Laws are styled similar when nothing can be
opposed to one except the other. Tyrannicides shall have their
statues set up in the gymnasium. A statue of a woman shall not be
set up in the gymnasium. A woman killed a tyrant.
Here are
two conflicting laws: for a woman's statue cannot under any other
circumstances be erected in the gymnasium, while there is no other
circumstance which can bar the erection of the statue of a tyrannicide
in the gymnasium.
Laws are styled dissimilar when many arguments
can be urged against one, while the only point which can be urged
against the other is the actual subject of dispute. An example is
provided by the case in which a brave man demands the pardon of a
deserter as his reward. For there are many arguments, as I have shown
above, which can be urged against the law permitting a hero to choose
whatever reward he will, but the letter of the law dealing with the
crime of desertion cannot be overthrown under any
Again, the point of law is either admitted by both parties or disputed. If it be admitted, the questions which are raised will as a rule be such as the following. Which of the two laws is the most stringent? Does it concern gods or men, the state or private individuals, reward or punishment, great things or small? Does it permit, forbid or command?
Another common question is which of the two laws is the oldest; but the most important question is which of the two laws will suffer less by its contravention, as for example in the case of the hero and the deserter just mentioned, in which case, if the deserter is not put to death, the whole law is ignored, whereas, if he be put to death, the hero will still have another choice left open to him. It is, however, of the utmost importance to consider which course is best from the point of view of morality and justice, a problem for the solution of which no general rules can be laid down, as it will depend on the special circumstances of the case.
If, on the other hand, the point of law is disputed, either one party or
both in turn will argue the point. Take the following case as an
example. A father shall be empowered to arrest his son, and a
patron to arrest his freedman. Freedmen shall be transferred to
their patron's heir. A certain man appointed the son of a freedman
as his heir. The son of the freedman and the freedman himself both
claim the right to arrest the other.
Here the father claims
his right over the son, while the son, in virtue of his new position as
patron, denies that his father possessed the rights of a father, because
he was in the power of his patron.
Laws containing two provisions may conflict with themselves in exactly
the same way as two laws may conflict. The following will serve as an
illustration. The bastard born before a legitimate son shall
rank as legitimate, the bastard born after the legitimate son shall
only rank as a citizen.
basis will be the same as if laws only were concerned.