I’ve been pondering the difference between the “rule of law” and “rule by law.” To rule by law is to follow the technical procedures of lawmaking in a manner that could be procedurally just, lawful, fair, and representative while unreasonable, immoral, and wicked. Conversely, the rule of law will include technical procedures of lawmaking requiring procedural justice but also the judgment that law—to be law—be an ordinance of reason for the common good and promulgated by those with authority. A mere edict is not law, and law, insofar as it is law, must be an ordinance of reason. The substance of law matters, not merely the procedures, and an unjust law is no law at all.
Much of Western society appears to think that procedures and techniques are sufficient, that because of our pluralism we can bracket debates over substance and purpose and simply pay attention to the means. I’m not so sure this is working that well, but it’s fascinating to observe that mindset at work.
We didn’t set out to explore this distinction in Public Discourse this month, but it certainly appeared in various ways.
Timothy Burns explored how the use of AI in composing a text results in people seeming to be thinking and judging, an appearance, without having to understand and judge the content and substance for themselves. Allen Porter suggested that AI, among other technologies, copies or simulates the real, without offering the content of the real itself.
Start your day with Public Discourse
Sign up and get our daily essays sent straight to your inbox.Adeline Allen explained how the refusal to understand the personhood of embryos has resulted in courts’ treatment of embryos as property, considered and dealt with under the auspices of contract and the methods of contract. Jose Lim challenged the idea that consciousness can be dispensed with at the end of life, as if we can simply manage death while avoiding questions about the meaning of life and suffering.
And finally, Robert Lowry Clinton argued that the massive growth of the administrative state—with all those procedures and rule by law—has “more often than not resulted in governmental paralysis.”
Procedures are necessary, of course, but we need substance as well. And our pages were full of substance this month, as every month. If you missed any of these essays I hope you’ll go back and read them.
Support Our Work
Public Discourse is completely free of charge to readers, which means we rely on the generosity of our donors. Please consider supporting our work.
From the Archives
As we move ever closer to election day, I provide only one essay from the archives to consider just now, Charles Chaput’s “In Defense of a Healthy Patriotism.”
Miscellaneous
Our editors suggest the following as worth a click:
- Carl R. Trueman, “The Tragedy of IVF,” First Things
- Lyman Stone, “Pronatal Policy Ideas for 2025,” Institute for Family Studies
- Erika Bachiochi, “The Dead End of Political Misogyny,” Compact
Thanks for reading PD.
R. J. Snell
Editor-in-Chief
Image by BillionPhotos.com and licensed via Adobe Stock.
