Is There Very Little in the Way of Universalism When Legal Culture Is Ignored?
Universalism is a philosophical doctrine that holds that religion is a quality of all humans (Armstrong, Farrell, and Lambert 2012). Most religions can be thought of as being universalist since they are inclusive and can tolerate people of other religions. On the other side, legal culture entails values, opinions, ideas, beliefs, standards, and attitudes of a society towards the legal system and the legal profession (Armstrong, Farrell, and Lambert 2012). This paper is a short analysis of the association between universalism and legal culture and attempts to show that there is little in the way of universalism when legal culture is ignored.
Legal culture is the main cause of perception differences between humans. As such, adherence to legal culture is the main antagonist to universalism. Conversely, most legal cultures allow for a freedom of religion and a right to belong to any religion hence propagating universalism (Ladwig 2016). Second, most doctrines of religion go hand in hand with the requirements of the legal system as most laws are also based on doctrines of religious documents, thus, creating a positive association between legal culture and universalism (Ladwig 2016).
Legal cultures differ from one society to another. Therefore, the perception of people about rights and freedoms of religion and the religion that one should belong to differ greatly. As May (2016) argues, these differences in perception of religion negate the all-inclusive feature of Universalist philosophy. A people’s legal culture is usually suited to a particular religion upon which their law system is founded (May, 2016). Legal culture, therefore, antagonizes universalism. As authors such as Geldof (2016) have argues, smothering legal culture is one way of ensuring that the philosophy of universalism can be upheld by all.
Nonetheless, legal culture can also be thought to favor and not to interfere with the popularity of universalism. Most but not all legal systems allow for freedom of religion and a right of faith (Geldof 2016). Arguably, by allowing aspects of religion, the legal systems support universalism. The inadequacy of this is the fact that, though the right of faith and freedom of religion are fundamental human rights, not all legal systems acknowledge them.
Additionally, as has been earlier alluded to, most legal systems are based on the doctrines of a particular religion. This means that the legal system and religion go hand in hand and work to complement each other. Since most Abrahamic religions are somewhat Universalist, having a legal system based on such a religion converts the legal system; hence, the legal culture to one of universalism (May 2016). However, the inadequacy of this is the fact that not all religions are inherently Universalist; a legal culture based on a non-universalist religion will be ardent antagonists of universalism.
Therefore, elimination of legal culture would surely make universalism a universally accepted philosophy. Despite the fact that points against the seminar question are numerically superior to those which support the question, the facts against the seminar question are seemingly inadequate – they have too much shortcomings. Universalism is a concept which can encourage peace and coexistence among humans of various states and religions. Our seniors should in future try to marry legal systems hence legal culture with the very concepts of universalism.
Bibliography
Armstrong, J. D., Farrell, T., & Lambert, H. 2012. International law and international relations. Cambridge [U.K.], Cambridge University Press.
Geldof, D., 2016. Superdiversity and the City. In Social Work and the City (pp. 127-149). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Ladwig, B., 2016. Human Rights, Institutions and the Division of Moral Labor. World Political Science, 12(1), pp.45-67.
May, P., 2016. The Controversy over Religious Arbitration Tribunals in Ontario: Unspoken Identity-Based Justifications. World Political Science, 12(1), pp.25-43.
