Today's legal education is a tragedy. Many people are usually authentic legal instrumentalists, but in the face of evil laws, they have turned into devout legal dogmatists. If the individuals in the gang are mad because of the temptation to disperse their responsibilities, it is not surprising that the individuals hiding under the cloak of evil laws become more and more mad. Law-students tend to hold the law and despise morality, but do not reflect on the lofty origin of the law. In other words, where does the legality of the law come from?
Some people say that law is derived from morality. If you choose the broadest concept of morality, that is, social customs, habits, etc., then Thracians and Greeks have completely different morals. This example is everywhere. From this point of view, morality It does not seem to have the universality that the law lacks, so it can hardly be called an existence closer to the truth than the law. However, true morality has one thing in common, that is, the coordination of conscience. It is true that social morality must be produced based on education and experience, so it is difficult to have universality, but the human innate form of knowledge (whether you call him rational or conscience) as the subject of cognitive activities is transcendental and universal. On one point, Kant and Wang Yangming came to the same end by different paths.
From this perspective, conscience is a bridge that connects reality and transcendence, and it is also a path from a finite human being to infinity, from an individual to a universal. A person's behavior may conform to the morality of one country in one place but not the morality of another country. However, a truly kind person conforms to the judgment of conscience no matter where he is. Let me boldly say that morality derived from external indoctrination is a pseudo-morality, and true morality should be based on internal conscience.
In secular life, moral judgment is an unavoidable topic, but this kind of moral judgment is not necessarily based on the torture of conscience, but may rely on a cheap pseudo-ethical yardstick. So, what is the undoubtedly correct choice for conscience? Helping the weak, resisting persecution, and speaking out for injustice... And blindly obeying the law, ethics, and mainstream values are nothing but conscience burnout, this burnout Almost evil-far away from conscience itself, even unconsciously, you are already on the verge of evil. The ancient Israelis regarded idolatry as the most serious sin because it made the people turn away from the true gods but seek out false gods. Then why don't we regard the "idols" who are far away from conscience and seek false morality as a serious sin? ?
Therefore, conscience should be an important yardstick. Judging the quality of a behavior should not only be based on its rationality and actual results, but also whether it is legal or in line with mainstream ideas, but also whether it is for the purpose of conscience and goodness. Ordinary actions that conceal evil intentions can also induce huge disasters. The same is true for judging a law. Even if there are reasonable and certain effects, if it contains sinister intentions, it is also the fruit of a dangerous poisonous tree. , Must not be taken lightly.
Blind obedience comes from superstition, and superstition comes from ignorance. The essence of learning is disenchantment, and learning the law means disenchanting the law. If a person learns the law more blindly, and defends all evil laws, then this must be the worst study. The sublime of law is that it, like all philosophies, tries to persevere in pursuing the approach to truth through practice or speculation. We love the law because it can lead us to the truth, not because it is the truth. If we only see the law itself, but ignore the "law" of the law that we should pursue, the transcendent justice, then buy caskets and return beads. Stupid!
View more about The Devil's Advocate reviews
