Abstract

There may be legal rules that are simply bad or spurious. Much of it was created with the best of intentions, but unfortunately, unforeseen circumstances or social behavioral changes make its application unfair or excessively burdensome to the individuals affected. Interestingly, rules capable of producing bad or undesirable solutions from a moral point of view often prevail even in times when there are judges who choose to disregard them, providing good reasons not to apply them in favor of another decision. Why such legal standards still prevail as disputes solutions ruled by the law? I argue that the cause of this persistence is explained by two phenomena studied by the realm of the social psychology, namely, Aschs experiment of conformity and submission to the consensus of a majority and the pluralistic ignorance. If I am correct, these phenomena or behavioural biases are an obstacle that prevents the prevalence of more sensible moral solutions on some specific cases, because they reinforce a logic of formal application of the law.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.