2 ms·

There's no contradiction. It's not impossible to be just with a spurious lawsuit; the just resolution is to throw it out (and sanction repeat offenders). Mayb

There's no contradiction. It's not impossible to be just with a spurious lawsuit; the just resolution is to throw it out (and sanction repeat offenders). Maybe there's a misunderstanding about what the judge meant? He was talking about how sometimes things are not as fungible as the law would like to pretend. So take Solomon and the baby. Solomon chose to award 1/2 the baby to each claimed mother. An actual judge would have to award a whole baby to an arbitrary mother, along with a monetary transfer from that one to the other one, which may be a lawfully equitable judgement, but lacks the justice of Solomon's. > > One doesn't blow a whistle when nothing has happened. > You don't get to choose. Are we mixing the judges' problem with the referees'? I absolutely get to choose when to blow the whistle; I'm wearing it. (as mentioned earlier: as foreseen by the rules, if the fouling team would benefit, I should not whistle)

thaumasiotes 3y ago
The judge has the same problem we've been talking about the whole time: he can't tell what happened. You quoted a judge saying that in that scenario the right thing to do is to make an arbitrary decision. That is wrong. Very wrong.
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  The scenario is similar to Solomon's: the merits the claimants have are equal, but the thing they're laying claim to is not divisible/fungible. An arbitrary claimant gets the thing and pays the other one half the value of the thing. If that is wrong (very wrong), what would be right? Should we be cutting babies in half? I'm sure we must be talking past each other, but I don't see where. My original point is that people would like just outcomes, but are satisfied with impartial ones, which is (IMO) the mechanism that allows us to come to consensus on a collective opinion even when no consenting individual holds that exact personal opinion.

thaumasiotes 3y ago

The judge has the same problem we've been talking about the whole time: he can't tell what happened. You quoted a judge saying that in that scenario the right thing to do is to make an arbitrary decision. That is wrong. Very wrong.

082349872349872 3y ago
The scenario is similar to Solomon's: the merits the claimants have are equal, but the thing they're laying claim to is not divisible/fungible. An arbitrary claimant gets the thing and pays the other one half the value of the thing. If that is wrong (very wrong), what would be right? Should we be cutting babies in half? I'm sure we must be talking past each other, but I don't see where. My original point is that people would like just outcomes, but are satisfied with impartial ones, which is (IMO) the mechanism that allows us to come to consensus on a collective opinion even when no consenting individual holds that exact personal opinion.