#16 - Jurist: A nation’s laws must be viewed as expressions

[reop6780]

This is must be true question.

I was confused how the conclusion was made in the stimuli.

The moral code transcends laws expressing it, and is used for basis for preferring certain laws to others.

QQQ: THUS, any moral prohibition against the violation of statues must leave room for exception..??????

I still struggle understanding the conclusion. I need help on that.

About the answer choices I narrowed them down to two: B and E.

I couldn't tell which was better answer, so marked it wrong.

How can we infer the correct answer E?

[Robert Carroll]

reop,

The idea behind the jurist's argument is that the moral code is the true criterion of right conduct, and thus laws derive their value by matching the moral code. The conclusion recognizes that the moral code and law will sometimes not match perfectly, and as the moral code, not the law, should be the true test of conduct, not everyone who violates the law (statutes) will be doing something morally wrong (if they're following the moral code in a case where it conflicts with the law). So, a moral command that says "Never break the law" is not a good one; it would need to leave exceptions for when the law is wrong.

Since this is a Must Be True, the soundness or lack of soundness of the argument isn't important; we just need to base our answer on the facts as presented by the jurist.

Answer choice (B) is not correct because, according to the jurist, the moral code is the measure of the adequacy of the law.

Answer choice (E) is right because the need for exceptions to a moral prohibition against the violation of statutes implies that what the moral code demands and what the statutes demand will not always line up perfectly. There would be no need for exceptions if they did perfectly align in all cases. So sometimes the moral code and the law that expresses that moral code will be in conflict.

Robert Carroll

[swong1267]

Hi,

I'm still a little confused at how we pick out what the conclusion means. Could you elaborate on the use of "moral prohibition"?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

Sure thing, swong! Focus on the plain meaning of the words (you'll hear that advice in law school, too, btw, and it is often the basis for a decision in many court cases). A prohibition is a rule that says not to do something. A moral prohibition, then, is a rule that is based on morality (as opposed to legality) against doing something. So, while there may be no legal prohibition against me eating the last of the cookies when I know my brother wants them and hasn't yet gotten his fair share (that is, there is no law against it), there may be a moral prohibition that says I shouldn't do that. Thou shalt not covet thy brother's cookies, perhaps.

So in other words, the conclusion is saying that moral rules against violating laws need to have exceptions (implying that sometimes the morally correct thing to do is to break the law).

I hope that helps clear things up!

[Oneblackcoffee]

Hi,

I’m probably overthinking this one. I think I understand the argument being made - that laws reflect a moral code, and that sometimes moral codes change/adjust and therefore laws must leave room for these exceptions/updates. My question with answer choice (E) is that wouldn’t there be a time lag between when the moral code changes and when the laws change, and that this may result in the laws expressing an old code until being updated? Say the moral code changes, the laws would still reflect the old moral code and would need to be updated to express the new moral code; in this scenario, the laws may not express the new moral code and therefore wouldn’t come into conflict with it. The laws wouldn’t conflict because they have yet to be updated to express the new code and are still expressing the old code.

Thanks in advance.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Oneblackcoffee,

I think you may be overemphasizing the idea of moral codes changing over time, which is not explicitly present in the stimulus. Rather, the first sentence of the stimulus creates a distinction between moral codes and a nation's laws (including its statutes), without stating whether that distinction arises through the operation of time or whether (as I suspect the author means) it's an always-present distinction.

I'm going to refer you back to Robert's excellent explanation of answer choice E. Notice, as he explains, it's not about any time lags or changes in moral codes or laws over time. Rather, it's about the fact that for the statement in the final sentence of the stimulus to be true, there must simply be a difference (as Robert states, an imperfect alignment) between the moral code and the nation's laws.

Answer choice (E) is right because the need for exceptions to a moral prohibition against the violation of statutes implies that what the moral code demands and what the statutes demand will not always line up perfectly. There would be no need for exceptions if they did perfectly align in all cases. So sometimes the moral code and the law that expresses that moral code will be in conflict.

Robert Carroll

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[bebeg3168]

Hello,
I was able to eliminate A, B, & D. I like E, however I am unsure of what C is saying. Many times in the past I have stayed away from answers when I couldn't decipher them. I see the conditional language (Unless) so this is what I'm thinking:
~MBCLI LFVMR This translates to : Moral behavior and compliance with laws are NOT indistinguishable unless it is legally forbidden to violate some moral rules.
Is this author stating behavior and compliance are ok because it is legally forbidden to violate some moral rules (capital offenses, some felonies)
Maybe I'm thinking too hard on this one? Direction is greatly appreciated.

[atierney]

Yes, you are definitely thinking too hard on this one!

I think a good approach is to be as confident as you can that a specific answer is correct, rather than purely relying on elimination, especially where you can narrow down to two answer choices. E is clearly the correct answer for reasons explained above, and as far as B, the conditional you have posited is not what was stated by the author, as Robert explained in his post. Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[bebeg3168]

Thank you. I believe I narrowed it down through elimination, but answer choice C confused me and I was wondering if I diagrammed it correctly.

Yes, you are definitely thinking too hard on this one!

I think a good approach is to be as confident as you can that a specific answer is correct, rather than purely relying on elimination, especially where you can narrow down to two answer choices. E is clearly the correct answer for reasons explained above, and as far as B, the conditional you have posited is not what was stated by the author, as Robert explained in his post. Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[atierney]

No problem. And yes, process of elimination is very helpful on the LSAT!