[ql06] Re: PUBLIC: Civil liberties
- From: mark bumstead <2mab8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ql06@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 23:20:57 -0400
Ken, I'm a little rusty on Natural Law theory, so help me out here?
My understanding of Natural Law, and Natural Justice, is that they assert=20
that the outcome of any debate should be self evident, given that humans=20
have a set nature. The Court of Equity was meant to ensure "common sense"=
=20
prevailed where "common law" failed. It was an attempt to overcome some of=
=20
the bad decisions made early on that were binding precedents. It added to,=
=20
and acted outside, the remedies available through common law.
I take you to mean that Equity reflects a moral component. An objective=20
examination of a fact pattern, should reveal what is equitable in the=20
situation: what should happen morally.
But that is just a different vantage point on the question I asserted: the=
=20
good of the one, or the good of the many? The moral standard Equity is=20
judged by depends on whether you think the individual (Aristotle) or=20
society (Plato) is more important.
Mark
Open for correction on naturalis =E6quitas
>Mark... you seem to be constantly jumping around with definitions and
>arguments.
>
>Now you are using the word "equity" in a different sense... "fairness."
>
>Of COURSE all law is about fairness. And in that sense, of COURSE it
>shows up in every class, as each case chosen is about appeals and
>measuring fairness in specific scenarios.
>
>Saying the law is about fairness is like saying the Sun rises in the
>morning. Tautology.
>
>I introduced the word "equity" in a specific context. Stick to it, at
>least in the thread in which I introduced it.
>
>I made a very clear distinction between "equity" (naturalis =E6quitas) and
>your more dictionary-ish use of "fairness." And I used it in a specific
>instance of civil liberties (the thread name).
>
>Ken.
>
>--
>At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of
>any decision is emotional. The rational part of us
>supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections.
> -- William O. Douglas
> U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Other related posts:
