I have a quick meditation while I procrastinate on finishing my review of Freakanomics. During my laborious shifting and sorting through articles online, I decided to read President Kennedy’s speech on civil rights in America. Wow. I never paid much attention to this. I vaguely remember a blip of this time period in my U.S. History class in high school, but we never looked at this source text. There’s quite a bit of philosophy in it. Kennedy states that “the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened”—and this very thing my current roommate and I discussed briefly last night as he described one of his goals, as a graduate student in philosophy, is to eliminate the dichotomy that says we must choose to honor either the “good of the individual” or the “good of the state or community” as if they’re incommensurable or in competition. Kennedy and my roommate may agree, at least in part.
What really caught my eye was this gem from the ninth paragraph: “Law alone cannot make men see right.” It recalls Herodotus, or rather the ancient poet Pindar: “Custom is king of all.” My roommate from freshman-year at St. John’s College argued vehemently to say that no law is valid without some foundation in the culture, or the customs or norms, of a society. For example, a law or amendment banning alcohol will not stop a society that holds alcohol in high esteem from drinking; but if alcohol were to be effectively attacked, the prohibiter would need to aim deeper, on the level of the societal soul, and cut the custom out with razor-sharp scissors of persuasion, if at all. I think Pindar and Kennedy are right. Law makes a bad weed-killer for wild problems that have their roots set firmly in our moral and traditional history.
Blah, blah.
What really caught my eye was this gem from the ninth paragraph: “Law alone cannot make men see right.” It recalls Herodotus, or rather the ancient poet Pindar: “Custom is king of all.” My roommate from freshman-year at St. John’s College argued vehemently to say that no law is valid without some foundation in the culture, or the customs or norms, of a society. For example, a law or amendment banning alcohol will not stop a society that holds alcohol in high esteem from drinking; but if alcohol were to be effectively attacked, the prohibiter would need to aim deeper, on the level of the societal soul, and cut the custom out with razor-sharp scissors of persuasion, if at all. I think Pindar and Kennedy are right. Law makes a bad weed-killer for wild problems that have their roots set firmly in our moral and traditional history.
Blah, blah.
No comments:
Post a Comment