Thai Folktale and Legal Reasoning

THAI FOLKTALE AND LEGAL REASONING

By Alexander Shytov

STUPID MEN(8)

Content.- There were four stupid men. Once they were very hungry and they went to ask a woman to give them something to eat. The woman agreed providing that they would do some work for her. She asked them to carry rice husk from the front of her house to the backyard. Apparently there was a lot of husk, which required the men to walk many times carrying it from the front to the back of the house. Every time they carried it, they asked the woman where they should put the husk. Each time the woman had to give the same answer to the same question. Eventually she was annoyed with the workers for their stupidity and in her anger she said, "Put it on my head." Those words were understood literally and the husk was placed on the head of the woman, which caused her death. The men were prosecuted and sentenced to death. But taking into account their stupidity, they were shown compassion and instead of the death penalty, they were sent to the forest to cut trees to make a coffin for the killed lady. While cutting a tree, two men were killed in an accident. The other two men thought that the dead men were merely sleeping, and waited a long time for them to awaken, until someone told them the truth. On their journey, one of the men smelled the stinking mouth of his companion and came to the conclusion his friend was dead. Being persuaded of his death, the companion had to lie down across the road, since dead people are not supposed to walk. Meanwhile, a person riding an elephant on the road shouted to the lying person to give him the right of way. But the 'dead' man answered that he could not since he was dead. The angered rider pierced the body of the man with his goad. Feeling pain, the man got up and ran. The stupid men were amazed at the power of the goad to raise the dead to life, and begged the rider of the elephant to give it to them. The rider had compassion on the men and gave the goad away. The men went their way to a city where the princess was so seriously ill that it was declared that anyone who was able to heal her would have the right to marry her. The men tried the 'miraculous' goad piercing the body of the princess very hard. Fortunately, the attendants did not wait for the results of the 'healing' and drove the men away from the palace. Meeting a noisy procession of people accompanying a person to be ordained as a monk, the men began to wail. They had interpreted the procession as a funeral. They were stopped by the people, and were told to he joyful and celebrate. After that the men saw a husband noisily quarrelling with his wife. The men began to express their joy. They were stopped and taught again that on such occasion they should intervene and pull the quarrelling people apart. After that they saw buffaloes goring each other. The stupid men intervened, and were killed by the buffaloes.

Interpretation: This folktale contains a lot of humor as well as wisdom. It shows what is stupid, and teaches wisdom by not following the example of men. The foolishness of the latter lay in their inability to reason by themselves and to make distinctions between similar and dissimilar situations. In the case of manslaughter of the woman the men were not able to draw a general rule (to put the husks in the backyard) from the directions of the woman. Each time they had to handle the husks they had to go and ask for new directives which were always the same. In other words they were not able to make generalization or to deduce a general rule to be applied to the same actions.

Other examples of stupidity related to the opposite task: to distinguish the facts so as to avoid an application of a general rule to the situations where such an application would be inappropriate or unwise. The fact of lying down without any motion was interpreted by the stupid men as a sign of sleep. They used one correct logical premise: a sleeping person lies still, but their conclusion was wrong - "since their friends are lying still, they must be sleeping." The mistake was that they did not take into consideration other correct logical premises such as, "the dead person lies still." Thus, their foolishness was in ignorance of all possible logical premises applicable to the case. The same mistake was made when interpreting a bad smell from the mouth of the companion, when thinking that the procession to the temple was a funeral ceremony, and when encountering a quarreling husband and wife. In all those situations, the men used a wrong analogy, making a conclusion based on similar external appearances of different events.

The mistake of ascribing miraculous powers to a goad is slightly different. It was based on wrong interpretation of original facts, rather than on drawing a wrong analogy. The line of thinking of the men was: the man was dead, the rider used his goad to pierce the body, consequently the goad has a magical power. The whole thinking was based on wrong assumptions, because the man was not dead. The same mistake was made when trying to heal the princess.

Another type of mistake was made in the case of the buffaloes. The men correctly interpreted the facts ant the appropriateness of the rule to prevent quarrelling, but what they failed to do is to understand the danger which the application of the rule posed in that particular situation. In other words, the stupid men failed to consider the consequences of their intervention.

