Lines, Legalism, Limits, and Likeness

Barry Lam’s book, “Fewer Rules, Better People,” delves into the concept of legalism and its role in preserving justice by treating like cases alike. While the idea of consistency in applying rules is crucial for fairness, the process of defining clear and consistent rules can be challenging.

Drawing lines and establishing definitions is a common practice in various fields, from defining mammals to determining what constitutes knowledge. Michael Huemer’s work on knowledge and ethical intuitionism highlights the difficulty in defining even seemingly simple concepts like a table. Despite the efforts to create precise definitions, there are always cases where the definitions fall short or misclassify instances.

The Clean Waters Act provides a real-world example of the pitfalls of strict legalism. The act aimed to limit pollutants dumped into “the waters of the United States,” but the vague definition led to problems. In the case of Ocie and Carey Mills, a small patch of marsh grass on their wooded property resulted in them being imprisoned for polluting navigable waters. The rigid application of the law failed to distinguish between dumping waste into a river and placing fill dirt on dry land, ultimately leading to unjust consequences.

Legalism’s emphasis on treating like cases alike can backfire when applied without nuance. Insisting on strict adherence to rules without considering the context can result in treating vastly different situations as if they were the same. This rigid approach can lead to arbitrary outcomes and undermine the very justice legalism seeks to uphold.

In conclusion, while consistency in applying rules is essential for justice, it is equally important to recognize the limitations of rigid legalism. Making distinctions and exceptions when necessary can prevent unjust outcomes and ensure that the spirit of justice is preserved. By balancing the need for consistency with flexibility and common sense, we can achieve a more just and fair society.