4 ms·
> You don't know enough to do it fairly. You don't know if I would do it fairly, you mean. But let's go in on your assumption. What is 'fairness'? From whose
by latency-guy2 4y ago
> You don't know enough to do it fairly.
You don't know if I would do it fairly, you mean. But let's go in on your assumption. What is 'fairness'?
From whose perspective are you making the judgement of 'fairness'? Would the man who you are convicting to life in prison after he murdered 20 people feel your fairness? What if he denies that what you are doing is 'fair', does you definition change then? What happens if you do care about consensus, but you know enough to discount this particular case, which other opinions do you discount? Because it sure won't be the last one
I could care less about the U.S. justice system, society has plenty of tools to punish individuals, and I have no problem using them.
- xpe 4y agoMy personal ideas of fairness are based on moral reasoning and scientific understanding. To state that more precisely, the criteria for this fairness being useful is the degree to which it is consistent with moral reasoning and scientific understanding. In a democracy, I think of fairness as the general underlying ethical ideas implied by the set of laws. As such, this idea of fairness will seem inconsistent in some ways, because it is the result of various laws and court precedents established over time. Individuals in any society have varying ideas of fairness of course. How they express and act on them varies considerably with the form of government they live in.
- xpe 4y ago> I could care less about the U.S. justice system, society has plenty of tools to punish individuals, and I have no problem using them. You are interested in fairness, no? What kinds of systems of justice are you interested in? Do you subscribe to the might makes right argument?