How would you define "rational," then? Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world.
Following a consistent internal logic given its factual and aesthetic premises.
> Philosophy, or "love of wisdom", of which law is a branch, is all about trying to apply aesthetic ideals to the real world.
This would be something other than a non-sequitur if "philosophy" was equivalent to "reason" rather than the latter being a tool used by the former but which is not coextensive with it.
> This would be something other than a non-sequitur if "philosophy" was equivalent to "reason" rather than the latter being a tool used by the former but which is not coextensive with it.
I'm having trouble seeing this as anything other than a purely semantic distinction.
> Following a consistent internal logic given its factual and aesthetic premises.
is better described as "consistent" than as "rational". The language Brainfuck is consistent, but it would be a stretch to call it a rational language to build stuff with.
Rationality carries with it a connotation of deeper underlying symmetry to surface reasoning. The "aesthetic ideals" you're referring to.
A reasoning is different from a rationale. A rational person makes optimal decisions, renorming his expectations as needed. A consistent person makes the same decision over and over based on some unchanging principle.
We want our laws to be rational, not consistent. To seek out an ideal regulation of behavior that's fair and useful to everyone. It is certainly consistent within a specific framing of law that useful actions be outlawed, but it is not rational.