|
law is a mechanism that delimits socially acceptable behaviour.
it redefines an action and along with that redefines the status of all who are involved in or impacted by such actions.
this is obvious.
the question seems to want to head somewhere else, but it isnt coherently framed: something about "human nature"----whatever that is---inclinines people to do x or y and law somehow runs counter to it.
whatever there is of interest in this turns on what you see this abstraction called "human nature" as entailing.
personally, i think the only constant that seems usable for defining "human nature" is aversion to pain. that's it----everything else is a function of socialization, everything else is a variable.
so the category "human nature" seems to me arbitrary, an aesthetic matter...so what you might prefer to move into the category of a constant is a function of larger-scale views of human beings which i think are mostly aesthetic (what you like, what you dont)--which is maybe psychologically interesting, if the idea is to work out how the person who defines attribute x or y as part of "human nature" sees the world--and maybe from there can be seen as an index of the psychological/aesthetic views that underpin a politics (which is the logical extension of this kind of evaluation).
but i dont understand questions that lean on an unstated conception of "human nature" to be coherent.
to move the debate, i guess the underlying issue is what you imagine the contents might be of this notion of "human nature"....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|