My last blog post on the place of humanity in the law seems to have touched a nerve. Across various LinkedIn groups, many people responded strongly and weighed in with varying views on the importance of maintaining humanity in the context of the law.
Isn't maintaining humanity the original reason to have laws in the first place?
A power struggle - Cain killing Abel - is not humane, although it is certainly human.
We strive for more than that, and "the law" gives us a standard by which to measure acceptable behaviors so that we can interact with one another with agreed upon rules. I certainly agree that this standard is a good thing.
When I was a student at the Ethical Culture Fieldston School, the curriculum included ethics classes that we attended early on through graduation from high school. I remember a number of discussions about right versus wrong where the law butts up against humanity.
If your family is starving, what does that mean about stealing food? The law does not make much of an exception for circumstances, and perhaps it shouldn't, as some commenters across LinkedIn have said.
On the other hand, in conflicts where relationships matter, as they do in families, those relationships may be more important that the objectivity of "the law," so long as the participants are within acceptable guidelines of behavior.
In the mediation I was originally commenting on, the feelings of the participants were central to the conflict. The ultimate resolution was found when they reached a better understanding of their situation - what was important to each of them and to the other. That seems central to me.
Katherine Miller
914-738-7765
[email protected]
www.westchesterfamilylaw.com