Letter and spirit of the law

The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two ways of interpreting rules or laws. To obey the "letter of the law" is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the "spirit of the law" is to follow the intention behind why the law was enacted. Although both are usually followed, the letter and the spirit are commonly discussed when they are in opposition. "Law" originally referred to legislative statutes,^{[citation needed]} but in the idiom it may refer to any kind of rule. Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit can involve exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.

Legal research

Violating the perceived intention, or "spirit", of the law has been found to influence judgments of culpability more strongly than violating the literal wording of the law.

A person can violate the letter of the law (but not the spirit) and not incur culpability.
A person can violate the spirit of the law and incur culpability, even without violating the letter of the law.
The greatest culpability is assigned when both the letter and the spirit of the law are violated.

Shakespeare

William Shakespeare wrote numerous plays dealing with the letter-versus-spirit antithesis, almost always coming down on the side of "spirit" and often forcing villains (who sided with the letter) to make concessions. In one of the best-known examples, The Merchant of Venice, he introduces the quibble as a plot device to preserve both the spirit and the letter of the law. The moneylender Shylock has made an agreement with Antonio that if Antonio cannot repay a loan, Shylock will have a pound of flesh from him. When the debt is not repaid in time, Portia at first pleads for mercy in a famous speech: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (IV, i, 185). When Shylock refuses, she finally saves Antonio by pointing out that Shylock's agreement with him mentions no blood, and therefore, Shylock can have his pound of flesh only if he sheds no blood.

U.S. constitutional law

Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically been divided on the "letter versus spirit" debate. For example, at its founding, the Federalist Party argued for a looser interpretation of the Constitution, granting Congress broad powers in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Founding Fathers, particularly those associated with the Federalist Party. The Federalists would have represented the "spirit" interpretation. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, who favored a limited federal government, argued for a strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government was granted only those powers enumerated in the Constitution and nothing not explicitly stated; they represented the "letter" interpretation.

Modern constitutional interpretation is also divided along these lines. Living Constitution scholars advocate for an interpretation based on the spirit of the document, although one grounded in a spirit that reflects broad powers. Originalist or textualist scholars advocate a more letter-based approach, arguing that the amendment process of the Constitution necessarily forecloses broader interpretations that can be accomplished by passing an amendment.

The Bible

The First Epistle to the Corinthians (specifically 2 Corinthians 3:6) has been interpreted as referring to the "spirit" and "letter" of the law. Though the phrase is not quoted directly, some interpretations connect the passage's use of "spirit" and "letter" with discussions of legalism and the Hebrew Bible. This has been described as the first recorded use of the phrase.^{[citation needed]}^[1]

In some New Testament passages, Pharisees are portrayed as emphasizing the letter of the law over its spirit (Mark 2:3–28; 3:1–6). Thus, "Pharisee" has entered the language as a pejorative for one who does so; the Oxford English Dictionary defines "Pharisee" with one of the meanings as "A person of the spirit or character commonly attributed to the Pharisees in the New Testament; a legalist or formalist". Some New Testament passages also depict Pharisees as lawless or corrupt (Matthew 23:38); the Greek word used in the verse is translated as lawlessness, and the corresponding Hebrew word is translated as fraud or injustice. However, the Hebrew word "Perushim", from which "Pharisee" is derived, means "separatists", referencing to their separation from others.

In the Gospels, Jesus is often portrayed as criticizing some Pharisees. Not all Pharisees, nor all Jews of that time, were legalistic. Though modern language has used the word "Pharisee" in a pejorative sense to describe someone who is legalistic and rigid, it is not an accurate description of all Pharisees. The argument over the "spirit of the law" versus the "letter of the law" was part of early Jewish dialogue as well.^[2]

The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) is one of the New Testament texts to address this theme. The passage concerns a dialogue between Jesus and an "expert in the law" or "lawyer". As described in verse 25, a lawyer "stood up and tested Him," asking, "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (NKJV). The intent of the dialogue was to trap Jesus into making statements contrary to the law. Jesus responds by posing the question back to the lawyer, who already has knowledge of the law, asking, "What is written in the law?" (verse 26). The lawyer quotes Deuteronomy 6:5, "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself" (NKJV), and Leviticus 19:18. The question "Who is my neighbor?" in verse 29 has been interpreted as an attempt at self-justification.

