Definitely speaking, the just laws are not made in the purpose of creating good and just citizens. However, law does influence the environment of a state, and therefore shapes the characteristics of its citizens. No matter how many years have passed, Lycophron’s view of law as “a surety to one another of justice” is always true. On the other hand, though the law “has no real power to make the citizens good and right” (Aristotle, A Definition of Justice), immoral behaviors are prohibited or restricted as a result of just laws pushing toward common senses of goodness, and a stable and secure society could thereby be established.
Such relation applies to our own time and place as well. For example, the modern legislative and judicial system of the United States was created to be a protective mechanism for civil rights including life, property and freedom. In case someone breaks the law, he or she would be punished and afterwards remind others to abandon similar guilty in their minds. If the United States has no law, then criminals and gangsters would dominate this nation; in the consequence, good and just citizens no longer exist because of accompanying psychological pollution with crimes.
Despite the law stands on the side of moral righteousness, the reality illustrates overwhelming difficulties confronted by a nation. To use laws to help make its citizens good and just, is the same as to utilize collars to maintain brute animals tame. Human beings should have their free will to make decisions. Forcing people to act and believe in certain rules and values is like brainwash. For example, the first emperor of Ming Dynasty of China, Zhu Yuanzhang, was a beggar. After seizing the power, he made extremely just laws to punish corrupted officials in the hope that the people could be changed to be good and just. However, his cruel methods of punishment such as peeling the skin spread hallucination in the country. In the contrast of his expectation, a lot of officials still made illegal money because of low income.
Moreover, laws inevitably represent the ruling class’s will, as mentioned in Plato’s masterpiece Republic-- justice is “the interest of the stronger.” In other words, justice itself is usually defined by the strongest, either with monetary or political power. In this case, the just laws must have real power to judge the most powerful person. A good instance would be the Watergate scandal. Although President Nixon attempted to distort the truth, he was unable to justify himself in front of the court. More specifically, the law is difficult to help make its citizens good and just, but the just law can put the rulers in cage.
Overall, the relationship between the law and the citizen’s moral value is indirect. Just laws could make just citizens, but it is very difficult. Instead of pursuing unattainable absolute fair society, the laws could only create an environment of relative justice, where good citizens are able to live.
I like your idea that the excessively severe punishment may bring bad effect on society and citizens. Indeed, the purpose of punishment is not to make people painful or fearful, instead, it is to make people think that the consequence after they committed a crime would be much worse than what they can get from the crime. After reasoning, the potential criminals will not continue to commit crimes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, personally I think that besides the law, religion belief can also help people be good and justice. So even without laws, not all the people will be bad and immoral, because there are other things that can restrict their behavior.
Truly a sound argument! Law is just a limitation of immoral behaviors,but not the measurement of justice. As Aristotle put it, which is consistent of Kant's view, justice consists of law but is not limited by law. Justice also includes virtue, and virtue is the original motivation of morality. Justice surpasses the law, thus the just law are not the guarantee to make just citizens.
ReplyDelete