The Letter of the Law Vs. the Spirit of the Law: Common Sense
76
The Pharisees:
In the New Testament, Pharisees are seen as people who place the
letter of the law above the spirit (Mark 2:3–28, 3:1–6). The word "Pharisee" has remained in our language as one who does
so. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Pharisee with one of the meanings as "A person of the spirit or character commonly attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament; a legalist or formalist." It is only used in the prejorative sense.
The Spirit of the Law:
|
The Laws of Spirit: A Tale of Transformation
Price: $5.70
List Price: $10.95 |
|
The Spirit of Laws (Great Books in Philosophy)
Price: $11.45
List Price: $17.98 |
|
Montesquieu: The Spirit of the Laws (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)
Price: $8.97
List Price: $30.99 |
|
The Spirit Of American Law: An Anthology
Price: $4.00
List Price: $45.00 |
"Instead of trying to write the perfect rule book we hire intelligent people to interpret the situation and apply common sense - in most cases."
Bad of me, but I stole the above quote from somebody's blog. I don't know precisely what the blog was about--it was something to do with sports or fairness in the workplace, I believe. Yet, it all seems to boil down to exactly the point made in the quote when understanding situations where a sense of this distinction is needed.
One of my favorite books and stage productions has always been "Les Miserables," the story of Jean Valjean and his road to redemption during the French Revolution by the author Victor Hugo. It fascinates me because, in essence, it is an examination of the nature of truth and law as applied to humanity and society as a whole. Because when it comes down to it, good judgment and critical analysis are very sociological skills...we cannot pretend to remove ourselves from the equation.
The character of Valjean may indeed be taken as the symbol of universal "natural" man, struggling in an amoral world beset with poverty, disease, disillusion, and political upheaval. The scope is indeed grand, but the story is universal and known to us all.
Valjean's foil is a character called Javert, a guard at the prison where Valjean was incarcerated, and a police inspector later on in the novel when Valjean has reclaimed his life helped by the grace of others who led him toward a just path (whether it is in actuality a Christian idea or not, the concept of this grace is inherent in the story).
Javert plagues Valjean; hunts him. The film and the book versions differ, but the plot is the same in that Valjean's initial crime was a petty theft. Yet Javert is bound, by the letter of the law and all it portends, to pursue Valjean even after it is obvious that the once 'sinner' or rule breaker has been redeemed a thousandfold and when most other souls, truth be known, blessed with common sense, perhaps would understand the nature of the 'lawlessness' as applied to a starving man stealing a crust of bread so that he might eat.
Javert pursues Valjean to the extent that he causes his own death, jumping into the river Seine when he finally understands that his following the 'law' (or the letter of the law) has made him immoral and that he IS the evil he would prosecute.
On a light note, the scene where Javert jumps into the river to drown himself (on stage, amid a dark star filled and reflected sky, which is so well done) always reminds me philosophically of that scene in the 80's movie "War Games," when the computer is desperately trying to 'logically' figure out a way to win a tick tack toe game for the destruction of the world. No way to do it. The only logical way to win, is NOT to play the game (by the precise rules, all the time, I would add).
Of course, following the letter of the law is done for various reasons.
Sometimes it is done because some people have the personality type of a Javert--rule bound, rigid, and not cognizant of deeper truth. Sometimes the letter of the law (only) is followed, also, because people are lazy and it is simply easier to understand the surface of things than to get involved or to hurt your brain going a little deeper. Sometimes, the letter of the law is followed because an organization or a system of laws has become so large or so byzantine that nothing BUT the letter of the law can be followed due to lack of resources or the ability to interpret the rules.
Sometimes it is followed because squeaky wheels are the only ones heard amid an atmosphere too disordered or too large for moderators, law makers, or law enforcement to actually do their job.
****************
The word "law" originally referred to legislative statutes, but now the term can be used to refer to a rule of any kind. The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic opposite. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, they are obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not the intent of a law. When one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law, he or she is doing what the the law was intended for, though not necessarily adhering to the literal.