It is then that Jesus responds with the story of a man beaten by robbers who is ignored by a priest and a Levite, but then rescued and compassionately cared for by a Samaritan. Priests and Levites were Israelites whose qualifications and duties were meticulously set forth in Mosaic law (Leviticus 10 and Numbers 5–8), while Samaritans were descended from Israelites who had intermarried with their Babylonian captors and established a sect with an alternative interpretation of the Law. In the story, both the priest and the Levite follow their prescribed regulations dutifully, yet do not help the injured traveler, even crossing to the other side of the road to avoid possible rule violations. The Samaritan, whose religious tradition differed from that of the Jews, goes beyond simply tending to the injured man. The Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch as scripture and worshipped Yahweh in their temple on Mount Gerizim; their religious tradition differed from that of groups that identified Mount Moriah as the proper place of worship specified in Deuteronomy 12. He takes him to an inn and pays for the man's care, promising to return to inquire about the man and pay any overage incurred. Jesus concludes by asking the lawyer which of the men was a "neighbor" to the beaten traveler, to which the reply was "the one who showed compassion".^[3] Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise".

According to Jeremiah, "the qualities of the new covenant expounded upon the old are: a) It will not be broken; b) Its law will be written in the heart, not merely on tablets of stone; c) The knowledge of God will deem it no longer necessary to put it into written words of instruction."^[4] According to Christian interpretations of Luke (Luke 22:20) and Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:25), this prophecy was fulfilled through the work of Jesus Christ,^[4] who said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you." According to the New Testament, Jesus stated that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. This passage has been interpreted by some Christians as encouraging people to look beyond the "letter of the law" to the "spirit of the law": the principles behind the commandments and their intended purpose.

Gaming the system

Gaming the system can be defined as using the rules and procedures meant to protect a system to manipulate the system for a desired outcome.^[5]

The first known documented use of the term "gaming the system" was in 1975.^[6] According to James Rieley, a British advisor to CEOs and an author, structures in companies and organizations (including explicit and implicit policies and procedures, stated goals, and mental models) drive behaviors that are detrimental to long-term organizational success and stifle competition.^[7] For some^{[by whom?]}, error is the essence of gaming the system, in which a gap in protocol allows for erroneous practices that lead to unintended results.^[8]

Although the term generally carries negative connotations, gaming the system can be used for benign purposes, such as the undermining and dismantling of corrupt or oppressive organizations.^[9]

References

↑ Cohen, B (1954). "Note on Letter and Spirit in the New Testament". The Harvard Theological Review. 47 (3): 197–203. doi:10.1017/S0017816000026584. JSTOR 1508532. S2CID 161816662.
↑ Babalonian Talmud Tractate Baba Metzia 115a, Sanhedrin 21a.
↑ The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
1 2 "The New American Bible" Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Nashville, Tennessee, 37202, 1976 (1970) p.949 (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Note: This bible has interpretations and references as footnotes.
↑ Joseph Potvin. "The Great Due Date of 2008, slide 5" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 26, 2016.(membership required)
↑ 1975 Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 19-21, 1975: Host Chapter, Central Arizona. American Institute of Industrial Engineers. 1975.
↑ James Rieley (April 2001). Gaming the System: how to stop playing the organizational game and start playing the competitive game. Financial Times Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-273-65419-3.
↑ Mark Nunes, Error: Glitch, Noise, and Jam in New Media Cultures (2010) p. 188
↑ Ziewitz, Malte (2019). "Rethinking gaming: The ethical work of optimization in web search engines". Social Studies of Science. 49 (5): 2–3. doi:10.1177/0306312719865607. ISSN 0306-3127. PMID 31387459. S2CID 199467673.

[1] Cohen, B (1954). "Note on Letter and Spirit in the New Testament". The Harvard Theological Review. 47 (3): 197–203. doi:10.1017/S0017816000026584. JSTOR 1508532. S2CID 161816662.

[2] Babalonian Talmud Tractate Baba Metzia 115a, Sanhedrin 21a.

[3] The Holy Bible, New King James Version, 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

[NAB-4] 1 2 "The New American Bible" Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Nashville, Tennessee, 37202, 1976 (1970) p.949 (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Note: This bible has interpretations and references as footnotes.

[5] Joseph Potvin. "The Great Due Date of 2008, slide 5" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 26, 2016.(membership required)

[6] 1975 Systems Engineering Conference Proceedings, Las Vegas, Nevada, November 19-21, 1975: Host Chapter, Central Arizona. American Institute of Industrial Engineers. 1975.

[7] James Rieley (April 2001). Gaming the System: how to stop playing the organizational game and start playing the competitive game. Financial Times Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-273-65419-3.

[8] Mark Nunes, Error: Glitch, Noise, and Jam in New Media Cultures (2010) p. 188

[9] Ziewitz, Malte (2019). "Rethinking gaming: The ethical work of optimization in web search engines". Social Studies of Science. 49 (5): 2–3. doi:10.1177/0306312719865607. ISSN 0306-3127. PMID 31387459. S2CID 199467673.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]