The Law is No Silver Bullet for Social Stability

Some others argue that the law should be based on rights to ensure social stability. Social stability concerns whether people are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour that harms others. Provided people do not harm others in the positive sense, there is no be no legal reproach towards the one who does not interfere with the action of others. Interfering with the actions of others is to act in a way that discourages or stops the actions of others. This idea is the core of Asian thinking. Asian countries do not tend to interfere with the internal affairs of other countries on the grounds that there is a perceived need to help those other countries.

However, the law can be seen as merely a set of rules drafted by the government. Whether these laws are followed and accepted by the society subject to the law is another matter. Whether people follow the law determines whether the law operates as a framework for society to work. Enforcement is practised to ensure that people comply with the law, however, enforcement alone does not make people follow the law. Whether the law serves as a social framework is inherently dependent on whether they are accepted. In some cultures, the law is regarded as something that exists for political reasons rather than to protect the needs of people. This is especially true in authoritarian states, but is also true in liberal democracies.

The law is indeed limited in its ability to control the way people behave. It does not matter how tough the laws of a country is. If people do not see that they are to be followed, and  choose not to follow them, social stability is not maintained. However, without laws, social stability would be worse. The concept of rights is what justifies the need for laws to protect human dignity.

Academia in modern universities treats the law as though it is the silver bullet for protecting human dignity. However, it is not.