Intentionality in following the letter of the law, but not the spirit may be accomplished in our legal, social and work world by exploiting technicalities, loopholes, or any ambiguous language. An example of this might be, arcane knowledge of setbacks on a city lot; somebody understanding a loophole in the rules might be able to build a structure that is larger than what the space actually allows for or what the city planning and zoning laws actually call for.
Another example of this could be found in a legal definition of harassment. A law or rule might state that harassment consists of aggressive or attack-oriented verbal remarks toward another person. Simple enough, if aggression always followed a pattern of literal and simple disparaging remarks as attacks or harassment. More difficult if someone is intent on gaming the system, which is the following of the letter—over, or contrary to—the spirit of the law.
It is used in a negative fashion as a deliberate way to manipulate the rules to achieve a personal advantage. Usually, it also means the proponent of such a game acting in an antisocial, irritating or harassing manner, all the while technically staying within the bounds of the rules or the law.
It probably is no surprise to political junkies, either, that Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the "Letter v. Spirit" debate. Modern Constitutional interpretation divides among the lines of 'Living Constitution' scholars advocating a 'spirit of the law' interpretation strategy Vs. Originalist or Textualists, who advocate a more "'letter of the law'-based approach.
So. What does it all mean? Is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law debate indeed a political discussion where each side (we would like to think...or at least our spin-induced press would brainwash us to believe) has equal say? Is it a question of the ability to use critical thinking skills and analysis? Or iIs it common sense and good judgment?
It is said that one of Shakespeare's favorite themes was the letter of the law v. spirit of the law debate. This can be seen in The Merchant of Venice, notably through the character of Shylock, bound on extracting his "pound of flesh," which is his due to him by his Old Testament law. Shakespeare doesn't leave it so one-dimensional, however, as many interpretations show a portrayal of Shylock as a sympathetic and tragic figure--as a tormentor himself, he is also a tormented character.
Perhaps one, if the characters all met in some kind of literary cross-cultural salad, that Jean Valjean would forgive; whereas Javert would aim to destroy--as much as the letter of the law would allow.
On Philosophy of Law:
The Letter of the Law Vs. the Spirit of the Law: Common Sense in the News
- WORD OF THE DAY: Obey Him In The Little ThingsEurweb1 second ago
*Have you ever wanted to take on some really big project in the kingdom of God, but the Lord just wouldn't seem to let you? If so, there's probably a good reason why.
- Union OKs furloughs to spare law enforcement jobsWaterloo-Cedar Falls Courier3 hours ago
DES MOINES - A union representing state law enforcementofficials announced Tuesday that its membership had approved a planfor five unpaid days off to avoid layoffs.
- The spirit of this season: Be thankful, spend lessUSA Today8 hours ago
Recession has forces Americans' holiday season to reflect "a culture of frugality."
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
thoughtful hub -- got me thinking! With the recent Supreme Court nomination, now is the time to be realizing that we hire judges so that we don't have to make difficult decisions. We get into serious debates with each other because some of us believe in creative application of "case by case" interpretation of the spirit of the law, while others, like Javert (we suspect), are afraid of such creativity. There is no justice in blind adherence to rules.
That's why I often land in the dwang as I never just follow the rules, I question them and see how far I can go!
Thought provoking. I think the root of the problem is the inherent inadequacy of language to express thought. Thank you for this well written article.
Thanks for making me realise there are important things I never think about.
Hi, Sufi-- And thanks. Yes, I'm hoping the message got across, but you never know, ;). Maybe too subtle, although the characterization, among other things, has been mentioned before.
I know exactly what you are talking about as far as the company analogy. I've also worked in such places...maybe even now at this point in my life. The constantly reaching for more and new and any at all 'customers' often backfires, and they do indeed alienate their customer base, which essentially are paying their salaries. Not bright!
Though I do know, working in PR, that one response to criticism is to just ignore it. The trick here, though, is in realizing that you can ignore and indeed should not inflame a situation which really means nothing, but you also need to know when and how to address situations that are valid problems or issues.
