Luke Reilly Personal Introduction

I want to learn the reasons that legal structures and rules and decisions exist. I want to understand why this or that result happened. Hopefully, this will allow me to work to solidify the laws I find just, and change the others.

-- LukeReilly - 29 Jan 2015

In what way do you imagine yourself "solidifying" law?

I can help you learn why "legal structures and rules and decisions exist." Let's start with a simpler and equally useful question: Why do table manners exist?

Laws are solidified by continued application, support, and justification. If, as we've discussed, laws need to make sense in present contexts and for present reasons, then it follows that current laws that we find desirable may required new justification. It may be that a law does not serve the purposes it once did, yet should still be law. It then requires something new to support it.

Table manners exist for a few reasons, depending on the manner in question.

• First, some exist to prevent actions that often disgust others. Example: Don't chew with one's mouth open. Keep your napkin in your lap.
• Second, some exist as signs of respect towards others. Examples: Don't use your cell phone at the table. Wait until the host/hostess has eaten before you begin.
• Third, some exist to ensure that everybody does the same thing for logistical purposes. Example: Keep your bread plate on your left and your drink on your right.
• Finally, some seem to have no reason at all that I can discern. Example: In the US, you switch your fork after cutting and before eating (a piece of chicken for example).

This last one serves as an excellent example of my point. I hate that rule. I was taught it all through my childhood, and it never made the slightest bit of sense to me. In fact, it seems more efficient to keep your fork in your off hand and your knife in your dominant hand, as it avoids all the switching nonsense. [Sidenote: if anybody has a good reason for that rule, I'd love to hear it.]

I consider understanding the purpose behind rules a necessary prerequisite to potentially changing them. The rule against chewing with one's mouth open exists to ensure that your actions won't upset others. I understand why this rule exists and it makes sense. I have no desire to change it. The switch-your-fork rule is senseless (to me). I want to change/ignore it.

Similarly, when there are legal rules that are senseless to me, or which have effects that I consider unjust in various ways, I find myself wanting to change them. To do this, I feel I need to understand why the rule came into being in the first place.

-- LukeReilly - 05 Feb 2015

Thanks for the interesting thread.

The rule you are concerned with, switching your fork before cutting and before eating, seems harmless to me, even if annoying. Why are you so motivated to change it? It seems trivial in comparison to rules that are flagrantly harmful, such as rules that further discrimination or oppression. In any case, a social explanation for its existence can potentially be found: it operates as a signaling mechanism, allowing other members in society to know whether a given member is of a certain standing or not. Presumably, it is only "civilized" or "proper" members of society who abide by this rule.

On another point, I think the "why" question you are primarily interested in actually subsumes two different questions: (1) What are the historical/social factors that explain why a given rule is currently in existence? (2) What are the normative/moral considerations that justify why a given rule ought to remain in existence (or be abolished)?

-- AbdallahSalam - 13 Feb 2015

But even if the rule in question truly serves primarily as a signaling mechanism among the cultural elite, why does it necessarily follow that it is harmless? I assume we are all at least minimally concerned with reducing barriers to upward mobility. So if it is true that a failure to "fork-switch" keeps the poor person out of country clubs or white collar jobs, should it not warrant critical discussion?

Perhaps Luke's point is representative of a much larger problem in Western society - the unnecessary convolution of subliminal modes of human interaction (eg. grammar, table manners, gestures, etc.) for the purpose of enforcing class stratification. You would be correct that this is not as flagrant a problem as compared to, say, laws that outlaw homosexuality. Still, it may be unlikely that Luke will be visiting the Ugandan president any time soon. He could, however, change how he uses his fork in social settings.

Which brings me to your final point. If Luke is committed to the belief that fork-switching is silly rule, the operative question has less to do with the rule's origin or justification and more with how (and whether or not) to effectuate an alternative regime. Perhaps Luke can consciously alter his fork-switching behavior in the interest of change, but would doing so jeopardize his other career and personal goals?

-- ShayBanerjee - 13 Feb 2015