As an instrument for practical action, law is responsive to the
As an instrument for practical action, law is responsive to the wisdom of its time, which may be wrong, but it carries forward, sometimes in opposition to this wisdom or passion, a memory of received values.
Edward Levi, scholar of law and steward of justice, declared with clarity: “As an instrument for practical action, law is responsive to the wisdom of its time, which may be wrong, but it carries forward, sometimes in opposition to this wisdom or passion, a memory of received values.” In these words he unveils the paradox of law: it bends to the present moment, reflecting the wisdom or folly of its age, yet it also preserves in its bones the values of generations past, carrying forward a memory that restrains the wild passions of the day.
The meaning is profound. Law is not a perfect mirror of truth, nor a frozen monument. It lives between the present and the past, between the urgency of action and the weight of tradition. At times it follows the spirit of the age, absorbing the convictions and even the errors of society. Yet, Levi reminds us, it also resists, drawing upon the received values handed down by history. In this dual nature lies both its strength and its burden: to be flexible enough to act, but anchored enough to guard against passing madness.
History itself confirms this wisdom. Consider the struggle for civil rights in the United States. In its time, the law once upheld slavery and segregation, echoing the distorted “wisdom” of a society blinded by prejudice. Yet the deeper values of liberty and equality, planted in the Constitution and carried forward across generations, eventually rose in opposition to that false wisdom. The same legal system that once enslaved was later wielded to liberate, proving Levi’s teaching that the law holds within it both the errors of an age and the seeds of its correction.
This teaching also warns us of humility. For the wisdom of our time may one day be judged as folly by the generations to come. What seems just today may tomorrow appear cruel; what seems prudent may tomorrow appear reckless. But in the law, if guarded with integrity, there remains a memory, a tether to enduring truths that outlast the passions of the moment. This memory serves as both shield and compass, restraining humanity from drifting too far from the eternal principles of justice.
Therefore, let the seeker understand: the law is no mere tool of rulers, nor a mere reflection of fashion, but a living thread binding the present to the past and the future. Its greatness lies not in perfection, but in its struggle to balance practical action with eternal values. Edward Levi’s words call us to vigilance and reverence: to shape the law wisely in our time, knowing it will carry forward not only our wisdom but also our errors, and to trust that in its memory lies the hope of justice yet to come.
I_iam __ctu
Levi’s insight feels like a warning about complacency. The law may follow the wisdom of the time, but if that wisdom is flawed, justice suffers. Yet the idea that law carries a ‘memory’ gives me hope—it means that certain principles, like human rights or equality, can endure even when society temporarily loses sight of them. The challenge, then, is ensuring that this memory isn’t just preserved but also continually reinterpreted.
DTDuc Toan
This reflection feels timeless. It acknowledges that law isn’t static—it reacts to culture and context. But it also reminds us that legal systems have memory, a kind of institutional conscience. I wonder, though, who decides which ‘received values’ are worth preserving? Sometimes tradition is used to justify inequality. So how can a legal system honor its heritage while also confronting the moral blind spots embedded in its own history?
77377373777
There’s something paradoxical here—the law is guided by the wisdom of its age but also carries older values that may contradict it. I think that’s what makes legal reform so difficult: it’s never purely forward-looking. It makes me curious whether Levi saw this as a strength or a flaw. Does the law’s resistance to change protect against moral chaos, or does it entrench injustices long after society has outgrown them?
HLNguyen Dang Ha Linh
I find this statement fascinating because it presents law as both a mirror and a memory of society. It’s shaped by the current moment but also by the ideals of the past. I wonder whether this dual nature helps or hinders justice. When outdated values linger, do they prevent reform? Or does that historical continuity ensure that we don’t lose sight of enduring moral foundations like fairness, dignity, and restraint?
PADo Phuong Anh
This quote really captures the tension between progress and tradition in law. It makes me wonder—how do we decide when the ‘wisdom of the time’ is actually wrong? The law seems to move slowly, often lagging behind social change. Yet that slowness might also protect society from the volatility of popular opinion. Is it better for the law to be cautious and preserve inherited values, or to evolve quickly with public morality?