by Meno_ » Wed Mar 06, 2019 6:30 pm
scrupulous adherence to truth can be a liability in specific instances, obligating one to use less effective framings and to acknowledge weaknesses in ones own position. But it supports the institution of truth-seeking as a whole. One facet of being judge-like is to give things that support the broader truth-seeking mission, despite their effects on local disagreements or discussions.
This is true. However primciple. and application often diverge, and it is the duty of the tryimg judge to be honest in weighing this difference in fact, if not exterraniously only by subtle reference to both parties.
In fact , not everyone can be a Solomon, not less any judge of merit who can underestimate or over value the juror's ability to comprehend the implications. Nevertheless , it is with the higher standard, that he has.to view it, in order to set down some kind of precedence for some future occasion that could honestly hold up.
What is significant in this age old judgement?
How is an equitable judgement determined in a changing social environment?
Lets start with such quickly changing standard tenets of a few decades ago, when the Catholic dictum of the value of life totally left unprepared for such issues as : abortion, termination if life, artificial implantation and trade in organs, and the list goes on.
Is Solomon's Judgement appear less outlandish today, when coincidentally there presents a world wide occurance of trading body parts out of actually murdered personages includinkg children, where euthanasia can be prescribed by doctors open to solicitation by increasing fees? (and even unperscribed?)
These issues chime into Solomon's judgement as dialectically reactive with the value of life as receptive to negotiation?
And finally, what could precipitate such reactions? Well, for one in cases where revenge, jealousy correspond to instigation of these feelings, upsetting and reversing civil versus criminal elements, it becomes highly argumentative weather justice can fairly be upheld.
In today's politically uncertain reality, where justices suffer the intrusion of extra judicial forces, such formal application of the ideals which previously served as adequate basis for equal justice, can no longer guarantee them.
Precedents could , very well adhere to unprecedented j value judgements, with varying interpretations as to their local and universal dispositions.
Therefore, if a few decades can do this, then such reliance may prove useless even in the quest to integrate local and universal adjudications.
Therefore generally, to a tourist, equivocation is much more difficult to attain than previously., and that is not employing a luck based situation where venue, competent jurists and sensible instructions tend to convey an optimal judgement. The reasonable man is far tougher to find,.