Law encompasses rules and regulations developed and enforced through social and governmental institutions with the objective of regulating behavior. There has always been a backlash on varied laws as different stakeholders have different interpretations for similar laws. The wrangles have been an indication that laws are not perfect. Sometimes laws are coined with the objective of enhancing morality and ethics, but the outcome usually turns opposite. This because the law has proved to be an imperfect profession where success is rarely achieved without having to sacrifice some principles. That is why there is no perfect justice and the lack of absolute in morality and ethics. Even the Ten Commandments in the bible were not perfect in a way. The commandments failed to condemn things like drunkenness, bestiality, obscene language, does not tell on how to enter the kingdom of the Lord, there is no provision for forgiveness of sin, and they do not teach on how to love one’s enemies among other things. This is an indication of how the commandments were not comprehensive hence not perfect. There is no existence of perfect law and this is what brings about vulnerable subjects while trying to anchor equality in the society.

In “The Morality of Law”, Fuller (1969) has highlighted eight ways that result in the failure of making law. The first one is embedded in the failure of achieving rules at all hence resulting in everything being decided on an ad hoc basis. This results in similar issues being decided in different ways depending on the circumstances involved. Another failure comes with lack of publicizing the rules that affected parties ought to observe. This is why people usually come out as being ignorant of the law, but nothing was presented to them to help in enlightening. The abuse of retroactive legislation also comes in the way of making law. This tends to undercut the rules’ integrity since there is the threat of retrospective change.

There is also the failure of making rules understandable. Rules and regulations are effective up to the degree with which they can be understood. If the people being governed by the law do not have an explicit understanding of the rules, there is a big probability of breaching these rules even without their knowledge. The enactment of contradictory law also presents failure with regards to law. There are instances where two laws pertaining to similar issues tend to contradict each other. The application, in this case, is dependent on the interpretation of the stakeholders involved. Presence of rules that require conduct beyond powers of the affected party also makes it problematic for rules. There is also the tendency of rules being changed from time to time. This makes it difficult for the subjects to orient themselves by these rules (Fuller, 1969). Another prevalent failure is that of lack of congruence between the way rules are announced and how they are administered. This means there is always a probability of laws being administered in a way that was not intended by the lawmakers.

Fuller (1969) asserts that when one of these eight directions fail the possibility of having a proper legal system becomes difficult. There is no rational foundation for asserting that an individual has a moral obligation of obeying rules that they do not know exist, rules that are kept secret from them, rules contradicted by other rules, rules that only came into existence only after they had acted or ones that keep changing now and then. This is why it is prudent to conclude that there is no existence of a perfect law.

The lack of existence of perfect law has resulted in the vulnerability as people try to bring about equality. Fineman (2008) asserts that the concept of “equality” is usually defined along the lines of liberal individualism philosophy associated with John Locke. This tries to reiterate that every individual ought to be free and accorded various inalienable rights. The constitution goes ahead to offer protection for these rights. The rights are regarded within the confines of the law, and anybody breaching them is subject to punishment as provided by the relevant laws. The problem arises on how the law treats equality narrowly to imply a prerequisite of the sameness of treatment. It is more of an anti-discrimination mandate. This is to say that the equal protection doctrine is only used to fight obvious discrimination focused on sex, ethnicity and race (Fineman, 2008).

The formal model of equality is problematic in that it is limited in varied ways. Equality has been reduced to the prohibition of discrimination or sameness of treatment, and this has proved to be an inadequate tool to upset or resist relentless forms of domination and subordination (Fineman, 2008). This model might be effective in addressing some forms of discrimination but fails in protecting others. As a result, the economic and social well-being of everyone in the society is not taken care of by the laws meant to protect the people. It is the very same formal equality as recognized under the law that helps to validate institutional arrangements privileging some people while disadvantaging others. There is no framework to help challenge existing allocations of power and resources. The protections under the current model of equality do not seem to extend to everyone. This is why some subjects of the population tend to remain vulnerable despite there being laws meant to protect them.

Fineman (2008) asserts that in the American legal culture, the thought of private acts is based on abstention and restraint. That is why people are usually comfortable with the creation of barriers that help to put the state out of their activities and institutions. As a result, the non-intervention of the state has now become a huge roadblock towards initiating reforms that are more responsive to solving inequalities issues. The private mentality has contributed in placing institutions and other things beyond the control and regulation of the state. When the state is withdrawn in this manner, it is difficult to exercise its traditional roles as a guarantor of an equal society and principal monitor (Fineman, 2008). As a result, there is the presence of unequal and skewed society where the gap between the affluent and the destitute continues to grow. This shows that it is important for the government to be accorded some controlling powers with some issues to help counter some unfettered self-interest in the society.

The concept of free-market is one that is intended to bring sameness and equal opportunities in the societies. This is why the government is alienated in this case, and the market is left to be determined by the concepts of demand and supply. This creates the concept of capitalism, which is thought to bring equality, but it is not usually the case. It is easy for the formation of monopolies under the free-market concept. With the absence of state control, some entities with numerous resources would easily take the initiative of edging out inferior competitors through crude means to help remain as the sole providers of certain goods or services. This is a good example that the freedom given to the holders of means of production would easily work as a way of extending inequality.

This quest for equality through the law is the one that has contributed to some of the vulnerability being experienced at the moment. Currently, legal theories are developed around the liberal tradition of universality (Fineman, 2008). The theories tend to assume that liberal subjects are competent and have the ability to play different societal roles. This is true, but the law has several limitations of the extent that people and the state can go to help initiate aspects of equality. The law has several directives that are meant for ensuring that everyone is treated equally with all things that they are involved with in the society. However, there is usually the presence of loopholes in the law that makes it possible for some people to take advantage of existing situations. As a result, these individuals end up being more empowered at the expense of others. The ones that remain vulnerable have also worked within the confines of the law, but do not have the kind of leverage possessed by their counterparts. This is why it is prudent to conclude that there is no existence of perfect law and this is what brings about vulnerable subjects while trying to anchor equality in the society.

References

Fineman, M. (2008). The Vulnerable Subject: AnchoringEquality in the Human Condition. Yale Journal Of Law & Feminism, 20(1).

Fuller, L. (1969). The Morality of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?