7 ms·
The law decides fair. It's not subjective.
by mav3rick 6y ago
The law decides fair. It's not subjective.
- zo1 6y agoI guess that's why progressive taxation is fair! /s
- blackbrokkoli 6y agoBut the law can be unfair, and can even be made more fair, and for that, you need discussion.
- intelleak 6y agoLaw also says that erratic criminals can be restrained by kneeling on them, one of the reasons which hastened George Floyd's death. I don't think law is always right.
- zarathustreal 6y agoEmotional appeals shouldn’t* hold any weight when considering the law. You’ll end up creating highly biased or illogical laws that cater to the culture of the times and need to be changed again shortly. Kneeling may cause the death of some but save the lives of countless others. “The law isn’t always right” isn’t an objective statement because “right” is relative to the observer.
- kaens 6y ago> You’ll end up creating highly biased or illogical laws that cater to the culture of the times yes this has often happened > and need to be changed again the thing is, they often don't get changed.
- dri_ft 6y agoThis seems like a fully general case against making or changing any law ever.
- zarathustreal 6y agoThe last sentence without the context of the preceding sentences would seem that way, yes. However in the context of “laws created as a response to emotional appeals” it becomes a warning to remember that everyone has feelings and everyone’s feelings are different when creating or considering the law.
- ugexe 6y agoThat isn’t an apt comparison — Kneeling on someone’s neck is never going to save countless lives.
- zarathustreal 6y agoWe can agree to disagree here, but I will share my opinion that in the case of an “erratic criminal” kneeling on the neck very well could save countless lives. For example, kneeling on the neck of an active shooter
- Tostino 6y agoWhy wouldn't the police respond appropriately to an active shooter situation and instead rely on this supposedly amazingly effective "neck kneeling" technique?
- zarathustreal 6y agoI’m sure police are trained in many different ways in the many different places that they exist, but my statement doesn’t specify police it specifies the act of kneeling on a neck of an erratic criminal
- Tostino 6y agoI really cannot understand where you are coming from with this mindset and the arguments you've made in this thread, and I am glad your mindset is not more common. I'll leave it at that.
- zarathustreal 6y agoI’m coming from a place of seeking to understand objective truth. My arguments are pretty straightforward and literal, there really isn’t much to understand beyond what’s written
- 6y ago
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoThe entirety of law is an appeal to emotion. Law endeavours, or let me say: should endeavour... To be fair. And fairness is entirely a human emotional pursuit.
- lm28469 6y agoLaws are very much subjective. They're results of their time and the people in charge of voting them. That's why the US still has people in jail for life for non violent weed related crimes while you can now legally buy and consume weed in half of the country. Laws are constantly changing for a reason, "fairness" isn't set in stone nor objective. Are you American by any chance ? I've seen a lot of American talking like that about "law" as if they were god given, immutable, objective and fair.
- shadowgovt 6y agoBut, in that sense, fairness is also subjective. There are viewpoints that call what Google did unfair and viewpoints that call it fair. What overarching philosophy do we use to decide which is the right viewpoint?
- TAForObvReasons 6y agoGenius is a YC company and HN is a YC-owned forum, so this is probably not the best venue for an unbiased discussion on fairness
- dahfizz 6y ago> Laws are very much subjective. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but laws themselves are objective. At least, they are crafted to be an objective description of what is "right" and "wrong". Said another way, laws exist to objectify the morals of the law's author. I think what you are trying to say is that laws are not self-justifying. Laws draw an objective view of the world, but we can subjectively agree that we don't like that view and then change it.
- dnautics 6y agowhy is this downvoted? Without getting into a debate about what true objectivity is and whether or not it exists, In the US, the majority of laws are objective; and it's the application of those laws that is subjective. This could be an issue of articles: Laws are objective; the law is subjective.
- fastball 6y agoEnforcement of laws should be as objective as possible. The laws themselves are very much subjectively created.
