|
|
|
|||||
|
I thought I would speak today about the relationship between law and morality. Several days ago, the administration stated that while they were sympathetic to the issue of living wages, their hands were tied due to legal considerations. I also heard reference, once again, to the importance of "rule of law" in this country. As a teacher of Chinese history, I have a somewhat different perception of this phrase. In 19th century China, the western notion of "rule of law" was, to many, incomprehensible insofar as that term implies a dominance of the letter of law over its spirit. In Imperial China, codified law was regarded first and foremost as an embodiment of moral principles to which both government and the governed were expected to abide. In fact, the very purpose of law was to ensure that everyone behaved in ways consistent with moral principles. It was, in part, when government departed from these culturally embedded notions of justice that the state rapidly lost legitimacy in the late 19th century. Same thing today. At the same time that the state stresses "rule of law" as a means of gaining legitimacy on the international stage, capitalist development is throwing millions out of work and resulting in miserable working conditions for millions more. More and more people there believe that the achievements of social justice brought about by decades of struggle are now being abandoned. Rule of law is an admirable aspiration, especially insofar as it serves as a check against arbitrary political power and oppression. Yet at the same time we must not forget that law is there to serve the people, not the other way around, and that to remain just, law must be consistent with those values and ideals to which we as a society aspire. Otherwise law becomes little more than legalized oppression. Bradly W. Reed (electronic mail, April 21, 2006)
|
