Various points of interest in reply.
As to Chaim's parallel with theology, I entirely agree. This has been discussed in some detail recently by Geoffrey Samuel, who argues (roughly) that Law should be classed with dogmatic theology, as being another attempt to prescribe how people should live - whereas the other social sciences, like the physical sciences, are attempts to describe what the universe is like, a very different endeavour. (Yes, Geoffrey, I'm sure I've got this slightly wrong, but I never claimed to be an epistemologist! See Samuel, "Is Law really a social science?" (2008) 67 Cambridge LJ 288.) However, I tend to avoid drawing this parallel in my own writing, because everyone brings different assumptions to bear on it - both their own beliefs, and what they imagine mine to be - and comprehension suffers as a result.
As to Jason's examination metaphor, the difficulty is that he's chosen obviously weak individuals in his example, who would clearly be condemned as such by anyone who knew the facts - allowing their emotions to get the better of them, or acting cravenly in the face of threats. (We might make excuses for these guys, but there would definitely be something to excuse.) I know that Jason thinks Denning just as bad, but he needs to argue that - just asserting it doesn't get us any further, and is the root of our disagreement. No-one would defend what Jason's examiners do, but plenty defend Denning. The metaphor would only come to life if Jason picked cases where there is genuine and severe disagreement over what the examiners should do - such as whether students with specific diagnosed learning difficulties should be judged by a more lenient standard than the norm, or (to move the matter to university admissions) whether a grade B paper from a slum kid should be treated as a greater achievement than a grade B paper from a kid in more comfortable circumstances. Then it would be a real problem, and not the straw man Jason sets up.
Finally, as to Richard's attempts to classify Denning and myself, I'm really not sure the terms he's using survive their passage over the Atlantic. Neither of us is/was any sort of economist. As a devout and vocal Christian, I would imagine that Denning would have been quite offended to be described as a "utilitarian" - the only time I've heard him called that was in relation to his infamous "appalling vista" dictum (which has little to do with obligations, though it is an important factor in his general reputation - in relation to his reputation, Denning was really, really lucky to have picked civil law over criminal law). If paying SOME attention to consequences (amongst other things) makes me a utilitarian, then I guess I'm a utilitarian, but it's a bit artificial. After all, even Jason talks about consequences up to a point (talking of the "corrosive" consequences that flow from approaches he doesn't care for, or the dangerous consequences of diminishing respect for the law).
Steve Hedley
UCC
This email has been scanned for viruses by the Email Protection Agency. For more information please visit http://www.epagency.net
This email is intended solely for the addressee and is strictly confidential. If you are not the addressee, please do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it or any attachments. Instead please email it back to the sender and delete the message from your computer.
Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free and BoardEx® accepts no liability for changes made to this email (and any attachments) after it was sent or for viruses arising as a result of this email transmission.
BoardEx® reserves the right to intercept any emails or other communication for permitted purposes, in accordance with applicable laws, which you send to, or receive from, any of the employees or agents of BoardEx®. BoardEx® is owned by Management Diagnostics Limited, Elizabeth House, York Road, London, SE1 7NQ. Reg No: 3714017
This email has been scanned for viruses by the Email Protection Agency