Thus, one can single out several types of stupid action: firstly. inability to grasp a general rule applicable to the same kind of action; secondly, inability to distinguish different situations which require different rules of behaviour; thirdly, wrong understanding of the original facts or qualities; and finally, inability to foresee the consequences of one's action. The second and the third types have some similarities, but the crucial difference is that in the second type the facts are understood correctly but not completely, while in the third type the whole understanding of the original facts is wrong. Beginning with these four types of a stupid decision, one can draw four opposite types of a wise decision. They include firstly, the ability to formulate and apply a general rule to the same set of facts; secondly, the ability to distinguish the situations which require a different rule; thirdly, the ability to examine the original premises or facts in order to avoid misinterpretation; and finally, the vision of the future consequences of one's decision.

Apart from these general characteristics of a stupid and wise decision or action, the story points at some more practical considerations. In the case of manslaughter of the woman, the stupid men failed to grasp the regularity of the same action. In other words, the decision-maker must watch for regularities in order to formulate a general rule. Secondly, the men took the words of the annoyed woman literally. That calls for the caution in interpreting other's actions and words. They failed to understand the woman because of their inability to sympathize with her feelings and emotions. A wise decision-maker tries to put himself in the place of other people affected by his or her decision. In the case of the accident killing two stupid fellows, the other two fellows failed to examine the real condition of the victims of the accident. It means that a wise decision-maker must examine the facts more carefully than by mere superficial appearance. Other stupid actions in the story point at the importance of what in ethics is called a suspended conclusion. It means that the first thought or explanation is not always right, and the wise decision--maker must try to give some other plausible answers to the same problem. In the case of healing the princess, the men inflicted suffering to Her Highness, because they were confident in their ability to heal. Many evils in our world have happened because the decision-makers were too confident in their ability to handle the situation. The story calls for self-examination, and what is called in Christian ethics as humility which is opposite to selfish pride. The situation where one fellow was assumed dead and had to lie on the road because the dead are not supposed to walk, points to another common danger in making decisions: assuming what is supposed to be and what is not. In the situation where the original fact (bad smell) was interpreted wrongly, making presumptions or suppositions becomes a dangerous undertaking. Other stupid decisions in the story warn against the danger of quickly made suppositions. A wise decision-maker is open to make exceptions from general rules, which helps him to correct original mistakes in relation to fact-finding. In the case of the buffaloes, one can see the importance of exercising care in dealing with other persons or solving any problems. The care implies an awareness of danger, which in turn comes from learning and experience.

Application to law: It is difficult to overestimate the importance of the standards of a wise decision for those who make and apply law. The problems related to construction and interpretation of legal rules are very common in law.(9) In most legal writings the stress is put on giving a consistent or coherent interpretation of the rules so as to keep their application from becoming contradictory to other rules. The writings of Neil MacCormick present this line of thought.(10) Ronald Dworkin stressed the importance of constructive interpretation based on taking into account political and moral values of society.(11) Judge Posner emphasized economic efficiency and wealth maximisatlon as the guiding principles of judicial decisions.(12) Other legal scholars would propose even more complicated principles which should guide legal reasoning. For example, Beyleveld and Brownsword put forward the Principle of Generic Consistency (PGC).(13) To simplify the principle, it can be expressed as a formal requirement to act with a purpose. Every decision must be rationally examined and justified.(14)

Part 4

(8)'Chaaingor' in: Nithaanphynbaan. - Ed. by Wichian Getpratum. - Bangkok: Samnakphimpattanaasygsaa, 2000. - P. 101.
(9)See; Twininq W., Miers D. How To Do Things With Rules. - 4th edit. - London: Butterworth, 1999.
(10) See: McCormick N. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. - Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
(11) See: Dworkin R. Law's Empire.. Harvard University Press, 1986.
(12)See: Posner R. Economic Analysis of law. -Toronto: Little, Brown and Company, 1992.
(13) Beyleveld D, Brownsword R. Law as a Moral Judgement. - London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1986.
(14) Ibid., p. 133.