I'm taking a brief reprise from my reading as i post this. If there's a recurring theme for this day, it has to be dilemmas. The first one is a "straighforward dilemma" (straightforward in comparison with other dilemma's i'm about to mention). Do I celebrate friend's birthday with my hallmates and forego a long term committment to a friend for a ballroom dancing class or the other way around, go for ballroom dancing class with her (committments aside.. i paid 11 quid for the course!) and let down my posse?
As a lawyer-to-be, I can probably argue this out. It's not every day a friend turns 20, and enters her 2nd decade of life. Then again, I'll be skipping out on a long term committment which preceded even before I knew of this event of celebration. Or should i go to by the utilitarianism method? I'll be making more people "happy" by going for the birthday girl's celebration (in a manner of speaking) against one friend's happiness. Yeah.. Cold hard logic! The Vulcan way!
As the day went by(not to mention the amount of button-pushing i had to go through and amount of guilt put on me), I stumbled onto more dilemmas.
For tommorow's Seminar reading, i have to read the hyphothetical case of "The Case of Speluncean Explorers." You can read it
here .
For those who are too lazy to read,
It involves a case of a group of explorers who went exploring into a tunnel and are trapped by a landslide. To keep it short, in the process of the rescue 10 workers are killed by other landslides. The landslides hamper rescue efforts and they only manage to pull them out in 38 days time. They discover that one of the explorers, Roger Whitmore is cannabilized by his fellow explorers. However, ironically.. it was Roger himself who had proposed to cast lots (or dice to be precise in this case) to decide who is to be eaten for the survival of the rest. Then, the survivors are put to trial post-recovery. They are found guilty and sentenced to hang.
The facts of the case are then followed by separate opinions of fictional high court judges. Each with their own methodolgy in reasoning out their decisions and with even one judge, redrawing from the case on the basis of emotional involvement and his disablity to decide as a "private citizen".
Another judge states that being trapped underground and separated from soceity enables them to act according to the "Law of Nature" as they are not in the "civil state of society" but in a "state of nature".
The different lines of argument by each fictional judge is given by the writer, L.L Fuller to portray the different opinions in intrepreting law. Do we inteperate the law iterally? Take in account public opinion? Do we take into account the "deterrent" and "what if.. in the future?" factor? Each argument has its flaws and strenghts as articulatly put in the article.
However we look at it, there's no simple answer? If we sentence the men to their deaths, wouldn't the lives of the rescues be in vain? Yet, we can't toss that imagery of cannabalism out of heads, can we?
Hmm.
Leaving that aside for a bit, I discovered something. For my further reading i had : A. Bradney,"
Choosing Laws, Choosing Families: Images of Law, Love and Authority in "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer".(You can find it
here) And i went...
WAHEY! Something lighter to read... Lol. After all, Buffy's one of my guilty, geeky pleasures in my life and it's law-related!
Besides brushing up my Buffy-logy, it made me realise that Buffy (God bless, Joss Wheldon!) is pretty much about (not just about love triangles, stake-wielding hotties, and heart-gripping storylines) http://turbulence86.blogspot.com/. None involving cannablism thankfully.. but the life of a loved one against life of many.. and questions about law, authority, and family.
It all leads me back to : Life's pretty much full of dilemmas. I see the road ahead paved with them. As cliche as it may sound, There aren't any easy answers in life. Cases with decisions which can go either way like in the
"THE CASE OF THE SPELUNCEAN EXPLORERS".A point brought up in the Buffy article was ,"Those who apply law formulated by external authority can feel themselves absolved of personal responsibility for their decisions".
Kinda makes mwish that there was a law saying, "If it ever is you friend's 20th birthday, you are held by the punishment of death to attend her brithday celebration!"
Then, I can probably go, " Sorry VW, I can't go to tonight's dance class coz if i don't.. Off with my head!" Or vice versa. Lol.
But then it made me think...
Will I ever reach that point in my life? Where I become so.. "Numb" and I distant myself? Hiding behind law and rules and obmitting facts? Losing my humanity? I kid about losing my soul as a lawyer... but how far is it from the truth?
Where does this all leave me? Right back where i started. Facing each dilemma as they come. But I know one thing, (call me an idealist if you want) I'll hold on to every ounce of humanity I have. Isn't that why we're all here on this earth on our two feet?
Personal reflections aside. It makes tommorow's night's dilemma pale in comparison. Ah.. I wish i could have my cake and eat it. An ideal world, anyone?
Heh.