in Robinson’s Metamorphosis and do his field a grave disservice.
Likewise, a lawyer’s apathy for the law is inexcusable. The ignorant layman has entrusted in the lawyer the ultimate responsibility of working with, crafting, and understanding the law, and the lawyer has voluntarily accepted this responsibility. The lawyer is the only person in society who has the requisite understanding, knowledge, and power to change the law. He cannot pretend that he has another craft to learn or that the law doesn’t directly affect him. He cannot say that the law is somebody else’s problem. Yet, as we see in Jansen, Urquart, Voorhees, and Wylie, he often pawns his license in exchange for a purportedly stable and luxurious lifestyle.
Thus, whether arising out of apathy, fear, or a combination of the two, a lawyer’s ignorance stems from selfish motives and abuses the honorable practice of law, making his ignorance blameworthy.
A lawyer has the duty to know
A lawyer, entrusted with the heavy burden as caretaker of the law, has the duty, not only to his career and to himself, but to society in general, to know the law by facing its challenges earnestly and courageously. The best way for a lawyer to fulfill this duty is to be actively involved in the promulgation of justice: fixing the law when it is unjust, broken, or harmful to society. Yet, lawyers are mere mortals, and it would be uncharitable to completely fault the many who put their selfish objectives before their obligations to society.
So, how can we help a lawyer fulfill this duty?
One possible method of helping a lawyer fulfill his responsibility to society is to make the bar license contingent on a mandatory number of pro bono hours. This system could require that a certain percent (e.g., 5%) of the attorney’s billable hours per year, up to a hard cap maximum (e.g., 100 hours), be dedicated to pro bono work. After all, it seems only fair that society’s permission to practice law is conditioned on a lawyer’s continued willingness to uphold the tenets of his field. |
|
| Revision 2 | r2 - 16 Apr 2009 - 22:21:06 - AlexHu |
| Revision 1 | r1 - 14 Apr 2009 - 05:01:03 - AlexHu |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|