Laws are rules that every person must follow. Sometimes laws are made because a ruler or government says so, not because everyone thinks it is smart. A law is not always a good idea just because the leaders say we have to do it. We should think about whether a law makes sense or will help people. The lawmakers do not always have the best answers. We need to use our brains too and decide if following the new law would be good or cause problems. Only working together on both sides can we make the best laws for everyone. Authority vs. Wisdom in Lawmaking The saying goes that “it is not wisdom but authority that makes a law.” This phrase underscores a fundamental tension between legal authority and practical wisdom in the process of lawmaking. Let us explore the contours of this issue through an in-depth examination of the forces that shape our legal system. Read more
For lawmaking to bridge the gulf between authority and wisdom, both components must be integrated rather than perceived as opposing forces. Authorities cannot abdicate responsibility over crafting laws but must proactively expand consultative processes. Public viewpoints and localized knowledge should directly inform the legislative process from the start instead of only passively at the ballot box. Advances in technology and civic engagement now allow more participatory models of governance. Citizens can contribute wisdoms through open policy forums, review periods, and referendum proposals brought forward democratically. Elected representatives equally gain by broadening their information sources beyond narrow interest groups and internal policy circles. Read more
While wisdom emerges from lived experience, individuals and subgroups naturally develop differing wisdoms based on their unique perspectives and backgrounds. Varied life circumstances and access to information produce a diversity of sound yet contradictory understandings on many issues. This pluralism of reasonable wisdom lies at the heart of disagreements over legal and social policies. Contrasting views arise not from one side embracing wisdom with the other abandoning it. But from multiple wisdoms colliding when applied to contentious debates like abortion, gun control or environmental protection. Acknowledging these honest divergences in perspective humbles all sides and bolsters democratic discourse. Rather than attacking opponents’ motives or intelligence. The respectful exchange of wisdom enlightens while finding common ground becomes the goal instead of total victory. Read more
Disagreement over wisdom inevitably arises, testing legislation’s philosophical and pragmatic foundations. Diverse parties contest interpretations favoring their priorities. Various jurisprudential schools apply reason differently to issues. Controversy stimulates reassessing stances and exploring objections’ merits to strengthen weakened positions or acknowledge flawed reasoning. Rigidity denies such opportunities for growth. Humility accepts fallibility and commitment to continually honing justice through open debate. Challenges strengthen credible arguments and discard positions untenable upon deeper scrutiny. Outcomes emerge wiser and laws gain legitimacy from weathering skeptical reviews revealing hidden defects or meritorious alternatives deserving consideration. Contentious yet civil discourse improves statutes. Read more