Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Why do we follow the laws???
The idea proposed by Hart about how and why people follow the positive laws created by some legitimate sovereign, the Rule of Recognition, fails in my opinion, as does the Command Theory, to explain why people follow all laws. Instead of arguing against the Command Theory or the Rule of Recognition, I believe that positivists should be combining the two theories into one. It is very hard to explain why one would follow laws such as zoning ordinances based on the Command Theory, as the penalties are very minor, while the rewards are much more important. Conversely it is hard for me to see how or why people would follow a speed limit law because of the rights they are afforded by following that law, and not solely based on the fear of the sanction. While I can concede that we are allowed to drive and have a license because we follow the law, anyone you ask will say they follow the law because they are worried about getting a ticket. So again, I believe that it should not be an argument between the two theories of why people follow the laws, but instead they should be combined into one umbrella theory that allows for both the Command Theory and the Rule of Recognition to work together to explain individuals reasons for following the laws of society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As I explained in my post, I completely agree with you on the idea that people mostly follow the law to avoid getting sanctioned. However, I believe that it covers more like 90% of the reason why people follow laws rather than Role of Recognition. I don't think anyone follows the law because of any type of reward.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the above post that people mostly follow laws to avoid getting in trouble. I feel people mostly follow major laws to avoid jail time because people still break laws and dont care if they dont get in toruble. For example in NYC you can a get a ticket for jay walking but people do it all the time and dont care if they get in trouble.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all three of your comments on the power of sanctions, but I also believe that the concept of rewards from the law is a more inherent supposition intrinsic in all legal systems. For example, the reward for anti-theft laws is that their existence protects YOUR property as well as others' property from your encroachments. While people don't generally think about this on a daily basis, I believe it is part of the common understanding in the obedience to laws.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of combining the theories because they are obviously so connected to each other. That is why there are all of these arguments and debates about what law came from where and which is more valid. Because they are all connected and no one knows where one law ended and another began. The idea of people who share different values agreeing on a subject is clearly foreign to the supporters of these theories. I think it comes down to religion v. secularism. Natural Traditional Law is more religious and Positive Law is more secular. Positivists are just trying to separate the church from the state.
ReplyDeleteI kind of agree with your post but I still believe that some people follow the law in order to receive the benefits it provides. As to the issue of the speed limit would the benefits you receive be driving at a safe speed and not putting yourself or others at risk? It could easily be seen as just being followed to avoid sanction but there is an incorporationist aspect behind it.
ReplyDeleteRob, I liked how you mentioned the speed limit. I know that I follow the speed limit, because of previous tickets I have received. I learned the hard way.
ReplyDelete