Thread: Justice
View Single Post
Old 2009-02-23, 20:51   Link #18
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarste View Post
How can this make sense, unless justice is arbitrary? Isn't it theoretically possible to write extremely detailed and complicated laws that cover all of our intuitions about justice? That is if justice exists at all. The only way justice could not be theoretically described by some kind of laws is if its always changing, based not on the circumstances of the case, but based on the person deciding what is just. Which means that its inherently biased and not objective at all.

Are you a moral relativist? Your judgment of some things as "clearly wrong" suggests you aren't, but...
Well, in theory you could write a law so detailed that it covers everything, but practically it's not possible. In practice, law is kind of a "best guess" at what will produce just outcomes most of the time, there's always going to be some examples of cases where following the letter of the law isn't good for anyone involved.

I don't think I'd qualify as a relativist because while I believe that morals have to be flexible to accommodate situations, I still have underlying principles I believe should be adhered to in all situations.

In the cases where I say that I think the law is clearly wrong (I see the overall result of drug prohibition as causing more harm than good, for example), I do admit that there's other opinions out there. However, while I know this probably makes me sound a bit high and mighty, but I have no problem with the idea that other people are wrong about an issue, even if I won't say it to their face.
0utf0xZer0 is offline   Reply With Quote