hey i miss you lots. wow, has it been 6 weeks already? where have i been. oh yeah, israel. so we have lots and lots to talk about. are you still doing the penn thing on tuesday nights? i'm dinnering there tomorrow. also, will you come to shabbos dinner? probably the last time to catch 3 kamm sibs in the same place for a while. also, i want to see you besides that.
good quote. i feel stinky for not doing much about today...was going to go out and essentialize the day [thereby feeling good about myself while not doing much] with the akiba crowd, but realized that i was really tired after 29 hours of travelling and wanted to rest more.
so MLK sides with the Legal Moralists that an immoral law isn't really a law. The other major school of legal philosophy, Legal Positivism, argues that an immoral law is still a law, but that there's still an obligation to disobey it. The difference is that the positivist distinguishes between morality and law. This is necessary so that groups and people can agree on what the law is, since they assume people won't necessarily agree on the morality. If immoral law isn't really law, each person is defining law for him or herself, and that makes running a large organization/country difficult. A positivist (such as Hart) would suggest that a person says "the law is X but since it is immoral i will disobey while working to change the law so that law is again congruent with morality." so i guess the practical upshot is the same regardless of the system. hooray for studying in a liberal kollel where we realize that halakhah as a legal model can only be understood in the context of other legal philosophy.
no subject
good quote. i feel stinky for not doing much about today...was going to go out and essentialize the day [thereby feeling good about myself while not doing much] with the akiba crowd, but realized that i was really tired after 29 hours of travelling and wanted to rest more.
so MLK sides with the Legal Moralists that an immoral law isn't really a law. The other major school of legal philosophy, Legal Positivism, argues that an immoral law is still a law, but that there's still an obligation to disobey it. The difference is that the positivist distinguishes between morality and law. This is necessary so that groups and people can agree on what the law is, since they assume people won't necessarily agree on the morality. If immoral law isn't really law, each person is defining law for him or herself, and that makes running a large organization/country difficult. A positivist (such as Hart) would suggest that a person says "the law is X but since it is immoral i will disobey while working to change the law so that law is again congruent with morality." so i guess the practical upshot is the same regardless of the system. hooray for studying in a liberal kollel where we realize that halakhah as a legal model can only be understood in the context of other legal philosophy.