- Posts: 25
- Joined: May 17, 2012
- Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:14 pm
#4361
Okay, I think I've overstudied today because English words and sentences have ceased to make sense to me. I'm certain I should close my book and revisit in the morning but I've got a nagging feeling.
Take Q. 1 on page 90 of the Must Be True problem set. The stimulus regards laws, their primary function and the role of morality. Although I did get the correct answer, when I went back to review I realized that the stimulus made no sense to me.
My understanding of the stimulus:
Some argue that the role of law serves, at least in part, to help establish a moral fabric. BUT (here, the author disagrees), the primary function of law is actually to help order society so that institutions, citizenry and organizations function harmoniously. That is, irrespective of moral aims.
That makes sense. But then the final sentence reads, "Indeed, the highest courts have on occasion treated moral beliefs based on conscience or religious faith as grounds for making exceptions in the application of laws."
Why would the author provide an example of the courts giving credence to moral beliefs when the author's main claim is that the law's primary function is something other than that (achieve harmony)?
I'm confuzzled.
Take Q. 1 on page 90 of the Must Be True problem set. The stimulus regards laws, their primary function and the role of morality. Although I did get the correct answer, when I went back to review I realized that the stimulus made no sense to me.
My understanding of the stimulus:
Some argue that the role of law serves, at least in part, to help establish a moral fabric. BUT (here, the author disagrees), the primary function of law is actually to help order society so that institutions, citizenry and organizations function harmoniously. That is, irrespective of moral aims.
That makes sense. But then the final sentence reads, "Indeed, the highest courts have on occasion treated moral beliefs based on conscience or religious faith as grounds for making exceptions in the application of laws."
Why would the author provide an example of the courts giving credence to moral beliefs when the author's main claim is that the law's primary function is something other than that (achieve harmony)?
I'm confuzzled.
