The reasoning of the author is sound, and implies that validity of the Law hinges on the proper understanding of what is Good, but this is precisely a point that humans do not often agree on, nor can the Law prove its own validity or goodness. The entire system of law is constructed without a rational, a priori proof of what is objectively Good, which leaves it open to unbounded perversion. The most important element of the Law is still missing.
A wonderful piece I hadn’t read, especially in the context of the recent essay on Ulpian and Natural Law. Thank you
The reasoning of the author is sound, and implies that validity of the Law hinges on the proper understanding of what is Good, but this is precisely a point that humans do not often agree on, nor can the Law prove its own validity or goodness. The entire system of law is constructed without a rational, a priori proof of what is objectively Good, which leaves it open to unbounded perversion. The most important element of the Law is still missing.