Just A Thought

[debka_notion]

I'm running off to mincha and class, but here's a cool thought. I was just reading about philosophy and law and their difference over the value of the idea of precedent. One of the theories brought is that precedent allows law to create an equality between people, because it would be unfair to give different responses to different people just because they happen to live at different times, and thus precedent creates a standing response to the same situation, so that time does not cause two otherwise parallel cases to be judged differently. Well, presuming that Torah is divine law, this fits beautifully with a view of G-d as being able to deal with time as a dimension like any other, i.e. for G-d to potentially be "outside" of time as we experience it, which is an idea that has always made a lot of sense to me.

Comments

[spazerrific.livejournal.com]

The problem with precedent (and common law in general...) is that it can be overturned. Well, depending on which side you are on this could be a problem. If you're on the side of knowing what's going on, yeah, it's great. If you're on the side of our social consciousness has evolved past this, it's not as fantastic. Precedent also doesn't necessarily cover all the bases (for Roe v. Wade, the court kinda had to pull the precedent out of its ass). I guess, if we relate the Torah to law... (here are those fun analogies from the SAT) Constitution : Supreme Court Decisions :: Torah : Commentary. The second explains the first and creates the precedent that everybody relies upon, and then it's up to individual practitioners (judges, rabbis) to actually apply what has been handed down.

Sorry... I can't stay away from a law school discussion, and I'm taking a course this semester that has essentially turned into a philosophy course.

[http://users.livejournal.com/lipman-/]

"precedent allows law to create an equality between people" etc. - isn't that true for, well, laws, too, in democracies?