Oh, well. You know, we know a dot.com millionaire in Phoenix. lol. Matt, my partner, designed his house. He sold his company after it became too large....:) Now he just owns a lot of antique cars at the age of 39.
Teresa-- I completely agree with your opinion concerning the spirit of the law. And we are somewhat in good company, according to my research. That includes Shakespeare (who obviously was a genius with letters) and the authors of the New Testament (if, that is, one does not read it literally, lol). You are completely right about creativity.
Tom-- Hmmm. I think you are on to something, although I'm with (I think it was, if I remember) Lacan, who posited that language is thought. I suppose saying that is saying it is very important to acquire excellent verbal skills--including analytical skills.
Gypsy-- :) Every once in a while, I've got to take a break from my photo hubs you know. lol. Thank you for coming by to read and I hope it was thought provoking.
Sounds to me like you are just an upstart. You should behave and not stir things up so much.
I love your addition of Shakespeare in your comment. In my mind he was a genius at sticking to the letter, while getting away with murdering the law.
Wonderful and deeply thoughtful hub.
Great job, Lita. I'm a huge fan of Les Miz too, and I love your sober discussion of the letter of the law vs. spirit. We need lots more "spirit" followers and way less "letter" followers. And it's not just an issue with things of great scope either, but also in small little corners everywhere, like...I dunno...it was on the tip of my tongue!
Papermoon-- Ooo. Upstart. And is that a bad thing? I know, I shouldn't stir the pot, :(. I did try not to for the longest time, really. And actually, I think you are right about Shakespeare...what an example.
Chris-- Great scope...Well, sounds like the scope might be getting bigger. Or they want it to get bigger. I heard that somewhere! Con't rightly remember whar! But of course I agree with you about 'spirit' followers. Otherwise, with 'letter' types, what would "Birnum Wood" and "not of woman born," ie, have meant??
Thanks, both for stopping by, :).
As an upstart in my book, you get 5 stars!
Thanks, Paper Moon. I like your recent forum post about health care, btw, ;).
Hi. Logical take on an interesting debate.
Thank you for the comment, anton I.
unfortunately I don't "enjoy" the semantic disussion of letter vs. spirit because it just means that inequities are happening everyday on purpose perpetrated by people who know the intent and blatently choose to ignore it for profit which sets legal precedence. Intellectual liberals sit around saying "that is interesting...How thought provoking...we need to advance our abilities to understand the spoken word... and I love Les Mis" People victimized by these overpaid charlatans don't have that luxury and meanwhile these legal precedents are destroying this country.
Hi, elb. I really don't think that this sort of 'semantic discussion' is limited to intellectual liberals, lol, who sit around all day discussing how to understand the spoken word. FYI, to clue you in, this essay was written in response to an actual situation concerning, oh, a company we may all be familiar with, and their practices. Being able to fully understand the intent and purpose of language, rules and laws is the only way to combat the sort of victimization you are talking about. And this situation doesn't always happen 'on purpose,' either. I continue to be shocked at some people's lack of analytical skills. I guess, a) I see this as a very non liberal/conservative issue, and b) I've heard that the pen is mightier than the sword, as most writers might hope, ;), hence the production of this hub. ....so you see, it wasn't really about enjoyment, lol. And thank you for your comment.
Hi Lita--What a timely hub! I find it ironic that many of the current 'letter of the law' types in Congress are backed by a right wing Christian base--you know, Christianity, the religion with the major savior figure who came to promote 'truth and spirit' over the letter of the law. Jesus made kind of a big deal about how he wasn't about overturning Jewish law but rather infusing it with spirit, compassion, and common sense. I also notice that Americans often appeal to 'letter of the law' arguments when trying to stop the extension of rights that seem clearly implied when the spirit of the law is taken into account.
danny8, thanks...I'll check you out soon, :).
