| | |
|
JessicaCohenFirstPaper 6 - 26 Feb 2010 - Main.JessicaCohen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Subsection A | |
<
< | update: 2/25 A.M.
I spoke with a few other students . But if you work for yourself, you'll never amount to anything. We'll have to work within institutions to get anything done (at least at first). When I think of "not pawning my license," I think of true economic and job freedom, i.e. I would choose my clients -- but you can't get much done without others. obvious?
Moglen's "how to change the world" video - know what you want and know how to get it. | | | | |
<
< | I once had a
Reminded me of Randolph Bourne's Twilight of Idols. It is possible for pragmatists to become too bogged down in the "process" and lose sight of their overarching aims. Thought constantly in class, while reading Holmes/Cohen etc about the "consequences" of legal decisions, and grew exceedingly frustrating with Formalism. Constitutional Law was painful. But...how do we know the consequences are good? What do we ideally want to come out of a decision? The goodness/badness of each of these consequences needs to have some underlying set of values. Of course the same | >
> |
Legal realism People like . Cohen writes, "...I think that creative legal thought will more and more look behind the traditionally accepted principles of 'justice' and reason' to appraise in ethical terms the social values at stake in any choice between two precedents." This view seems just a tad circular: we need to know the social values underlying the decision in order to make the decision. Perhaps these aren't Sunday school values" for everyone - I certainly hope they are not - but . Of course the same thing can be said when comparing utilitarianism and deontology. The title "Transcendental Nonsense" .
All of this discussion of real life consequences reminded me of Randolph Bourne's Twilight of Idols. It is possible for pragmatists to become too bogged down in the "process" and lose sight of their overarching aims. Thought constantly in class, while reading Holmes/Cohen etc about the "consequences" of legal decisions, and grew exceedingly frustrating with Formalism. Constitutional Law was painful. But...how do we know the consequences are good? What do we ideally want to come out of a decision? The goodness/badness of each of these consequences needs to have some underlying set of values. Of course the same | | | In "Twilight of Idols,"
here's where Bourne comes in. | | | - skeptical/malicious/ironical - because can't face American life faceon- it's too bad. | |
<
< | OTHER IDEA
Thurman Arnold - selection from "Symbols of Government" and the modern law firm
Notes:
What does it mean that Arnold, when headed anti-trust division, favored regulation of big business rather than the breaking up of monopolies?
"new social philosophy" - man "only works for his fellow man: - this tendency must be "curbed by law, ethics, and common sense - under "new creed" (default is ppl work for their fellow men) nervous about "well-meaning but impractical profit takers." sees this as dangerous in places like germany/russia/italy - people are fanatical about working for others.
new "abstract man" (one who works for other people besides himself) is arising out of "confusion instead of revolution" - gov't is now obligated to be charitable - when charity and govt used to be totally separate. grew out of the depression - by necessity gov't had to do good.
formerly - adam smith - said people wouldnt work as hard for a corporation as they would for themselves -- (b/c of self-interest) - now, great class of "technicians and experts" are concerned w/ disributing wealth/social "bookkeping. this whole idea of men working for others is a myth - "society is composed of all sorts of people and each individual ia whole cast of characters in himself" - "the value...of anmn [economic] philosophy can only be judged by the value of tghe governing class whose power it suports" - the hope of the "humanitarian economic creed" - is that the social values will be accepted and taken up by people.
social injustice/justice need each other to exist.
"THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE MEMBERS OF AN ENTIRE GOVERNING CLASS, BOTH GOOD AND BAD, SHOULD BE THROWN OUT OF PWOER SIMPLY B/C POPULAR IDEAS HAVE UNDERGONE A CHANGE" - but at the same time - prestige of entire groups are "tied up with a set of usages whose continuiance is regarded as a matter of fundamental principle" - this is how inept people are in power.
choice between "naive faith and principles" and "cynical denial of the validity of principle" is a force one-constitution can be uniting
ADULT PERSONALITY comes in - what is this?
- tolerance
- common sense
- not always coldly rational
- dont have to "swing" between clarity and total disillusionment
"so long as preconceived principles are considered more important than practical results, the practical alleviation of human distress and the distribution of available comforts will be paralyzed"
- legal journalism in the NYT/new yorker/etc
- robinson is not a hero
- law school as trade school/columbia?
- formalism/legal realism parallels in life/other fields --> thurman arnold --> myths keep society afloat (formalism uses micro-myths) | | | Subsub 1 |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |