I. INTRODUCTION
In Plato’s dialogue, Minos, Socrates identifies weaknesses with each view of legal philosophy in turn - faulting state law for creating “some decisions [that] are unjust, unworthy of law”; social order as law for “bring[ing] in all of social life,” and; law as just or right for ignoring the way in which “opinions differ.” When viewed through Socrates’ criticism, law as ‘state law’ offers the most compelling account for the paradox that is law’s elusive definition. The following arguments will be premised upon the concepts of unjust laws technically remaining law, despite the apparent lack of justice, and the weaknesses that Socrates identifies in law as social order and law as justice or right being more likely to persist when they are practically applied.
II. STATE LAW
First of all, though it is reasonable to expect that “law inherently contains an element of justice or right,” this does not mean that the element is a necessity for law to exist. A law being compatible with the moral views of the majority is preferable, but also likely to occur naturally in the most instances. Stating …show more content…
The remaining contenders, law as justice or right and law as social, lack the capacity to endure consistent practical application: law as justice or right due to the varying opinions on what justice entails and law as social order due to the fact that it encompasses a wide range of human interaction that can’t be equally regulated or enforced. Unlike the philosophies of law as justice or right and law as social order, state law can be practically applied. In addition, Socrates’ criticisms of it can be refuted, as the concept of a law not being considered valid due to ‘a lack of justice’ is a philosophical absurdity. Despite its perhaps negative implications, state law as law remains the most compelling account of what law truly
In Plato’s dialogue, Minos, Socrates identifies weaknesses with each view of legal philosophy in turn - faulting state law for creating “some decisions [that] are unjust, unworthy of law”; social order as law for “bring[ing] in all of social life,” and; law as just or right for ignoring the way in which “opinions differ.” When viewed through Socrates’ criticism, law as ‘state law’ offers the most compelling account for the paradox that is law’s elusive definition. The following arguments will be premised upon the concepts of unjust laws technically remaining law, despite the apparent lack of justice, and the weaknesses that Socrates identifies in law as social order and law as justice or right being more likely to persist when they are practically applied.
II. STATE LAW
First of all, though it is reasonable to expect that “law inherently contains an element of justice or right,” this does not mean that the element is a necessity for law to exist. A law being compatible with the moral views of the majority is preferable, but also likely to occur naturally in the most instances. Stating …show more content…
The remaining contenders, law as justice or right and law as social, lack the capacity to endure consistent practical application: law as justice or right due to the varying opinions on what justice entails and law as social order due to the fact that it encompasses a wide range of human interaction that can’t be equally regulated or enforced. Unlike the philosophies of law as justice or right and law as social order, state law can be practically applied. In addition, Socrates’ criticisms of it can be refuted, as the concept of a law not being considered valid due to ‘a lack of justice’ is a philosophical absurdity. Despite its perhaps negative implications, state law as law remains the most compelling account of what law truly