4 ms·

I think what may be missing from the discussion at this point are distinctions between law and equity and different kinds of judgement in statutory versus commo

I think what may be missing from the discussion at this point are distinctions between law and equity and different kinds of judgement in statutory versus common law. The ideal in jurisprudence is that we _always_ have equity - the ability to interpret the law and apply it in each specific cases. The "opposite" is statutory law. Like you get a speeding ticket regardless of any mitigating situation. So you were rushing to the hospital in time for your pregnant wife to give birth before your dying father breathes his last.... Cry me a river. $200 fine! Next case. Mechanical justice is cheap and rough. Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive. Others mentioned the Chinese concept of Li (loi?) and the "spirit of the law", which are casualties in a technocratic society.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive. This seems a bit of a false equivalence. Capitalist societies are the ones that are based on liberalism and think individuals are important - important enough to make companies and agreements between each other. They quite often are the ones that also think individuals are deserving of justice in and of themselves, not based on what group someone has put them in.
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? I mean, there's some overlap, but if we're talking about clumsy equivalences... :) And to be honest I see ever less intersection between actual current "late stage" capitalism and the "rule of Law". Those I know in the legal profession complain we are in state of "lawfare", a state in which most of the common principles of justice have broken down in favour of "justice for the rich" (I realise many Americans take that to be perfectly normal) How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? Well, they both are rooted in the idea that individuals are important, which is a relatively new idea, all things considered. > How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead? You can do, except I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world".
    - nonrandomstring 3y ago
      > I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world". Helpful to who? I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. Karl Popper thought "there is no society". Lady Thatcher thought we merely misused the word society, not as you say - to universalise social facts - but to forget our "duty" (Thatcher's words) to ourselves and our neighbours (my emph). Thatcher sincerely saw business as a social good, as do I. Using the word society in that way is avoidant. You seem to think that's what I am doing? Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes. They definitely include greed and selfishness as psychologically measurable traits. You may not think much of sociology and psychology, but to a lot of people they are solid sciences. Moral judgements are also social facts. And for us Christians (as a moral framework), greed is more than a neutral, observable fact. It is an ugly weakness. The hoarding of power and wealth by a tiny minority to assuage their insecurity , while returning nowt but "disruption" to the world is objectionable. Being parasitic upon the rest of the population is a harm. So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

> Statutory law fits perfectly with our capitalist society, efficient, inflexible, uniform, quick and cheap. Judges and juries are expensive. This seems a bit of a false equivalence. Capitalist societies are the ones that are based on liberalism and think individuals are important - important enough to make companies and agreements between each other. They quite often are the ones that also think individuals are deserving of justice in and of themselves, not based on what group someone has put them in.

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? I mean, there's some overlap, but if we're talking about clumsy equivalences... :) And to be honest I see ever less intersection between actual current "late stage" capitalism and the "rule of Law". Those I know in the legal profession complain we are in state of "lawfare", a state in which most of the common principles of justice have broken down in favour of "justice for the rich" (I realise many Americans take that to be perfectly normal) How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Are you not confusing democratic societies with capitalist ones? Well, they both are rooted in the idea that individuals are important, which is a relatively new idea, all things considered. > How about I use the expression "greed driven societies" instead? You can do, except I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world".
  - nonrandomstring 3y ago
    > I think it's not helpful, as you're joining the ranks of the people who misuse the word "society" to mean "how I happen to think about the stuff I don't like in the world". Helpful to who? I see it differently. I think it helps us all to aspire to clear values. Karl Popper thought "there is no society". Lady Thatcher thought we merely misused the word society, not as you say - to universalise social facts - but to forget our "duty" (Thatcher's words) to ourselves and our neighbours (my emph). Thatcher sincerely saw business as a social good, as do I. Using the word society in that way is avoidant. You seem to think that's what I am doing? Social facts exist, at least in Durkheim's view as behaviours and attitudes. They definitely include greed and selfishness as psychologically measurable traits. You may not think much of sociology and psychology, but to a lot of people they are solid sciences. Moral judgements are also social facts. And for us Christians (as a moral framework), greed is more than a neutral, observable fact. It is an ugly weakness. The hoarding of power and wealth by a tiny minority to assuage their insecurity , while returning nowt but "disruption" to the world is objectionable. Being parasitic upon the rest of the population is a harm. So I've no problem declaring, greed, vanity, megalomania as "stuff I don't like in the world". Others may or may not agree with me. As an individual, you may disagree. But as an individualist you must concede my equal right to call out greed and selfishness as harmful to the rest of us - even without a "Logical basis". Further, you must do so without criticism.... unless you deny the existence of social facts, or yourself find greed attractive and virtuous?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago