Law schools + religious right

[redemption]

Well, heck, that was fun. It was like watching wrestling for brainy people 

But it's over before I could get in my two cents on it! And, worse still, my entire application package centers around this issue - including my 250.

Ah, well.

[jorge]

Well, hell. Post up.

[LitDoc]

I'd love to hear what you have to say, red.

Lily, I'll apologize once again. I don't think my tone was ever patronizing, but I'll admit that I was a tad belittling a few times. Sorry about that. I still think you took the easy way out, though -- crying foul and leaving in a huff, instead of countering my points with substance.

I still think this topic is an interesting one. Red, tell us about your 250 -- or give us your .02 -- or whatever.

Or somebody else chime in....

[redemption]

Well, what I have to say on this is either quite short or quite long. But I'll post something later.

[misery]

I'm curious to hear what red + others have to say... I feel like I should post more in the thread I started too...

Having skimmed the last couple pages, I have to say that while emotion + logic are inexorably tied together, arguements based purely on emotion/shock value are ones to be avoided.  Obviously, the whole "war on terror!!!" argument comes to mind, along with several others.  Similarly, arguments based on pure logic are not always agreeable as well; one that comes to my mind would be something like convincing people to eat dog.  No one is discounting emotion - it is without a doubt incredibly effective - but the debate is, at least to me, whether more of an emphasis should be placed on logic.  I would imagine the majority of this board would be inclined to do so, being a 'lawschooldiscussion' board.  Curiously, there was a passage in one of the older lsats that argued against this, anyone remember it?

Oh yeah, red, I'd love to see your 250/PS on this topic, please? =x

[LitDoc]

Part of what I was trying to get across was that we should be wary of privileging logic over emotion. I think the binary construct is problematic to begin with (drawing a solid line between logic and emotion) -- as I've said, the two are not mutually exclusive -- but I also think that which is better or more effective, and even which is what, is a matter of context.

Basically, misery, I take it that you are saying that, in the given context of law and politics, logic should be preferred to/over emotion. I think initially we all would agree to this. But I also think that this breaks down under scrutiny.

After all, you cite the arguments leading up to the Iraq war. These were, I think, emotion-based, and they proved highly effective. This makes them "better" than logic-based arguments, which might not have been as effective -- but only "better" from the point of view that favors going to war. Then again, these arguments had a kind of logic to them -- in fact, many pro-Bush people, and the Bush Team itself, would probably claim that the arguments were predominantly logic-based (based on "evidence" and "well-reasoned conclusions").

In other words, whether logic-based or emotion-based arguments are better is a matter of context and perspective. And, in fact, even whether a given argument is emotion-based or logic-based is, too, often a matter of context and perspective.

Thus, trying to distinguish clearly between logic-based and emotion-based arguments is a sticky business, and trying to privilege one over the other is likewise sticky and -- I think -- a bit of a fool's errand. It's an imposition of limitation on our thinking.

As red says, "down with logocentrism."

[philibusters]

Humans (and other animals evolved emotions for a reason) so they have have some place.  Logic is the foundation of science so we know its place. 

In law, what predominates varies on a case by case basis.  When you study criminal law, you most likely will start out with the question "why do we punish"- is it out of moral retribution (a theory that seems to mix emotion and logic) or deterrance (a theory based more on logic).When you study heinous cases in criminal law, not only the punishment, but whether the judge finds the person innocent will sometimes rest on whether they see the law as the enforcer of moral retribution (though they would never ever say that outright in their opinion) or whether its their duty to protect the letter of the law or other factors they consider.  In contracts you also see legal realism (which is sometimes emotion) all the time.  Mostly its not emotion based, but based on economic theory which tends to be more logic based, but when you deal with something like unconsciousability and the like (and you will probably deal with those for a few weeks) you'll see emotions come in to play, and though the court won't say it, you can see they are basing on notions of right and wrong.

I really enjoyed reading the article.  It shows how the political processes absorb political dissent and even though the religious right has big difference with mainstream America they are not alienated, but trying to use the political system.

[redemption]

Humans (and other animals evolved emotions for a reason) so they have have some place.  Logic is the foundation of science so we know its place. 

In law, what predominates varies on a case by case basis.  When you study criminal law, you most likely will start out with the question "why do we punish"- is it out of moral retribution (a theory that seems to mix emotion and logic) or deterrance (a theory based more on logic).When you study heinous cases in criminal law, not only the punishment, but whether the judge finds the person innocent will sometimes rest on whether they see the law as the enforcer of moral retribution (though they would never ever say that outright in their opinion) or whether its their duty to protect the letter of the law or other factors they consider.  In contracts you also see legal realism (which is sometimes emotion) all the time.  Mostly its not emotion based, but based on economic theory which tends to be more logic based, but when you deal with something like unconsciousability and the like (and you will probably deal with those for a few weeks) you'll see emotions come in to play, and though the court won't say it, you can see they are basing on notions of right and wrong.

I really enjoyed reading the article.  It shows how the political processes absorb political dissent and even though the religious right has big difference with mainstream America they are not alienated, but trying to use the political system.

I couldn't find a single statement that I agreed with in this post. It reminds me that I need to post something as I had promised, and I will - soon.

[philibusters]

I only had two points:
1)  That the law is neither a pure science (you don't just apply rules to facts), nor a pure humanities discipline.  It has elements of science (logic) in that it has pre-defined rules that control the framework of the discussion. However once inside the framework provided by the rules, things like economic theories, theories of who was the assh*le in the particular case, theories of the policy the rule was designed to promote (which could overlap with economic theories or theories of who was the assh*le) come into play, and these considerations are fact specific, in that they depend to large degree on the judges emotional reaction to the facts (especially in cases where the judge is trying to figure out who the assh*le was).  Thus in most cases both science and logic have a place.*
2)  That religious right is not trying to overthrow the system in this case because it disagrees with political norms, but that it is working within the political systems to effect change.

*The United States Supreme Court because of its unique position is slightly different in that it is more likely to divorce itself from the emotional appeal of specific facts.  This is because more so than other courts they view their primarily role as making rules, not settling disputes.  Thus they try to establish rules that set the framework for lower courts, the lower courts view their role as acting within the already provided framework, not to make law, so obviously they place more attention on the facts of a case.

[redemption]

I only had two points:
1)  That the law is neither a pure science (you don't just apply rules to facts), nor a pure humanities discipline.  It has elements of science (logic) in that it has pre-defined rules that control the framework of the discussion. However once inside the framework provided by the rules, things like economic theories, theories of who was the assh*le in the particular case, theories of the policy the rule was designed to promote (which could overlap with economic theories or theories of who was the assh*le) come into play, and these considerations are fact specific, in that they depend to large degree on the judges emotional reaction to the facts (especially in cases where the judge is trying to figure out who the assh*le was).  Thus in most cases both science and logic have a place.
2)  That religious right is not trying to overthrow the system in this case because it disagrees with political norms, but that it is working within the political systems to effect change.

First Paragraph
1) Science is not logic; 2) applying rules to facts is not science; 3) economic theories are ex post fact rationalizations of adjudication patterns; 4) economic theories are not based on science or logic

Second Paragraph
What system? Overthrow it how?