THE CHRONICLES OF A CAPITALIST LAWYER

RANDOM THOUGHTS OF A CAPITALIST LAWYER ON LAW, ECONOMICS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE

Showing posts with label Law and Morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law and Morality. Show all posts
  • Moralitas dan Pasar (Atau Mengapa Michael Sandel Tidak Paham Ekonomi)


    Kemarin saya menerima tautan artikel yang ditulis oleh Michael Sandel dengan judul "The Moral Limits of the Market". Singkat cerita, Sandel ingin menunjukkan bahwa tidak semua hal bisa diatur oleh pasar dan tidak semua hal bisa dibeli serta bahayanya apabila semua aspek kehidupan tunduk pada pasar. Saya selalu tertarik dengan kritik yang bermutu terhadap Law & Economics. Sayangnya ketika saya membaca artikel ini, kesan utama yang saya tangkap adalah Sandel tidak paham ilmu ekonomi.

    Pertama-tama, Sandel memberikan 3 contoh kasus yang menurutnya bermasalah dari sudut pandang moralitas: (i) aturan penjara di Santa Barbara, California, yang memperbolehkan narapidana untuk membeli akomodasi yang lebih baik dengan harga US$90 per malam, (ii) program sumbangan US$300 bagi wanita pecandu narkoba yang bersedia untuk disterilisasi guna mencegah lahirnya anak  dari wanita pecandu tersebut, dan (iii) perusahaan yang menyediakan joki antrian untuk menghadiri acara tertentu dengan menyewakan tuna wisma atau pengangguran untuk mengantri.

    Saya sulit memahami mengapa hal ini bisa dianggap salah. Mungkin karena Sandel sendiri tidak menjelaskan dengan rinci dalam artikelnya nilai-nilai moral mana saja yang harus didahulukan. Alih-alih berbicara dengan sistematis, Sandel malah melantur kemana-mana seperti membahas soal nilai kemanusiaan, harga diri, ketimpangan sosial akibat pasar, dan korupsi, sambil berbicara tentang pentingnya masyarakat membahas hal ini secara mendalam.

    Dalam ekonomi normatif, nilai utama yang dianggap penting adalah efisiensi dan maksimalisasi kesejahteraan masyarakat secara menyeluruh. Ambil contoh soal ketimpangan yang diributkan oleh Sandel. Menjelaskan mengapa ketimpangan itu buruk berdasarkan moralitas tidak terlalu sulit, anda tinggal mengklaim bahwa ketimpangan itu buruk secara moral. Anda bisa menambahkan bahwa hal ini benar secara intuitif atau ada nilai moral yang lebih tinggi yang menunjukkan bahwa ketimpangan itu buruk. Apanya yang mendalam? Justru berbicara apakah ketimpangan buruk dari sudut pandang efisiensi dan totalitas kesejahteraanlah yang bisa melatih kita untuk berpikir secara lebih mendalam, karena kita harus bisa berpikir bagaimana menghubungkan isu ketimpangan tersebut dengan kesejahteraan total.

    Ketimpangan sampai level tertentu pasti dibutuhkan. Tanpa ada ketimpangan sama sekali, tidak ada insentif untuk maju. Kalau semua orang menerima upah yang sama, terlepas apapun produktivitasnya, untuk apa bekerja keras? Kalau semua orang akan menerima ranking yang sama di kelas atau cukup sekedar lulus saja tanpa nilai, untuk apa susah payah belajar? Tidak usah jauh-jauh, dalam Islam pun konsep surga bertingkat-tingkat. Surga Islam tidak egaliter dimana semua orang akan berada dalam posisi yang sama. Semakin tinggi amal dan ketakwaannya, semakin tinggi derajatnya di hadapan Tuhan. Ketimpangan mau tidak mau harus ada demi kemajuan. Kurang intuitif apa lagi?

