Formation of the Law

Pragmatic – Rational

The concept, Formation of the Law, does not refer to the legislative manner in which laws are made, but rather to the method by which ideas are made into law. Therefore, the emphasis is not placed upon any legislative process, but it may be concerned about the type of reasoning a legislator uses to justify making a law. Idealists and Pragmatists differ on their method of forming laws. The Pragmatists strive for a Rational process that leads them to a logical conclusion regarding what should be the nature of law. Idealists, on the other hand, have a more Irrational approach. Both sides think they are more humane, one being humanely logical and the other being humanely emotional.

Learning objective: The student is expected to learn the methods Pragmatics and Idealistic s use to establish their respective foundations for the law. The classic Idealistic I attempt is more experientially based, while the Idealistic s use more of an a priori notion when founding the law. The student is to understand that both of these positions seem to be concerned about what is best for mankind. The student is also to develop an understanding between the method used for Formation of the Law and the method used in the Application of the Law.

Irrational v Rational

It is ominous to try to discuss the differences between rational and irrational. Too often people see no point in being irrational and are quick to dismiss anything that sounds irrational as being frivolous. This, of course, would be a serious misunderstanding of the nature of this discussion. Being rational for the purposes of this discussion means to be both logical and empirical. Being irrational means being either illogical or nonempirical or both. Some people choose to be irrational. Usually it is not a permanent departure from logic, but it could be. Probably no one is totally logical and empirical all the time. There are advantages of being irrational some times.

People who enjoy motorcycling are hard pressed to give rational reasons for this leisure time activity. It is dangerous, ill suited for inclement weather, and not necessarily more economical than some cars. The reason they give is that it is enjoyable, a rush, they like the feeling of freedom. Weighing these benefits against the consequence of the dangers confronted by motorcyclists it is difficult to believe they are being rational when choosing to ride a motorcycle. On the other hand, one might say that if one enjoys it, it would be illogical not to ride. The reasoning is obvious, and it may be correct to a point. This reasoning correctly identifies how the rider may feel, but because the rider is ignoring the empirical facts of motorcycle injury the reasoning cannot be rational. However, it doesn’t seem compelling to disallow motorcycling, rather it is meant to illustrate that being irrational can be a choice that people make. Responsibility for the consequences is an individual responsibility.

Being rational seems natural and obvious to most people. Yet when questioned about being rational sometimes the obvious natural means of arriving at conclusions do not render rational answers. For instance at one time it seemed reasonable to promote racial segregation using the rationale that birds of feather flock together. What this adage fails to is provide any reasons at all, but some may find it sufficient to support segregation of the races. Apparent sufficiency of a response is not always based upon rational thinking.

Policing and the Application of the Law

Idealist	Pragmatist
Police should ensure that criminal and immoral behavior are not allowed.	It is not clear what the police could do to reduce crime.
Putting more police on streets will reduce crime.	Police should be moral, but are not the moral arbiters in our society.
Responding faster to the crime scene will result in more apprehensions.	Police must respond to crime scenes, but a faster response may result in a more likely arrest.
Increasing the number of detectives will result in more apprehensions.	Detective work contributes to only a small percentage of criminal arrests.
Police crackdowns will be able to eliminate crime in certain areas.	More police will not reduce crime.
Focused patrols will result in a reduction in crime in affected areas.