In the first chapter of The Mind of the Maker, Dorothy Sayers identifies two distinct uses of the word 'law.' The first is an arbitrary human convention, such as a university regulation or legislative decree -- one could imagine these rules being changed without upsetting the balance of the universe. The second is an observed fact about the world, something that is completely beyond human control -- like the law of gravity.
In order for an arbitrary human law to have authority, it must not run against an unchanging law of nature. This is the basic insight of modern economics. I was pleased to discover it so beautifully expressed in a theology text:
"If the Marylebone Cricket Club were to agree, in a thoughtless moment, that the ball must be so hit by the batsman that it should never come down to earth again, cricket would become an impossibility. A vivid sense of reality usually restrains sports committees from promulgating laws of this kind; other legislators occasionally lack this salutary realism. When the laws regulating human society are so formed as to come into collision with the natures of things, and in particular with the fundamental realities of human nature, they will end by producing an impossible situation which, unless the laws are altered, will issue in such catstrophes as war, pestilence and famine."
This idea has application beyond the realm of public policy. Francis Schaeffer wrote somewhere that the universe if furnished with moral as well as physical furniture. Just as we will stub our toes if we choose to ignore the physical furniture, so we disregard the moral furniture to our peril.
The universe and human nature are the way they are and will not change to accommodate our vain assertions to the contrary.
3 comments:
Hi Laura :)
I discovered the same thing again and again when reading a book this week about Malaysian politics. Just one example: in a desperate attempt to get total Malay share-ownership up to 30%, the government bought many, many free shares and gave them away to the Malays... only for the Malays to promptly sell them off for a quick profit!! The (predominantly Malay)government is desperate to get a "representative" distribution of share ownership correlated with the demography of the country. But whatever laws they come up with will fail if they don't account for the "law of nature" that Malays in general just aren't businessmen; instead they have lived for generations in a culture where mediocrity is praiseworthy.
This also explains why their attempts to persuade those "racist" private sector companies to employ at least SOME Malays just aren't working...
That's an interesting reflection, but not actually an example of the principle I was writing about. There is no law of nature that Malays cannot be businessmen. Cultural tendencies can and do change over time.
I was referring to fundamental facts of human nature that transcend all cultural and ethnic boundaries. Examples include: the pursuit of perceived self-interest and the inability of man to live without moral standards of some kind.
Well said!
Post a Comment