    Tetapi ketimpangan yang berlebihan juga akan bermasalah. Masyarakat yang terlalu timpang akan lebih rawan konflik. Sederhananya, orang tak akan pernah bisa lepas dari rasa iri. Menjadi miskin itu menderita (saya tahu karena sudah pernah mengalami), dan penderitaan cenderung berubah menjadi kemarahan ketika tak kunjung usai. Kebijakan distributif menjadi masuk akal dalam konteks pengurangan konflik tersebut. Kalau orang yang lebih miskin bisa dibuat lebih senang tanpa harus membebani yang lebih kaya terlalu berat, mengapa tidak? Kalau anda tidak suka dengan istilah ini, anda bisa menggantinya dengan konsep Islam tentang adanya hak orang miskin dalam harta anda. Apapun namanya, konsepnya sama. Kuncinya ada di keseimbangan. Toh pemerintah dan pajak adalah 2 hal yang sudah tidak bisa dihindari di dunia modern. Daripada sibuk berbicara soal kebebasan mutlak, lebih baik berbicara soal bagaimana agar kebijakan distributif tersebut dijalankan secara efisien. Ini tentunya kalau kita mau serius bicara secara mendalam, bukan mengawang-awang.

    Kembali lagi ke 3 contoh yang sempat kita bahas di atas. Karena Sandel tidak menjelaskan dengan rinci apa masalah dari 3 kebijakan tersebut, saya akan mencoba berpikir seperti Sandel dan menggunakan nilai-nilai yang ingin dia pertahankan. Pertama soal akomodasi penjara. Apa yang akan Sandel katakan? Tidak adil? Kebijakan ini mendukung mereka yang lebih kaya dibandingkan dengan yang lebih miskin? Atau apakah dengan kebijakan seperti ini orang kaya menjadi tidak menghargai nilai-nilai luhur hukum pidana karena berpikir hukum bisa dibeli?

    Mengapa tidak adil? Tidak adil adalah apabila orang kaya boleh meminta kenaikan akomodasi tanpa perlu membayar sedikitpun. Siapa yang bisa bilang bahwa definisi tidak adil saya salah? Siapa juga yang bisa bilang bahwa definisi Sandel benar? Apakah karena diperbolehkan untuk membeli akomodasi maka orang kaya diberikan prioritas secara tidak adil terhadap orang miskin? Ukurannya tidak jelas.

    Kalau anda khawatir bahwa efek jera berkurang karena orang kaya menganggap hukum bisa dibeli, isunya bukan soal pembelian akomodasi penjara, isunya di harga yang perlu diterapkan. Kalau suatu barang dihargai terlalu murah, ya nilainya juga menjadi tidak seberapa. Atau Sandel khawatir, hal ini akan dikorupsi? Tanpa ada aturan itupun, jual beli akomodasi penjara sudah lazim ada. Kita bisa mengambil kebijakan untuk melarangnya secara total, atau kita bisa menggunakannya untuk mendapatkan manfaat dalam bentuk lain. Intinya ada di kreativitas kita dalam menyusun kebijakan.

    Pertanyaan yang hilang dari artikel Sandel adalah uang yang diterima untuk membayar kenaikan akomodasi itu akan digunakan untuk apa? Kalau uangnya digunakan untuk memperbaiki kualitas penjara bagi mereka yang lebih miskin, apa bedanya dengan kebijakan distribusi yang diidam-idamkan Sandel? Apabila Sandel memahami ilmu ekonomi, pertanyaannya tidak berhenti pada apakah kebijakan akomodasi penjara adil atau tidak adil, tetapi bagaimana agar kebijakan itu bermanfaat bagi semua orang. Itu pertanyaan yang menurut saya lebih tepat guna untuk ditanyakan.

    Analisis ekonomi juga tidak akan berhenti di satu titik, tetapi akan terus kritis terhadap aspek-aspek yang paling relevan terhadap isu akomodasi penjara. Kalau misalnya kita perbolehkan narapidana untuk membeli akomodasi yang lebih baik, apakah pasti dana tersebut aman? Bagaimana caranya agar dana tersebut tidak disalahgunakan oleh sipir penjara? Itu berarti kita juga harus memikirkan insentif dari sipir. Apa sebaiknya dana tersebut diserahkan sebagian kepada sipir? Dan sebagainya.

    Selanjutnya mengenai wanita yang disterilkan. Apakah ini isu harga diri? Atau isu soal bayi yang tak akan pernah dilahirkan? Kalau Sandel mau berpikir lebih mendalam, ia juga harus berpikir mengenai bagaimana nantinya kalau si wanita pecandu tetap dibiarkan memiliki anak. Apakah nasib anak itu tak penting? Apakah Sandel yakin wanita pecandu itu akan bisa menjadi ibu yang baik? Apakah kemudian harga diri si wanita menurun? Dia tidak dipaksa untuk disterilkan. Bukankah itu tetap menghargai kebebasan individu yang setahu saya umumnya dianggap penting oleh para filosof moralis? Lebih penting lagi, bagaimana mengukur nilai dari bayi yang bahkan tak pernah muncul ke dunia?

    Coba kalau kita lihat ini dari sudut ekonomi, saya akan terlebih dahulu berfokus pada teknologi sterilisasi. Apakah permanen atau tidak? Kalau tidak permanen, ini kebijakan yang peduli baik pada ibu maupun anaknya. Tidak ada yang dirugikan. Kalau permanen, perlu dipastikan apakah si wanita menerima informasi yang tepat ketika ia mengambil keputusan agar jangan sampai harga yang ditawarkan terlalu murah. Bukan apa-apa, walau tidak semua wanita menginginkan anak, bukan berarti kehadiran anak tidak bernilai sama sekali. Ekonom yang peduli pada kesejahteraan akan memikirkan bagaimana caranya menyeimbangkan antara harga sterilisasi dan keinginan untuk memiliki anak di masa depan. Apa yang bisa ditawarkan oleh Sandel dalam menjawab isu seperti ini? Sekedar bahwa sterilisasi tidak bermoral? Lalu? Seterusnya apa?

    Isu joki antrian bahkan lebih absurd lagi untuk digunakan sebagai contoh oleh Sandel. Dia nampaknya lupa membandingkan bagaimana nasib tuna wisma dan pengangguran ketika mereka tidak punya penghasilan. Tanpa penghasilan dan pekerjaan, ujung-ujungnya mereka akan menjadi pengemis. Dimana letak harga diri dari mengemis? Bagaimana mungkin secara moral kita bisa membiarkan tuna wisma mengemis (dan menjual harga dirinya) sementara kita mempertanyakan tindakan si tuna wisma sebagai joki antrian? Analisis macam apa itu? Saya bahkan tidak perlu panjang lebar membahas isu joki antrian dari sudut ekonomi, ini contoh usaha yang brilian dan menguntungkan para pihak yang terlibat tanpa harus merugikan pihak lain.     

    Terakhir, Sandel ingin menunjukkan contoh kuat bahwa tidak semua bisa diserahkan kepada pasar melalui isu jual beli voting. Menurut Sandel, mengapa jual beli voting tidak dilakukan saja? Kalau seseorang tidak ingin melaksanakan hak votingnya, dia bisa menjual haknya itu kepada orang lain yang menginginkan dan semua akan sama-sama untung. Nyatanya hal itu dilarang. Sandel lalu melompat dengan menyatakan bahwa argumen terbaik untuk tidak menjual hak voting adalah karena voting merupakan tanggung jawab publik. Saya tidak tahu darimana Sandel bisa menyatakan bahwa argumen barusan adalah argumen yang terbaik, tetapi saya sudah benar-benar yakin kali ini kalau Sandel harus belajar ekonomi.

    Saya sudah panjang lebar membahas mengenai isu jual beli voting di artikel ini, ini, dan ini. Permasalahan utama dari pola pikir macam Sandel adalah karena ia seakan-akan berpikir bahwa isu jual beli voting akan selesai hanya dengan melarang jual beli voting dan mendidik moral semua manusia di planet Bumi ini. Kenyataannya, jual beli voting akan selalu ada. Ketika politikus berjanji macam-macam kepada calon pemilihnya, bukankah itu sama saja dengan jual beli? Politikus menjual janjinya kepada pemilih, dan pemilih membeli janji tersebut dengan memilih si politikus. Kita tidak bisa lari dari mekanisme pasar di situ.

    Dalam artikel saya di atas, saya mendukung legalisasi jual beli voting. Bukan karena saya ingin agar voting benar-benar diperjualbelikan, tetapi agar jual beli voting menjadi tidak menarik lagi untuk dilaksanakan. Jual beli voting belum tentu efisien, tanpa persyaratan yang pas, mekanismenya bisa disalahgunakan. Tapi bukan berarti bahwa kemudian jual beli voting menjadi 100% salah dan tidak berguna. Argumen Sandel yang menyatakan bahwa seharusnya jual beli dilakukan saja karena menguntungkan kedua belah pihak yang terlibat membuktikan ia tak tahu kalau ilmu ekonomi tidak bicara melulu soal transaksi antar 2 pihak, tetapi juga eksternalitas dari transaksi tersebut kepada pihak ketiga (yang bisa jadi positif atau negatif). 

