Response to doing History and studying Law

History entails an interpretation of action representing an orientation of thinking at a given time. It is not an objective observation of past events, but rather a reconstruction of past events that aligns with a persons interpretation of those events. This is definately an incomplete characterisation of history, though it illustrates an important aspect of it for me -- action + abstraction shapes history, but does not present truth.

Similarly, studing law can be misconstrued as studying, working to be a truth seeker. But practicing law is just that -- seeking truth only within the confines of the law. Morality is not an issue for a lawyer who is appointed or charged with the best possible defense for a client as possible whether or not that person is innocent, guilty, or legally insane. The law is real as a lawyer and it is the idiom the rules the day. Objectivity of law breaks down because of a peer jury or perhaps because of the judge who decides the verdict. Appealing to values held dear can sway people in different directions. And because the scientific method, or rather induction is so popular, experiments shape thinking. To practice law is to understand a jury, a judge, a client, and the law to win a case. Exploiting values is a means to an end. It's amazing our justice system survives sometimes when winning a case many times comes at the expense of many others. For someone who values people, it's hard for me to understand. But...it is a much-needed job. Anyone interested?