| | |
|
RohanGreyFirstPaper 4 - 21 Feb 2012 - Main.RohanGrey
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | At the outset, Solomon is presented with what appears to be an empirical question. There are three possible ways to interpret his response. The first is that Solomon decides it is impossible to empirically determine who the biological mother is. Consequently, he chooses the only non-arbitrary solution available to him: splitting the asset equally and dividing the proceeds. This interpretation fails, however, to explain Solomon's willingness to later overturn his decision in light of new empirical evidence. | |
<
< | The second is that Solomon decides it is possible to empirically determine who the biological mother is, but finds the evidence insufficient at the outset to make a decision either way and simply changes his mind later once presented with more evidence. This interpretation is equally unconvincing, since it fails to explain why the new evidence was dispositive to the question of biological maternity, or why Solomon chose not to investigate or cross-examine the women prior to making his initial decision. | >
> | The second is that Solomon decides it is possible to empirically determine who the biological mother is, but finds the evidence insufficient at the outset to make a decision either way. When later presented with additional evidence, he modifies his decision. This interpretation is equally unconvincing, since it fails to explain why the new evidence was dispositive to the question of biological maternity, or why Solomon chose not to investigate or cross-examine the women prior to making his initial decision. | | | The third interpretation is more nuanced. Rather than accepting a biological definition of motherhood, Solomon creates a new legal definition centered around care for the wellbeing of the child. He then tests this functional definition by threatening the life of the child in order to provoke observable reactions from the two women. The judicial feint works as intended, providing Solomon with sufficient evidence to conclude that the first woman does in fact care for the child, and hence is the rightful mother. This interpretation is persuasive because it coherently explains Solomon's actions and addresses both the epistemological and normative elements of lawmaking. | | | While the the inherent fallibility of mortal judges underscores the need for a healthy skepticism of the law, it is not cause to abandon faith in it entirely. Human law, unlike Solomon's law, is not based on a monolithic decision-maker. Instead, it consists of a myriad of actors with varying forms of discretionary lawmaking power, ranging from politicians and judges to law enforcement officials and the voting citizenry. These actors jostle against each other to preserve and expand their respective spheres of influence, creating a constant tension that self-regulates the system from the risks posed by any one individual or group. | |
<
< | The success of this self-regulation is conditional on the degree to which coercive power is diffused between the actors in the system. Luckily, no single actor in the real world possesses a Solomonesque monopoly over coercive power. Instead, every individual retains the fundamental freedom to oppose the legitimacy of laws they perceive to be unjust, either internally through democratic mechanisms or externally through acts of civil disobedience. | >
> | The success of this self-regulation is conditional on the degree to which coercive power is diffused between the actors in the system. Luckily, no single actor in the real world possesses a Solomonesque monopoly over human action. Instead, every individual retains the fundamental freedom to oppose the legitimacy of laws they perceive to be unjust, either internally through democratic mechanisms or externally through acts of civil disobedience. | | | | |
<
< | In light of this, perhaps the real hero of the parable is not Solomon at all but the mother, whose passionate rejection of his initial ruling forms the critical action of the story. On one level, it represents her willingness to resist authority in the face of genuine concern for the wellbeing of her child. On another, it represents a relatable action upon which Solomon is able to rely in order to make his final decision. Ultimately, these two levels of meaning blur together, inviting the broader conclusion that improvement of human judgment depends strongly on our capacity to cultivate empathy for others. | >
> | In light of this, perhaps the real hero of the parable in fact the mother, whose passionate rejection of Solomon's initial ruling forms the critical action of the story. On one level, this rejection represents a willingness to resist authority when it threatens the wellbeing of others. On another, it represents a relatable action upon which Solomon is able to rely in order to make his final decision. Ultimately, these two levels of meaning blur together, inviting the broader conclusion that the quality of human judgment depends on our collective capacity to cultivate empathy for others. | | | | |
<
< | (982 Words) | | |
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
| | |