[lbo-talk] Re: biz ethics/slavery/groups/constitutional rights

BklynMagus magcomm at ix.netcom.com
Wed Sep 1 11:16:11 PDT 2004


Dear List:

Luke wrote:


>Well, one of his claims (which you don't seem to agree
with) is that sometimes judges ought to enforce immoral laws. I happen to agree.

Charles responded:


> This is the way I would paraphrase what you say here:
"Sometimes it is moral for judges to enforce immoral laws." To me "ought" is a synonym for designating what is "moral".

I believe Charles has it exactly right here. I have been researching Rawls and his theories and will post on that when I have a chance, but if I have understood what I have read so far, fundamental rights are not open to debate. Human beings have them. When laws are enacted that violate these rights, judges (acting in the role of a check and balance), should invalidate them. The enforcement of immoral laws goes against the fundamentals that the system is predicated on.


> I mean if the judge could prevail (which sometimes they can
because the other party can't appeal for some reason), then I would say the judge ought to go against the bad law.

I think it is helpful to always adopt the attitude of opposition/resistance. As soon as people start going along withouot questioning, then the terror begins.

Even if she is eventually overturned, a judge's act of resistance can be part of the process of changing laws that persecute.

Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list