Dualism: Under Mao or Stalin, it was ideology, now it is monetary

Dualism is a much-debated philosophy but clearly in Utah, it is now a given, after a woman has won the appeal on her right to sue herself for negligence that resulted in her husband’s death in an accident as she was driving their car. This incident could have been hailed for ever after as evidence of exemplary spousal remorse had the suspicion not persisted that this legal self-flagellation is a way to extract insurance money.

That the woman has two concurrent and separate avatars — a beneficiary of her late husband’s estate and driver of their car — can probably be accepted by some. Even the notion that she is honest enough to accept her culpability and take it upon herself to make amends could possibly pass muster. But the idea that the personas could metaphorically turn on each other may be a bit too much to swallow.

More so because either way, both the plaintiff and the defendant — more than coincidentally the same person — would gain financially from the lawsuit whichever way the case is adjudicated. That would, no doubt, lead to many others fathoming their own dualities — and their consequent lucrative potential. At a time when there are enough conventionally singular and separate entities fighting legal battles for years on end everywhere, surely the last thing the world needs is schizoid litigation.