A Note on Using Comments

So far the posts and comments look pretty good. I simply wanted to offer a sample/instructional post for those of you who might not understand what's expected of you when leaving comments.

First, the comments should be used to address particular points in a given post. You are free to write a more systematic response to posts, but it would be best to do this by contributing a new post that links back to the original. For instance, I would like to illustrate the judicious use of quotation to isolate a particular point in Hirsh and Ryan's exchange, here. Hirsh's comment to Ryan's post identifies a particular claim using quotation and after summarizing the point, draws the distinction that motivated his comment,

"But with internal forces ruling law and punishment change is inevitable, and in law that which varies from the traditional, and allows a case to not be viewed as a whole, but rather viewed as an individual, advances us towards true fairness, towards justice."


I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of external and internal law- but I don't believe a legal system based solely and exclusively on internal law necessarily moves a society towards justice.

After that, Hirsh elaborates his point using other examples. At 237 words, including quotation, Hirsh's elaboration almost qualifies as its own post. Of course, the word count is just a guideline, but I think this comment could go either way since it constructs an ongoing analysis of Ryan's position using multiple reference points.

Second, it's also a good idea to respond to the thread of an argument. In the exchange we've been discussing, there seems to be some question of how internal law relates to external law. Hirsh describes an ideal relationship in which,

the two could co-exist though I personally believe that's not a viable possibility.

Then Ryan concurrs with Hirsh's pessimism and describes the transition from internal to external government,

It's like you said, "If political capital is consolidated in a chosen few, internal laws can easily be modified to provide greatest benefit to those in power and exploit the weak." I however would see this consolidation as a shift from the laws being truly internal, to an almost external status.

From these comments, we might wonder how this discussion of internal and external law compares to the vision of natural law offered by Cicero in Brian Bix's article on Natural Law Theory,

We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangable law will be valid for all nations and all times . . . (224)

It would seem that for Cicero, the permanence of natural law's relation to positive or internal law is what makes it valuable. No matter what "the senate or people" come up with, natural law will serve as a standard for criticism when, as they always do, positive and natural (internal and external) laws diverge.

In closing, I apologize for offering a long comment after warning against long comments, but the point of commenting is to try to pick up on the thread of a discussion in order to offer a word or idea that will move the entire effort forward. Sometimes it will take more than 100 words, but at other times, you might be starting a new discussion, which would benefit from a new post altogether.