What is the place of the law?
I have a fairly general question about the nature of the law, and I would appreciate a reference or a reference to where you discussed it.
The concepts that the law deals with have their roots in reality, for example, marriage is something that has a real existence and not just a legal one, but the law refers to marriage as a legal concept even in places where they have no meaning in reality [for example, the husband and wife separated, the words of the Rambam at the beginning of the Laws of Marriage].
The same thing applies to ownership and property. Property is something of a certain realistic nature, but the law refers to it more broadly.
There are two options to address this:
A. The root of the matter is in the concept of reality, but the law needs to establish rules and not constantly refer to reality and examine the situation at any given moment, and therefore the law establishes rules that, in terms of the true content, only express the realistic attitude.
on. The realistic concept is not the issue, law deals with rights and obligations, and the legal concept is merely a cultural expression of the principles of law, an expression that fails to fully express it.
I would love to hear your response to the question, thank you very much!
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you.
I mean reality in the sense of cultural reality, of course there is no actual reality here like a table.
Absolutely not, of course. Read it there.
I will clarify my question, and as far as I understand it, it is not closely related to the posts you mentioned.
You dealt with the question [in the post what is the applicability] of the self-existence of the concepts, for example, is a man's wife just a description of the situation of a certain woman [and hundreds of other women as her example] or is there a self-content [metaphysical, in your language there] that applies to this woman.
I dealt with a slightly different question, and I will try to detail my basic assumptions.
A. The law [any law, but also the law of the Torah] is built on things that exist in the cultural reality between people. For example, the concept of ownership is not just a pure legal concept, it is a type of situation that exists in reality, people are used to referring to this situation [you can get into what exactly they happen to be ownership, but nevertheless there is something like that] as ownership. The same goes for the concept of marriage, there is something real [cultural, sociological] that people get married to, and the law that establishes laws for this situation refers to that real thing.
B. Although the law refers to that cultural thing, it is not completely parallel to it, for example; in terms of the real situation, a woman and a man who have separated no longer exist in the same state of marriage, but legally as long as they do not annul the marriage [and it does not matter if by divorce, or by registration in a court or by a partisan dance, Mr. Is It Worth It and Mr. Is It Worth It] they are considered married.
There are two ways to explain this situation.
A. The law is truly based on the cultural reality but it is forced to make adjustments to it in order to fit into a definitive legal system.
B. Law is not based on cultural reality [but on legal ideas, on metaphysical ideas, whatever you want].
It is possible, of course, that in your opinion concepts have an ideational and metaphysical existence, and there is no reason to assume that they are built on cultural reality, but this is not necessary. It is also possible that they do have such an existence, but they are built and based on cultural reality, so there is no absolute answer to my question here.
A is more likely in your opinion. But as you mentioned, in my opinion it is based on B, except that B is expressed in the cultural-social reality.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
