Judicial Rhetoric Analysis

The study of Law and the process of Judicial Rhetoric are two concepts that have been around since the days of Aristotle. While both have transitioned with time, the core of both of them have stayed the same. Where there is law, there has to be some sort of Judicial process. This procedure is how justice is administered and the Truth is upheld in society. You cannot look at one of these ideas without the other. In fact, in order to better understand this analysis there are a two terms that need a clear definition. One of which is Law and the other is Truth. Once a good description of both are explicated. Then a clear illustration of how they work together may be seen. The first part of this paper will define both of them and then offer how …show more content…
The simple answer to this question is, a system of rules set forth by a governing body to keep order. However, Law for the purpose of this paper is a little more complicated than that. In order to understand Law, one has to know where it came and the elements that is comprised of. Jurisprudence was first “introduced” by the ancient Greeks in order to make themselves standout as a more civilized society. I use the term, introduced loosely because Law was around before the Greeks, they were just the first to give the label salience. Greek Law had three distinct elements: First, was the need for a city, secondly were written rules laid out to seek justice, and finally the absence of an actual trial. Two of these components are seen in today 's definition of law; which is more along the lines of Aristotelian Law. This form of Law is summed up as “Natural Law” or more commonly, “the Law of Nature”.Meaning, as citizens we have natural rights in a society. By that the government has a duty to protect those rights. Although, a few of these elements are present in our current system. The system that Western Law is based off according to notable legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart in his book, The Concept Of Law, is that of “John Austin’s Imperative Theory.”(VI) This theory is one that consists of three parts that differ slightly from that of Greek/Aristotelian Law and those as stated by Austin are, “A Command, A Sovereign, and A Sanction” or more easily translated to a …show more content…
Is it just a simple five letter word that means Or better yet, what is the difference between truth and capital T truth? Does one have more prominence than the other? Or are they both the similar, with various different elements? The concept of morality and absolute Truth are concepts that are among many debated by philosophers since the days of Aristotle. The simple understanding of truth is something that is fact. However, the idea of [T]ruth is a little more complex. Starting with Aristotle, Truth for him was relative to the current situation. It is from divinity that Capital Truth is embedded in us a species. Truth needs to be in the here and the now. That is, it does not apply to the future. That being said, it does apply to past; which is the reason that it is so imperative to Law. Truth then can in fact be about certain facts. Things that have happened or are happening. This is were the debate about morality comes into play. For Aristotle, Truth was more about being moral; which is more than can said of our next interpretation from that of German Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche argues in his essay titled, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, that “truth” is what we as humans give an object with words. In other words, what “we” as humans hold to be true. As humans we like to assimilate and stick together, so in relation to this logic. If we call a mouse a mouse, it is in fact a mouse, because we all know it to be a mouse. Therefore,