    Banyak ekonom yang melakukan riset dalam menyusun sistem voting yang lebih baik, yang lebih sulit untuk disalahgunakan oleh satu pihak tertentu. Tapi untuk menyusunnya, kita butuh kajian yang serius dan data empiris yang memadai. Pendekatan Sandel tidak akan banyak membantu. Katakanlah secara moral Sandel benar bahwa jual beli voting tidak sesuai dengan nilai moralitas yang baik. Lalu? Apakah kemudian semua politikus dan pemilih akan berhenti melakukan jual beli voting begitu saja? Atau memang seperti ini tugas filosof? Menyatakan mana yang salah dan benar,  tetapi sehabis itu tidak memikirkan bagaimana caranya menyusun sistem agar yang menurutnya benar bisa tercapai di dunia nyata?

    Sandel menutup artikelnya dengan mengajak pembacanya untuk berpikir secara serius mengenai isu kapan pasar mendukung kebaikan publik, dan kapan pasar tidak mendukungnya. Saya sepakat dengan Sandel. Itu pertanyaan yang baik dan patut ditanyakan. Sayangnya Sandel sendiri kemungkinan besar tidak akan bisa menjawab hal itu karena ia tidak memiliki pisau analisis yang tepat.
  • Tentang Hukum Islam dan Penafsirannya (Bagian 1)


    Sebenarnya sudah cukup lama saya berpikir menulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia, tetapi karena sejak awal blog saya ditulis dalam Bahasa Inggris, saya sering kali mengalami dilema kalau harus menulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia. Namun demikian, setelah saya pikir-pikir lagi dari analisis untung rugi, saya melihat kalau tulisannya difokuskan untuk kasus atau masalah khusus di Indonesia, sebaiknya memang ditulis dalam Bahasa Indonesia agar bisa menarik lebih banyak Pembaca.
  • My New Papers on SPV's Law and Economics and Legal Positivism


    It's been a while since the last time I wrote in this blog. I admit, I have sinned. But enough with the excuses. I've just finished two papers having completely different themes. The first one is titled: "Special Purpose Vehicles in Law and Economics Perspective". You can download the paper here. The second one is titled: "Legal Positivism and Law & Economics: A Defense". You can download the second paper here.

    The first paper will be published in the Journal of Indonesia Corruption Watch to be published this year. In this paper, I discuss the nature of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) in the form of corporation, their function and benefits, their potentials for misuse, and also the techniques to solve or prevent such issue. I believe that for a developing country like Indonesia, relying on legal doctrine such as piercing the corporate veil to chase the ultimate shareholders of SPVs who conduct illegal acts would be too costly. They are just too cunning and some countries specialized in the formation of SPVs have all the incentives to assist these crimes.

    So, the other solution is to ensure that those SPVs established in Indonesia will be here to stay, namely, we need to put some of their capitals as hostages in Indonesia by way of mandating minimum capital requirement or bank guarantee/insurance requirements. I also discuss the costs and benefits of these solutions as there is no such thing as a perfect solution. The rest can be read in the paper.   

    The second paper will be presented in the third Indonesian national conference of legal philosophy to be held at Surabaya on 28 August 2013. I always enjoy legal philosophy, particularly Legal Positivism and I think that most Indonesian scholars misunderstand the nature of Legal Positivism by equalizing Legal Positivism with Legal Formalism or even worse, strict textual method of legal interpretation.

    Of course this is wrong. Legal Philosophy is a theory of law while Legal Formalism is a theory of adjudication. But the mistake is so persistent that Legal Positivism is often blamed for many issues in Indonesian legal system! I think the conference would be a good place to present a defense on Legal Positivism so I decided to write this paper.

    The paper will discuss the main thesis of Legal Positivism, i.e., the Source Thesis (that law is a social fact and can only be derived from social sources) and the Separability Thesis (that the content of the law does not have any necessary connection with its validity). People usually connect Separability Thesis with the relationship between law and morality. But I believe that the issue is wider than that, it can include religion, local custom and other type of norms.

