By: Diego Galindo
In The Myth of Moral Justice Professor Rosenbaum argues that the law focuses too much on the physical aspect of crimes and ignores the internal world where pain and injustice also exists and where wrongs are left unresolved and unaddressed. Thousands of people go through our legal system each year and are left, whether monetarily enriched or not, feeling spiritually and morally empty. Rosenbaum condemns the fact that the law offers no remedy for this and rarely attempts to acknowledge the internal world. He believes that through awareness and conscious effort the law can evolve to encompass this necessary aspect of human justice. But the problem is that while the existing legal system has clearly defined standards (for the most part), a similar moral structure would almost be impossible to set up. Not only because of differing internal worlds between people but because of the ever-changing emotions within one person. What might feel like a horrible injustice today might feel differently tomorrow under different considerations or repose or any other of the millions of reasons why people change how they feel. There must be some guidelines then so that there is some possibility of precedent and reliability. To achieve this, the first order of business has to be the drafting of basic moral rules that we all share as a species from whence the rest can spring forth. But is this possible? Can we really come together and set religious, ideological and cultural differences aside to find common ground? If we cannot do this, I believe Professor Rosenbaum’s ideas will unfortunately never manifest themselves out of the internal world into the physical world where they can have their deepest impact.
