I think what may be missing from the discussion at this point are
distinctions between law and equity and different kinds of judgement
in statutory versus common law.
The ideal in jurisprudence is that we _always_ have equity - the
ability to interpret the law and apply it in each specific cases.
The "opposite" is statutory law. Like you get a speeding ticket
regardless of any mitigating situation.
So you were rushing to the hospital in time for your pregnant wife to
give birth before your dying father breathes his last.... Cry me a
river. $200 fine! Next case.
Mechanical justice is cheap and rough. Statutory law fits perfectly
with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and
cheap. Judges and juries are expensive.
Others mentioned the Chinese concept of Li (loi?) and the "spirit of
the law", which are casualties in a technocratic society.
> Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive.
This seems a bit of a false equivalence. Capitalist societies are the ones that are based on liberalism and think individuals are important - important enough to make companies and agreements between each other. They quite often are the ones that also think individuals are deserving of justice in and of themselves, not based on what group someone has put them in.
Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones?
I mean, there's some overlap, but if we're talking about clumsy
equivalences... :)
And to be honest I see ever less intersection between actual current
"late stage" capitalism and the "rule of Law". Those I know in the
legal profession complain we are in state of "lawfare", a state in
which most of the common principles of justice have broken down in
favour of "justice for the rich" (I realise many Americans take that
to be perfectly normal)
How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead?
> Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones?
Well, they both are rooted in the idea that individuals are important, which is a relatively new idea, all things considered.
> How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead?
You can do, except I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world".
> I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people
who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about
the stuff I don't like in the world".
Helpful to who?
I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear
values. Karl Popper thought "there is no society". Lady Thatcher
thought we merely misused the word society, not as you say - to
universalise social facts - but to forget our "duty" (Thatcher's
words) to ourselves and our neighbours (my emph). Thatcher sincerely
saw business as a social good, as do I. Using the word society in that
way is avoidant. You seem to think that's what I am doing?
Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and
attitudes. They definitely include greed and selfishness as
psychologically measurable traits. You may not think much of sociology
and psychology, but to a lot of people they are solid sciences.
Moral judgements are also social facts. And for us Christians (as a
moral framework), greed is more than a neutral, observable fact. It is
an ugly weakness.
The hoarding of power and wealth by a tiny minority to assuage their
insecurity , while returning nowt but "disruption" to the world is
objectionable. Being parasitic upon the rest of the population
is a harm.
So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I
don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an
individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must
concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to
the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do
so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social
facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous?
> I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values.
But which "us"? That's my point. You aren't talking to all of society (assuming "us" was all of society), so you using it like that doesn't even theoretically do this.
> Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes.
This isn't the same as "society". My point is that the definition of "society" changes dramatically based on where you live and what you consume. It's like a giant straw man.
> So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous?
It's hard to make sense through the purple prose, but maybe I can pick something out. You're not calling out greed; you're calling an entire society greedy. That's the problem. All the rest of what you said here doesn't seem relevant.
I agree you said that. I disagree that it's true. If I go to my kid's football kickabout, run mostly by volunteer parents, or I attend a local street party, or go for a pub quiz night, or any of many societal endeavours, I don't see greed.
As of 2019, the US had 50 million immigrants[0] living there, either 1st or 2nd generation. Far more than any other country. Are those immigrants really all just idiots for moving there?
If you think the US is a wasteland, it sounds like you're American.
The ideal in jurisprudence is that we _always_ have equity - the ability to interpret the law and apply it in each specific cases.
The "opposite" is statutory law. Like you get a speeding ticket regardless of any mitigating situation.
So you were rushing to the hospital in time for your pregnant wife to give birth before your dying father breathes his last.... Cry me a river. $200 fine! Next case.
Mechanical justice is cheap and rough. Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive.
Others mentioned the Chinese concept of Li (loi?) and the "spirit of the law", which are casualties in a technocratic society.