    I certainly believe that Legal Positivism (if applied correctly), is a democratic thought that will allow various legal theory to compete for domination within a legal system. I argue this by showing how Law and Economics (which is obviously not a pure theory of law) can survive in the framework of Legal Positivism but will be kicked out from the game in the framework of Natural Law (because by nature, Natural Law which supports only one absolute value will not be tolerant to other type of thoughts). As usual, the rest can be read in the paper itself.

    Happy reading and hope it is useful.
  • The Olympic Scandal: Sportsmanship Issue or Poor Strategy?


    The recent Olympics badminton scandal is very interesting. From a legal perspective, the answer is quite clear. The players deliberately tried to lose against each other, so they breached the Olympic rule of doing their best in each competition. Case closed.   

    But surely we can’t stop there. Why should we have that kind of rule in the first place? Why should we prohibit the players from choosing a rational strategy when the competition rules allow that possibility?

    Is this all about sportsmanship? Like in that various martial arts stories where the fighters are always trying to fight fair and square in order to gain the sweetest victory? Or is it something else?

    As a spectator, I don’t mind if the players deliberately tried to lose in order to gain victory later. The problem is, it seems that I am in the minority group. Like it or not, the idea that sport competitions should be held in accordance with the highest moral principles still lives on until today.

    And the case is even stronger for the Olympic which serves as the ultimate symbol of fair competition. People want their symbol to be incorruptible. If even the players in such important event cannot meet such requirement, where else should the people look for virtue?

    In this case, the rational act of the players seem to be irrational. While it is true that each player has the right incentive to win the game (including trying to lose first), they seem to forget that they are not alone in the competition.

    Olympic is a big business. Sure people need a huge symbol of fairness and virtue but they would be crazy if they conduct the Olympic solely for such reason. In other words, the Olympic is conducted in that way because it is profitable for the organizer — or at least they think that it would be profitable for them.

    Thus, images hold a very important position in the competition. If the organizer can’t maintain the image that the game is fair and all the players are doing their best, it will be difficult to maintain the credibility of the competition and it would affect the number of viewers.

    The players — and their coaches — should put this in mind when they choose their strategy. What I see now is a foolish act, not because it was irrational, but because it was executed poorly.

    Had these players realize the reality of the game and how people perceive them, they might try to lose the game elegantly. Unfortunately, trying to lose is a little bit too difficult for them.

    I read in the news that people were already booing them and the referee has warned the players that if they continued to play like that, they might be disqualified. So yes, the way they executed their plan was too obvious.

    So, the punishment is well deserved. Not because they fail to maintain sportsmanship, but rather because they fail to entertain the spectators and risk the overall image of the Olympic game.

    Another interesting thing is the fact that some of the coaches asked the Olympic organizer to change the rule of the game to prevent such cases happening again in the future.

    If the rule does not permit any possibility to pick your future competitor, the players might fully engage their true power from the beginning since nothing could be done anyway.

    But once they see a slight chance to choose their future competitor, their strategy significantly changes. The question is: Is it the mistake of the organizer for making a rule that induce the players and coaches to pick such strategy?

    I don’t think so. The rule of the game is clear: How players cope with the rule is their own business and if they are really smart, they should choose a strategy that will benefit them the most while minimizing the cost.

    Clearly the players fail to study the costs and benefits of their action and they have to pay dearly for that. I can only hope that this could serve a good lesson for them, especially the Indonesian contingent. Better luck next time.
  • Moral Violation and God's Punishment: The Missing Link


    The argument that moral violations invite God’s punishment (such as in the form of natural disaster) is a famous one. In a way, this argument is usually used by its proponents to support moral enforcement. Since God’s punishment will be very costly to all of us, it would be better if we spend our resources to maintain the good morality of society.

    The question is: Is this a plausible argument? The quick answer would be no. Some of the arguments against moral enforcement have already been set out in my previous article. This time around, we will try to take a look at this famous religious foundation of moral enforcement.   

    Saying that God might punish the people for misbehavior and moral violations is not necessarily incorrect. There are certain instances in the Holy Book that give us examples of God’s harsh punishment to those who oppose God’s rules. So we have some precedents here.

