5 ms·

> "IANAL .... where a layperson-accessible ..." as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's f

> "IANAL .... where a layperson-accessible ..." as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations. a little specialized training in argumentation doesn't give lawyers special powers in this regard. that is, let's not fall for either regulatory capture or an appeal to authority (that's not to say that lawyers don't often have relevant specialized experience to bring to bear in litigation and negotiation).

tzs 6y ago
> as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations. It should be noted, though, that appellate court opinions usually contain many citations to prior cases, quoting excepts from those cases and applying much subtle reasoning to try to justify saying the present case is like the prior cases whose ruling are similar to the present court's ruling, and much subtle reasoning to try to distinguish the present case from those prior cases that came to a difference conclusion. It's real easy to go off track when trying to follow this. When reading cases in law school I had to resort to using something like 6 different colors of highlighter at once to mark up the cases in my book to help keep track of what was going on. Yes, we indeed can (mostly) all reason about and determine what is fair, ethical, and just. But we usually don't have to provide extensive justification for how we reached our conclusions, and most situations where we have to make such determinations are fairly straightforward. Courts are usually dealing with edge cases, where there are conflicting interests and it is not possible to come to a fair, ethical, or just outcome for everybody.
- clairity 6y ago
  that's a good point, i took some (cross-discipline) law classes in college and did experience that intricate web of argument across time and jurisdiction a bit, which was not fun to say the least. and certainly we can't be fair, ethical, and just for everyone all the time, but i don't think that means we should cede legal authority to only a special class because the arguments can get subtle and intricate. if anything, it seems to be good rationale to me for putting more effort into making the law simpler and less opaque (realizing that's harder than it sounds).

tzs 6y ago

> as a side note, let's not separate ourselves from lawyers in our ability to reason about and determine what's fair, ethical, and just. it's well within our power to interpret and rationalize about human relations. It should be noted, though, that appellate court opinions usually contain many citations to prior cases, quoting excepts from those cases and applying much subtle reasoning to try to justify saying the present case is like the prior cases whose ruling are similar to the present court's ruling, and much subtle reasoning to try to distinguish the present case from those prior cases that came to a difference conclusion. It's real easy to go off track when trying to follow this. When reading cases in law school I had to resort to using something like 6 different colors of highlighter at once to mark up the cases in my book to help keep track of what was going on. Yes, we indeed can (mostly) all reason about and determine what is fair, ethical, and just. But we usually don't have to provide extensive justification for how we reached our conclusions, and most situations where we have to make such determinations are fairly straightforward. Courts are usually dealing with edge cases, where there are conflicting interests and it is not possible to come to a fair, ethical, or just outcome for everybody.

clairity 6y ago
that's a good point, i took some (cross-discipline) law classes in college and did experience that intricate web of argument across time and jurisdiction a bit, which was not fun to say the least. and certainly we can't be fair, ethical, and just for everyone all the time, but i don't think that means we should cede legal authority to only a special class because the arguments can get subtle and intricate. if anything, it seems to be good rationale to me for putting more effort into making the law simpler and less opaque (realizing that's harder than it sounds).