LAW AS A LEAP OF FAITH

By Abhay Singh
 SOCRATES CHALLENGE

• Euthyphro: I would say that what all the gods love is holy ...

• Socrates: The point which I want to resolve first is whether the holy is beloved of the gods because it is holy, or holy because it
is beloved of the gods.

• Whatever god says is right or It is right because god said it even if it is immoral?

• Whatever God commands is the moral because God has commanded it. Contrary, whatever this God commands it commands
because it is moral.

• Abraham and Issac, Abraham acted morally? For the Knight of Faith, the rational struggle between the moral and the religious is
extinguished, nay transcended, in the condition of divine grace.

• key move here lies in the assumption that faith in God can have moral value. But whether doing something moral for non-moral
reasoning can be immoral- being a friend for selfish reasons, Judge only for career, Law abiding citizen to violate law in
different region. Does killing Issac becomes moral because it was done on faith?

• Not killing for morality of love for son is against god as the same will be against gods command
 FROM GOD TO THE GRUNDNORM

• Socratic challenge to theism should strike a chord with legal theorists. Its logic is replicated every year in a
thousand.
• (Will of sovereign) Law is binding because it is Posited. (Natural) Law is Posited thus it is binding.
• Early Jurists- Sovereign Command V. Humane Conscience
• Kelsen: law and morality constitute distinct and independent rational points. Both have space in
Grundnorm- he doesn’t provide address case of contradiction in law and morality-
• Grundnorm; not right because posited nor it is posited because its right- can be a Jurist God
• Kelsen moves Grundnorm away from natural law by claiming its not moral norm, contrare, the normative
rationalism of Grundnorm prevents it to come under empirical legal system.
• Like faith is moral reason to follow god’s command that might not be followed. Grundnorm can be the legal
basis for legal implementation
• Gardner thought people might follow the law as it is favorable to them (Kantian Theory), not out of faith.
People with unfortunate dealings with law may violated it due to lack of faith
 LOOSENING THE ANALOGY

• God is concerned only faith can fill the apparent logical gap. But in Law faith and instrumental
consideration can fill

• Applied even to faithless do not ally with Grundnorm

• Legal authority is all more or less subordinate opens the way, you might say, for selective faith in
law. One could have who has faith in courts but none in legislature, or faith in old law but not in
newer law.