    But we need to dig deeper and try to understand the major aspects of those precedents, at least from Islamic point of view. All of those cases happen in the distant past where the prophets and their supporters are minorities, they involve a situation where the prophets have directly informed the people about the possible punishment from God, and there are also preliminary warnings from the nature indicating the coming of a disaster.    

    What can we derive from such cases? God practically works in accordance with modern legal conceptions, i.e. no law shall be enforced to the people without proper and timely public disclosure. By proper, I mean that the law has been disseminated in a way that is understandable to the public. After all, you cannot expect someone to follow your order if they do not have any capacity to understand such order.

    Of course this will be problematic for our modern age since the last prophet of Islam died more than 1,400 years ago. There are no longer direct messenger of God that can actually inform us precisely what God really wants.

    Now, some might argue that the existence of prophet is no longer necessary since the prophet has left us the Holy Book. That might be plausible but not sufficient. Based on the precedents provided by the Koran, God’s punishment was enforced to society where no record of systematic holy book was available. Interestingly, for societies that received a systematic holy book, there is also no record of direct punishment from God.   

    One then can argue that when a society have a systematic rules of moral values, God gives the chance to such society to settle their own problems. Whether they will follow such rules or whether they will prosper or not is simply another case.

    Notice also that once we discussed the history of Islam, we no longer see any threats of punishment from God and the history of Islamic civilization works in accordance with the laws of nature. Some existed for a long time and prospered, some were crushed. But at all time, the civilizations depend entirely on how good they cope with the situation and condition, including in this case, how they apply and enforce the rules.

    And I think this is the correct interpretation. In a world where a prophet still exists and can directly deliver the heavenly message to all of us, people can easily understand what God wants. Then it would be logical for the people to comply with God rules of morality and for God to gives punishment based on a fair warning mechanism.

    But without a prophet, rules become rationally indeterminate, namely that there are various ways to read the provisions of such rules and how to enforce them in practice (i.e. whether they should stay as moral rules or whether they should be formally turned into laws).

    Without any practical authority to determine the absolutely correct interpretation (since no one can speak on behalf of God), how can we expect a fair God to impose punishment in the form of disasters against indeterminate moral violations?          

    Furthermore, there is no way we can actually know whether a disaster is a part of God’s punishment. First, without any authority from God, making the claim that a disaster is a form of God’s punishment is as easy as making the claims that cats and dogs are spies from Mars.

    Second, we can actually say that in terms of fairness, the overall distribution of natural disaster might be fair enough, i.e. that no one in this planet is completely safe from the power of nature. This means that whether you are good or bad, disaster may always occur against you. So how should we interpret that?

    Thus, we should stick with such fact and accept the notion that there is indeed a missing link between moral violations and God’s punishment. Sure, you can always make your own claim, but it is not good enough to justify any moral enforcement attempt.
  • The Impossibility of Moral Enforcement


    Let me start this post with the claim that I am a legal positivist, meaning that philosophically, I believe that the existence of law is based solely on social facts and that a legal system can validly exist without any moral basis. Note this, it doesn’t mean that the law cannot contain any moral values, it simply means that law can be separated from morality issues in order to exist.

    This separation is crucial to understand why I take the position that pure moral enforcement would be an impossible attempt. I will also use the concept of separation of moral and legal issues in Islamic law to support my argument in this post.

    As you may be aware, this world is full with people who believe that the morality of a society must be upheld and enforced even when there is no legal rules relating to such matter. Take the example of Lady Gaga’s concert in Jakarta.

    I am not talking about the thugs who demand the concert to be cancelled since based on the facts on their usual practices, I don’t think that they are motivated by morality issues. It would be more accurate if we explain their motivation from pure economics issues.

    What I am talking here are people who take the issue at face value and believe from an internal point of view that Lady Gaga’s concert adversely affects the morality of our nation and thus encourage the legal authorities to conduct morality enforcement by prohibiting the concert even when the legal basis is ambiguous or even non existent. 

    Suppose that no legal rules exist concerning such matter. Can morality be simply enforced within such condition? The answer would be no.

    First, different with legal rules which are usually accessible to the public and have more certainties with respect to their contents, moral rules do not have clear standards and authorities to which one can ask for a final judgment.

    Second, legal rules exist in order to coordinate the behavior of the people. They exist as a response to social net loss caused by certain actions. While morality rules deal with decencies, things that are good to be followed by a person, where breaching such rules might cause disagreement from other people but not strong enough to justify enforcement (which would always involve costs).

