On Law and Utopia: Rules vs. Principles?--a Comment on Ramiro Aviles's Reply *. (Discussion)‪.‬

IN HIS PERCEPTIVE REPLY, Professor Ramiro Aviles raises yet another important contribution to the emerging field of law and utopia, by demonstrating once again how further elaborations can illuminate our understanding of law, utopia, and the relationship between the two. We agree with Professor Ramiro Aviles that this is a valuable endeavor. Jurists of different orientation are often engaged in just that: visions of a utopian society. It is therefore worthwhile to understand the conceptual elements of a utopian society; practical and theoretical insights derived from such understandings can prove useful to the study of law, and vice-versa. Among them is the understanding, brought forth by Professor Aviles, that there is no necessary contradiction between a legalistic society--that is, a society based on the rule of law--and a utopian society. We subscribe to Ramiro Aviles's convincing arguments on that point. The purpose of the essay that sparked the debate (Almog) was to illustrate, through literary narratives, the very same notion, namely the possibility, if not the inevitability, of law in human utopia. The two stories demonstrate, in our opinion, that in a Utopian state--as defined by the system itself, in this case Judaism--law exists and people turn to law. Thus the prevalent view that 'the better the society is the fewer laws there will be,' should not necessarily be accepted. In fact, the literary examples point to the contrary. (1)