- barneygale 6y ago> One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. MLK
- mcherm 6y ago> The law decides fair. It's not subjective. That certainly IS a consistent position one could take. Most people feel that there are certain moral imperatives that exist independent of government-defined laws and that government laws can be fair or unfair. However, the position you take here -- that "fair" means whatever the government says -- is a possible basis for ethics. But I, and most people, find it to be deficient. It requires that you admit that (for one example) slavery in the USA before 1863 was fair which I (and most people) disagree with. I'm sure you can find other examples if you wish. Are you sure this is what you want to base your definition of "fair" on?
- s8wu2jeei 6y agoIn a democracy the government is inherently an extension of the people and so when you frame it as fair meaning whatever the government defines it as you are, at the same time, acknowledging that the majority have already decided the matter to be fair. Whether or not those people are willing to admit to the world or themselves that they believe the law to be moral, it is from their consent as a mass that the law was able to manifest. So at the very least the law is what most people most people think is morally fair.
- erikpukinskis 6y agoIn aggregate maybe. But surely there are specific laws which a majority think are unfair. It’s only the laws which are unfair AND which affect a majority of voters, where you could maybe claim democracy has weighed in on the fairness. History is littered with laws which are only unfair to minorities, which I think proves my point.
- svachalek 6y agoThe US is not a democracy by definition, and even if you want to substitute in “republic” here, the description of how the law-making sausage factory works here is idealistic at best.
- rebuilder 6y agoHow do we get new laws, or changes to old laws? It seems to me that process involves people deciding what is fair.
- quercusgrisea 6y agoIf only history had any examples of unfair laws...
- pietrovismara 6y agoImagine saying something this stupid in nazi Germany.
- throwaway2048 6y agoI'd imagine a ton of German citizens roughly held this view throughout the entire Nazi era.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoI'm willing to bet a not insignificant percentage of people alive today do also.
- pietrovismara 6y agoAnd they were indeed wrong. To repeat their mistake one must have learnt nothing from our history.
- aglavine 6y agoLaws are exactly like released legacy code. They work and occasionally they fail. They can be better, but you have to understand them to know how to improve them.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoI don't understand how your second sentence follows from the first. Perhaps you mean: they are full of bugs, fragile, broken, but occasionally they work?
- aglavine 6y agoIt seems I respect working code more than you do. I wouldn't say laws are broken. Improving legacy code always means to understand business logic and if possible the motivation behind it. Then you have a replacement built and you can justify why it is better.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y agoPlenty of laws are broken. Drug control laws, white collar crime laws, whistleblower protections, copyright, IP, patent, child support & alimony, parent-child access / visitation, execution or the lack of it, gun control or the lack of it, fucking mandatory sentencing. Shall I go on? "laws aren't broken" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen "justice" in action, or are walking around with their eyes shut.
- laughinghan 6y agoI think your parent was just trying to say "laws are important". "Legacy" code that only "occasionally works" doesn't sound like something worth keeping around. It sounds like something to dump in the trash and never look back. If you have working legacy code though, even if it occasionally fails because it's full of bugs and fundamental flaws, should be replaced very carefully, and only with in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system. Based on the broken laws you list, I assume you're talking about America. American laws are indeed very broken, but dumping it in the trash and never looking back would be a one-way ticket to a bloodbath. It is both important very important to fix our very broken laws, and important to do so very carefully and only with an in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system. If I were to give you as much benefit of the doubt as you give your parent, I'd say that "occasionally laws work" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen how much worse it can get.
- matheusmoreira 6y agoLaws decide nothing. They are just a bunch of rules made up by those in power. Way too many of them are the direct result of lobbying by billion dollar industries. Copyright is an example. People vote for and elect representatives and they end up serving these elite groups instead. How is that fair? If you believe any given law is unfair, it is your duty to disobey. This is called civil disobedience.
- efreak 6y agoThe law decides what is allowed. Society decides what is fair.