5 ms·
> 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
by 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.