Edward Coke: 'How long soever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law.'

How long soever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law.

In the realm of legal systems, the quote by Edward Coke, "How long soever it hath continued, if it be against reason, it is of no force in law," holds immense significance. In a simple sense, Coke implies that no matter how long a law has been in existence, if it contradicts reason, it lacks legitimate force in the eyes of the law. This principle serves as an essential pillar of justice, ensuring that laws are rooted in reason and fairness rather than blind adherence to tradition or longevity. However, delving deeper into the thought-provoking realm of philosophy, we can explore an unexpected concept that further highlights the quote's relevance and provides a contrasting perspective.While Coke's quote emphasizes the supremacy of reason in the legal system, it raises an intriguing question: is reason always an infallible guiding light? This query leads us into the fascinating territory of moral relativism, a philosophical viewpoint that posits the absence of universal truths and argues that what is considered "right" or "wrong" depends on an individual's perception or societal norms. Contrasting with Coke's assertion that laws against reason hold no force, moral relativism suggests that the notion of reason itself may vary across cultures or individuals.Indeed, proponents of moral relativism argue that what seems irrational or unjust in one context could be perceived as ethical or sensible in another. They contend that moral standards are not absolute but instead shaped by historical, cultural, and individual factors. By introducing this concept, we find ourselves entangled in a thought-provoking paradox: the conflict between the importance of reason in the legal system and the relativistic nature of human morality.To better understand this paradox, let's consider an example. Imagine a society where a long-held law prescribes severe punishment for theft, including limb amputation. From the perspective of moral relativism, it's crucial to recognize that within this society, reason may dictate that such a law is necessary to deter theft and preserve social order. While it may seem utterly unreasonable and brutal to an external observer, to those within the society, it aligns with their cultural and moral framework.However, moral relativism should not be seen as undermining the validity of Coke's statement. Rather, it presents an alternative lens through which to analyze the relationship between reason and the law. As we explore this philosophical perspective, we must acknowledge its limitations. Moral relativism brushes against the ethical dilemma of cultural relativism, which raises questions about the universality of human rights and the potential risk of condoning immoral or oppressive practices in the name of cultural diversity.Returning to Edward Coke's quote, we find a delicate balance between the importance of reason and the acknowledgment of cultural and individual perspectives. While reason may guide the development and evaluation of laws, we must be cautious not to disregard the influence of varying moral frameworks. Nevertheless, Coke's emphasis on the role of reason serves as a safeguard against laws that lack a rational foundation, ensuring the pursuit of justice and fairness in legal systems.In conclusion, Edward Coke's quote resonates with the belief that longevity does not guarantee the validity of a law if it contradicts reason. While this notion stands strong in the realm of law, when we delve into the vast expanse of philosophy, we encounter the contrasting perspective of moral relativism. However, this divergence does not diminish the significance of Coke's idea. Instead, it invites us to consider the delicate balance between reason, cultural relativism, and the quest for justice within legal systems. By traversing this intellectual landscape, we gain a more profound understanding of the complexities inherent in the relationship between law, reason, and human morality.