Diplomacy and Law

"You're in America now," I said. "Our idea of diplomacy is showing up with a gun in one hand and a sandwich in the other and asking which you'd prefer."

- Harry Dresden in Turn Coat by Jim Butcher 

A further excerpt from Turn Coat in which Harry Dresden and Warden Captain Anastasia Luccio discuss Harry's mother's semi-radical views and why they were a problem:

   "She was furious that 'the Laws of Magic have nothing to do with right and wrong.' She pointed out how wizards could use their abilities to bilk people out of their money, to intimidate and manipulate them, to steal wealth and property from others or destroy it outright, and that so long as the Laws were obeyed, the Council would do nothing whatsoever to stop them or discourage others from following their example. She wanted to reform the Council's laws to embrace concepts of justice as well as limiting the specific use of magic."
   I frowned. "Wow. What a monster."
   She exhaled slowly. "Can you imagine what would have happened if she'd had her way?"
   "I wouldn't have been unjustly persecuted by the Wardens for years?"
   Anastasia's lips firmed into a line. "Once a body of laws describing justice was applied to the Council, it would only be a short step to using that body to involve the Council in events happening in the outside world."
   "Gosh, yeah," I said. "You're right. A bunch of wizards trying to effect good in the world would be awful."
   "Whose good?" Anastasia asked calmly. "No one is an unjust villain in his own mind, Harry. Even - perhaps even especially - those who are the worst of us. Some of the cruelest tyrants in history were motivated by noble ideals, or made choices they would call 'hard but necessary steps' for the good of their nation. We're all the hero of our own story."
   "Yeah. It was really hard to tell who the good guys and bad guys were in World War Two."
   She rolled her eyes. "You've read the histories written by the victors of that war, Harry. As someone who lived through it, I can tell you that at the time of the war, there was a great deal less certainty. There were stories of atrocities in Germany, but for every one that was true, there were another five or six that weren't. How could one have told the difference between the true stories, the propaganda, and the simple fabrications and myths created by the people of the nations Germany had attacked?"
   "Might have been a bit easier if there'd been a wizard or three around to help," I said.
   She gave me an oblique look. "Then, by your argument, you would have had the White Council destroy the United States."
   "What?"
   "Your government has drenched its hands in innocent blood as well," she replied, still calm. "Unless you think the Indian tribesmen whose lands were conquered were somehow the villains of the piece."
   I frowned over that one. "We've gone sort of far afield of my mother."
   "Yes. And no. What she proposed would inevitably have drawn the Council into mortal conflicts, and therefore into mortal politics. Tell me the truth - if the Council, today, declared war upon America for its past crimes and current idiocy, would you obey the order to attack?"
   "Hell, no," I said. "The U.S. isn't a perfect place, but it's better than most people have managed to come up with. And all my stuff is there."
   She smiled faintly. "Exactly. And since the Council is made up of members from all over the world, it would mean that no matter where we acted, we would almost certainly be faced with dissidence and desertion from those who felt their homelands wronged." She shrugged - and grimaced in pain before arresting the motion. "I myself would have issues if the Council acted against any of the lands where my family has settled. They may not remember me, but the reverse is not true."
   I thought about what she'd said for a long moment. "What you're saying is that the Council would have to turn on some of its own."
   "And how many times would that happen before there was no Council?" she asked. "Wars and feuds can live for generations even when there isn't a ground of wizards involved. Settling the conflicts would have required even more involvement in mortal affairs."
   "You mean control," I said quietly. "You mean the Council seeking political power."
   She gave me a knowing look. "One of the things that makes me respect you more than most young people is your appreciation for history. Precisely. And for gaining control over others, for gathering great power to oneself, there is no better tool than black magic."
   "Which is what the Laws of Magic cover already."
   She nodded. "And so the Council limits itself. Any wizard is free to act in whatever manner he chooses with his power - provided he doesn't break any of the Laws. Without resorting to black magic, the amount of damage an individual can inflict on mortal society is limited. As harsh an experience as it has created for you, Harry, the Laws of Magic are not about justice. The White Council is not about justice. They are about restraining power." She smiled faintly. "And, occasionally, the Council manages to do some good by protecting mankind from supernatural threats."
   "And that's good enough for you?" I asked.
   "It isn't perfect," she admitted. "But it's better than anything else we've come up with. And the things I've spent my lifetime building are there."
  "Touché," I said.

Maybe it's just me, but this passage really made me think. There are some good direct points in there about perspective, clarity of hindsight, and politics in general.

But one of the things it makes me consider is how laws are frequently not about "right and wrong" so much as about managing society and keeping civilization... civilized. I think most people would agree that there's a moral wrongness to murder, sure. But consider how, aside from that aspect, our society would be much different (if not crumbled entirely) were there no legal repercussions to killing someone else? When any heated argument could lead to death, you start to have population issues.

Or take a look at traffic laws. Few people would say it is evil/wrong (in a moral sense) to cross a street against the light. Rather these laws are there to apply an order to an otherwise chaotic situation for the safety of our citizens. There are tons of laws about accountability - laws that are there to keep people from harming or taking advantage of others. People might argue over the moral good in them, but the bottom line may well be how they keep people from tearing society apart.

Our judicial system is about justice in the eyes of the law, not morality. Sometimes these things overlap. Sometimes they don't. It's not a perfect place, but it's better than most people have come up with.

And all my stuff is here.