Ragged wrote: MysticalWheel wrote: Ragged wrote:
Meh...I've said my piece. Law> Medicine to society in the long run.
I disagree with this. Priority-wise health always supersedes legal security. I would rather go to jail and live than be free and be dead.
Law is a human construct and serves a peripheral function, whilst medicine deals with intrinsic questions of life and how to improve it.
My advice to OP would be to stay in med school, unless you really hate it and are able to get 172+ on the LSAT.
Wrong. Law is of fundamental necessity to human society; without it, conventional medicine and agricultural control would likely not be able to develop anywhere near the levels of proficiency they enjoy today. Furthermore, medicine is no less a human construct than law is, so that differentiation seems to rest on a preconceived, albeit false, notion.
In sum, medicine and agriculture necessitate some type of law in order to develop, not the other way around. Law> Medicine.
Edit: Here's a quick way to see what I'm getting at: take away law from society and what do you get? Anarchic friction, disorder, lack of standards, lack of security, and hence, a stifling of progress and development. Take away medicine from society and what do you get? At worst, the Black Death, but does society die out? NO, it remains, unlike what happens if law is removed.
I never said law was unneccesary. Given our human nature, we need law to function as a society. But we do not derive any intrisic benefit from law as we do from medicine, agriculture and even entertainment. Our primary wants include want for life, nutrition, freedom from diseases, having a family, being entertained, etc. We only use human contstructs like law and financial markets in order to achieve those things. Having a just society makes obtaining a good life easier, but its neither neccessery nor sufficient for it.
On the other hand medicine deals with the most important part of our life - our health and life and health and lives of our loved ones. Medicine has already improved the quality of life greatly and is probably going to improve it more in the future. If there was no medicine our quality of life would plummet to the medieval levels. Alot of us would not make it past childbirth etc, death rates of all diseases would skyrocket etc. In fact, having such a great quality of life allowed by the modern medicine is what allows us to direct our attention to aspects of our lives other than survival. Only when people are in good health will they start worrying about justice - not the other way around.
Obviously we all depend on one another - that's the great thing about the division of labour. But saying that LAW>Medicine is a very bold statement and sounds kinda immature.
I never said that you said that law was unnecessary- where did you come up with that? To state that law provides no intrinsic value to human society is, for a lack of a better word, plain wrong. Law provides the most intrinsic value to human society, more than any other discipline. It does this by enforcing a standard of interaction that allows for the development of things like medicine, agriculture, and entertainment. Furthermore, law is fundamental because it provides a means for securing our “primary wants,” as you state. Without the law, such wants would be orders of magnitude more difficult to acquire, and the transaction costs for securing them would eventually force the development of law anyways. Hence, law is both a necessary
and a sufficient
condition for the development and existence of human society; to state otherwise is to evince a puerile and/or purely ignorant grasp of what the law is.
As far as your paragraph on medicine, please reference my statement regarding the American Revolution in my previous post. For your convenience, I will post it again here. Example: Think about the American Revolution: did the colonists have
to revolt and risk their lives for independence? They knew full well that war with Britain could very well result in death, yet they still pursued the ideals expressed in the Dec. of Independence. There are things that are more important than just preserving life because without such things (e.g., liberty), life would not necessarily be worth living. To state that "health always supersedes legal security" is a statement that either completely misunderstands (or simply does not understand) the American Revolution, or betrays an accurate understanding.
Lastly, medicine has improved quality of life because it has had the opportunity to flourish, an opportunity that would not have existed without the security that law provides. Your argument is fatally flawed because you fail to understand the necessity of law in regards to medicine. The absence of law prevents the development of medicine that ensures “good health.” Only when a minimum level of security and order are established does medicine begin to flourish and become effective.
Therefore, Law IS > Medicine. A failure to realize this is a demonstration of ignorance and callowness.