Pam--thanks. And of course I absolutely agree. And the Christianity thing is absolutely ironic...those 'types' certainly are not true Christians, but as Andrew Sullivan says, 'Christianists.' I stay out of that fight and, lol, away from the religion forums, because frankly, they exasperate and rather scare me--that much literal thinking is very hard for me to fathom. They are welcome to think in such a fashion, sure, as long as yep, they aren't infringing on others' rights. Gay marriage might just be one of those areas. I still do not know what the extension of those rights would threaten.
very inspirational hub. thanks for share. great hub
Thank you prasetio, for reading.
Thanks for this excellent piece. I find discussions on the rule law interesting, fascinating and quite amusing at times. People who do not think enough about the origins of rules, almost seem to think that laws are things that have a life of their own or that they came down form on high or that they exist as some part of the world aside from the thoughts of man man. They forget that a law is nothing more than precept organized by someone with an agenda, and agreed up and ratified by a class of like minded individuals.
No laws are inherently right or wrong except by certain standards that the mind of man gives to them. If enough people get together and make a decision about it, a law that was once a strict guideline for all to follow, can become immoral and void forever.
Before we can have a system of laws that are not immoral, we must have some group of people to create them that are somehow immune to immorality.
Anyway, nice discussion piece.
Thank you, Rainshadow, for the comment. I agree with you, absolutely. It's kind of strange when things become so codified into a culture that some don't even question rules or laws. I'd also say, the Javerts of this world, who seem incapable of thought beyond a rigid structure, are probably some of my least favorite people around.
I would like to think, however, that the spirit of some universals, that which have been handed down through out history, do represent (at least in intent) the best of and in us. And within the INTERPRETATION lies the shadows of immorality... But I'm sure you are actually right about immorality at times being present in the creation of a system of laws, too.
Law
Thou Shalt Not Kill
Definition or meaning of the word -Kill
Kill - slay,murder,assainate,execute,deprive of life
One of the above definitions is definitely obscure,and all the others can be defined to mean something altogether different from the intended meaning of the writer..
Deprive of life - could mean something other than what the words strict interpetation was originally intended.It can be loosely associated with being alive ,yet not living a life worth living. .
This is where confusion in the meanings of definitions stem.
Fortunately or unfortunately the definition of a particular word can mean something different under different circumstances depending on what the writer intends for it to mean.
You've probably seen legal documents especially online in the terms of service section at the bottom of any website that has one.Well if you read them you probably have come across
one or two that have sections where they define the meaning of the words in their terms of service to either make it crystal clear,or unintelligable as to the meaning they are trying to impress upon you.You need a lawyer to understand it ,unless you are a lawyer which most of us arn't,although there seems to be an unusally large number of lawyers in the UnitedStates.Some say they are the ones ruling the rest of us.Through their legal jargon,which seems intended for an Elitist group to be sure.
This why the founding fathers intended for us to be a Republic.In a Republic whatever laws are passed the people always have the right to judge the law as well as a defendant in a case. In a pure Democracy this would not nessarily be the case but those who made the law can change the law.
It can be seen here that even in the definition of a word under the letter of the law is dependant on the words used in conjuntion with the word under scrutiny as to what was the intended meaning of the word
Yes. To all of that. And dare I say, obvious? Again, the concern with all this is where critical thinking skills come into play. And I don't really believe that lawyers are any kind of special breed. I guess perhaps that has come from dealing with them through my jobs and business transactions. They are simply people who are good with language, both in its written and oral form who are hired to interpret or represent. Nothing that those with similar skills could not perform with training. I suppose the fact that they have close access to the creation and interpretation of laws and seem to some to have power over 'the rest of us,' they have been termed elitist. Also, there was that movie, "The Devil's Advocate." lol
But absolutely, I know what you are saying... However, my lawyer is a decent person and has helped and served me well...saving me a lot of time and money. I was thankful for him. And if he wasn't all these things, I do have the power to fire him.
What it all boils down to, I believe, and as I'm thinking about what you are saying here...is that there is NO WAY around doing the work required, the thinking required, the perhaps innate wisdom required to interpret ANYTHING...be that the definition of a word, or a situation. As a poet/writer, I am aware that language is not as clean cut as simple math (but then they are finding there is no such thing AS simple math and science, either, ;)), but know that there are logical applications to the units of meaning in language, too (phonemes and morpheme), which is an inherent sense in native language speakers...and especially in those who are verbally gifted. This is not much discussed outside of linguistic classes.
