Letter of the law v Intent of the law

[ontherearwheel]

Since I open my big mouth.........some discussion was related to the letter of the rule v the intent of the rule.

The intent of the rule is always subjective,the letter of the rule is not.

Following the intent allows for bais, following the letter does not.

If the rule does not reflect the true nature of its purpose, then the rule needs to be change to reflect its true purpose.

[afm199]

What's a bais? Is that rule where KFGs can post enter?

[lokisdog]

Originally posted by ontherearwheel
Since I open my big mouth.........some discussion was related to the letter of the rule v the intent of the rule.

The intent of the rule is always subjective,the letter of the rule is not.

Following the intent allows for bais, following the letter does not.

If the rule does not reflect the true nature of its purpose, then the rule needs to be change to reflect its true purpose.

Obviously you're never heard of 'ambiguity', 'equivocation', 'amphiboly', the gap between signifier and signified (not to get too Deconstructive on you), or just the basic cognitive variations that experience and linguistic interpretation bring to the party that allow millions of people, esp. lawyers, to inject interpretation and bias into what is assumed to be 'objective' letter of the law verbiage. It's what lawyers live for.

Just the statement 'true nature of it's purpose' opens the door for a whole host of interpretation, even by the author of the law him/herself.

While it's true there's more potential for variability when dealing with "spirit of the law" versus '"letter of the law", neither is purely objective.

Not sure of your point then...

[the law]

Originally posted by lokisdog
Obviously you're never heard of 'ambiguity', 'equivocation', 'amphiboly', the gap between signifier and signified (not to get too Deconstructive on you), or just the basic cognitive variations that experience and linguistic interpretation bring to the party that allow millions of people, esp. lawyers, to inject interpretation and bias into what is assumed to be 'objective' letter of the law verbiage. It's what lawyers live for.

Just the statement 'true nature of it's purpose' opens the door for a whole host of interpretation, even by the author of the law him/herself.

While it's true there's more potential for variability when dealing with "spirit of the law" versus '"letter of the law", neither is purely objective.

Not sure of your point then...

Well put. One of the biggest difficulty that drafting any rule entails is to forsee all possible scenarios in which they may apply. And, some abiguity allows the "spirit of the rule" to be applied in circumstances that the drafter didn't forsee.

[afm199]

The problem with laws is they are exclusionary. The problem with interpretations is they are exclusionary, the problem with common sense is that it is neither.