Please cite to the original publication
The papers in this symposium have posed three questions which have not been kept distinct. The first question is what is the law in this matter? The second question is what should the law be? The third is how can we go about changing the law so that it will more nearly approximate our preferences in the future? I suggest that we consider each of these questions separately and be careful not to narcotize ourselves into an imagined bliss by transforming only in our own minds preference into prescription. We no more serve the constituencies to which we are committed in doing that, than we would were we to advise a client, whose life or treasure was in jeopardy, what the law ought to be rather than what it is.
Date of Authorship for this Version