And yeah, I know about the e-mail legal disclaimers. Had to write one recently, actually. They are there to protect the organization (supposedly) from any damages should somebody use e-mails someway against the company. Doesn't actually constitute anything...but is there sort of to scare people (at least in my organization, lol).
Bottom line: There has got to be a common sense, studied, intelligent, balanced approach to all this. I must say that this experience (and it wasn't just an essay written for a bunch of liberal elitists who like to talk about semantics as noted above) has given me a bit more respect for those advocates of comprehensible laws and limited 'government,' although I would argue that is not a true liberal/conservative fight as generally assumed, either.
Thanks for your comment, someonewhoknows. Made me think through this as it applies to politics a bit more. :)
one problem I can see is if the meaning of a word or combination of words is twisted around 180 degrees to somehow mean just the opposite of what was originally intended.
For example; Interpetation of scripture in the bible where it says (quote) "Those that have will be given more and those that have not will lose even what they have" is by itself impossible to interpet without some other guild line.
Without this guild line this quote can mean the exact opposite of what it was intended to mean by the writer.
If you are familiar with the quote and the story behind it as,written it was ment to mean that those who are good stewards of money will find a way to increase it and those who aren't will lose even what they have.
Now ,looking at the economy the way it is ,this statement could be interpeted differently with it meaning;
"Those who have more than enough will be given even more and those that have less than enough will lose even what little they have."
My personal belief is that the passage which talks about those who have will be given more and the association with individuals given a bag of money is either the money was given to bankers who lent it out or business men who used it to finance a business.The passage doesn't clarify who exactly is getting the money.But what is clear is that it was given with the intention of it being increased by whom ever recieved it.
In fact since it was a parable it could even be a reference to something of value other than money such as recieving knowledge or wisdom and increasing that.
Hi, Someonewhoknows, :) I'm just getting to this. Yes, of course. The old doublespeak propaganda method...or just loss of meaning. And then there are those who take things literally, absolutely. And isn't the interpretation of the bible just famous for that?
I find the intent of that biblical statement to be absolutely true. I think there is no doubt. Good stewards always have the tendency to create and increase anything...be it money, or anything else. I guess the question with the economy where it is in interpretation is about value judgments of people, too, politically. I have not problem understanding that there are greater and lesser people (although I would say that many...most..with serious issues are products of their environment and may never reach their full human potential). However, I believe in our humanity, we are all equal. Hard to explain fully here & briefly all I mean by that, but I believe being human comes with a certain set of human rights--that should be endowed to each and every person, regardless of status with money or anything else.
I don't have an issue understanding human nature (though I'd suggest it is more good than bad), or realizing that some are more motivated than others, etc., etc. All the traditional 'conservative' (supposedly) fall backs. I simply would not have the most vulnerable suffer--which I believe is very New Testament stuff.
Again, with interpretation of ANYTHING, I believe critical thinking skills--they used to call it wisdom (?) is imperative. And I am certain that since the statement is a parable it has a depth of meaning (which to me makes it richer).
Sufidreamer says:
4 months ago
Great Hub, Lita - I love Les Miserables, so the Hub was off to a good start. Not going to get into the whole constitution thing, because I don't understand it fully!
This whole thing reminds me of the time when I worked for a small chain of hardware stores. The company was extremely customer focused, and a joy to work for. They also encouraged initiative - the rules were a guide, and staff often used their judgment, especially when dealing with customer complaints. The company, unsurprisingly, did well - customers came back time and time again.
They were taken over by a venture capitalist group, and things changed. You had to follow the letter of the rules, even when you could see that a customer was in the right. Free thinking and intelligent staff were actively pushed out in favour of drones.
As you can imagine, alienating the loyal customer base was not a good thing - the company started to really struggle and cancel its expansion plans. How I laughed :D