    Here are some examples from Islamic law provisions. Eating pork and drinking alcoholic drinks are both prohibited, yet penal sanctions exist only for being drunk. Why?

    A simplified explanation would be: Because the net social loss of eating pork is questionable and might only affect people in a personal level while drinking problem creates social loss, especially in terms of accidents. Even the United States admits that drinking is indeed a social problem.

    Another example would be the law on adultery. To accuse someone for adultery, you must provide 4 male witnesses with the highest standard of human being. Failure to do this would cause the other witnesses to be deemed of giving false testimony and there is a harsh penalty for that action.

    Interestingly, the privacy rule in Islamic law is also very tight. Not only that you are forbidden to enter into someone’s private property, you are also forbidden to even spying at someone’s house. Breaching such rule will allow the home owner to hit you in the eyes.

    In other words, the entire legal rules on adultery is structured to deal with adultery cases practiced in the public and those that fall under the scope of privacy will be considered as a moral issue. Notice this: Islamic morality will never deem adultery as a permissible act (you are still responsible to God for your personal action), but legal enforcement will only be conducted when clear social loss is established, say due to the public act.   

    This brings us to the third issue. It is possible that moral enforcers might still argue that although breach of moral rules do not cause clear social losses, it still causes losses, at least to the people whose moral values are being harassed by such act.

    I agree, this can be considered as a loss. But since the losses are pretty much subjective and solely related to the moral enforcer’s taste of decency, it is absolutely necessary that these moral enforcers adhere to the strictest standards of good human being. Why?

    You can’t claim that you experience losses because some people are breaching the values that you perceive so highly when you don’t take such values seriously either. So this is a completely different issue with legal enforcement where such standard is not necessary as I argued in my previous article.

    Now the final question for these moral enforcers is: Can you really adhere to your own principles?

    Remember, God hates hypocrites more than people who consciously breach moral rules and admit that they are wrong.  

  • Morality Defined At Last?


    So the Playboy case has been decided by the Supreme Court and its former Editor in Chief will serve 2 years in prison. If you ask me, I don't have any concern with the fact that FPI was the one who reported the Indonesian Playboy magazine to the police. Anyone can do that, including myself. What really concerns me is the considerations of our judges and prosecutors in handling this case, especially with respect to the definition of morality and the acts that can be deemed as against such morality.

    Further comments will be made after I receive and read the decision. Stay tune.

  • The Protection of Criminal Suspects in Law and Economics Perspective

    Forthcoming in Jurnal Teropong Edisi RUU KUHAP 2015 | 23 Pages | Posted: 10 May 2015 | Date Written: April 28, 2015

    Public Choice Theory and its Application in Indonesian Legislation System

    24 Pages | Posted: 8 Oct 2012 | Last revised: 8 Nov 2014 | Date Written: October 8, 2012

    Special Purpose Vehicle in Law and Economics Perspective

    Forthcoming in Journal of Indonesia Corruption Watch, 'Pemberantasan Kejahatan Korupsi dan Pencucian Uang yang Dilakukan Korporasi di Sektor Kehutanan', 2013 | 15 Pages | Posted: 22 Aug 2013 | Date Written: August 18, 2013

    Legal Positivism and Law and Economics -- A Defense

    Third Indonesian National Conference of Legal Philosophy, 27-28 August 2013 | 17 Pages | Posted: 22 Aug 2013 | Last revised: 3 Sep 2013 | Date Written: August 22, 2013

    Economic Analysis of Rape Crime: An Introduction

    Jurnal Hukum Jentera Vol 22, No 7 (2012) Januari-April | 14 Pages | Posted: 12 Nov 2011 | Last revised: 8 Oct 2012 | Date Written: May 7, 2012

    DISCLAIMER

    As the author of this site, I am not intending to provide any legal service or establish any client-attorney relationship through this site. Any article in this site represents my sole personal opinion, and cannot be considered as a legal advice in any circumstances. No one may use or reproduce by any means the articles in this blog without clearly states publicly that those articles are the products of and therefore belong to Pramudya A. Oktavinanda. By visiting this site, you acknowledge that you fully understand this disclaimer and agree to fully comply with its provisions.