Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Logic of the justice of the law

  1. Top | #11
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    I might be branching out a bit and deviating from the parameters of the thread, but I can’t help but think that the “just” in “justice” are not as synchronous as might be thought.

    There are instances where justice has made its debute and prevailed over less preferred alternatives that neverless render imperfections that some may reason to be unjust.

    If you are a strong suspect in an awful crime, it’s not necessarily an injustice that you are temporarily held in jail, yet there are those among us with their own shades of moral outtakes that will think otherwise. It’s not perfect and maybe perhaps not just, but it can nevertheless simultaneously be a consequence of the justice system.
    Usually, a law is considered just if it treats all citizens in the same way.
    EB
    That’s fairness, like justice—not right, like just.

    A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.

  2. Top | #12
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Usually, a law is considered just if it treats all citizens in the same way.
    EB
    That’s fairness, like justice—not right, like just.
    just
    adj. 1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.
    just
    adj 1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement
    just
    adj. 1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.
    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.
    The expression "like crap" implies the owner doesn't treat people like he would be treated himself, whence would come the sense of unfairness.
    EB

  3. Top | #13
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,393
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    29,606
    Rep Power
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by fast View Post
    A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.
    The expression "like crap" implies the owner doesn't treat people like he would be treated himself, whence would come the sense of unfairness.
    EB
    People who treat others like crap may also treat themselves like crap. Seems fair to one who does. Your contention not sufficient for rejection of fairness IMHO.

    Is it fair to treat everyone the same way? People like fingerprints are all different. So probably not.

    Fairness needs much specification, strong bounds.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

    Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

    The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

    To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.
    It's either true or false that the law is just.
    That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

    It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."


    It's either true or false that innocent people don’t go to jail.
    Agreed.


    It's either true or false that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
    It's either true or false that it is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​
    Neither of these statements are valid. Since "just" is a subjective preference and not a fact about the world, the truth of these two statements depends upon what subjective morals one has that determine what "just" means. If "just" means "innocent people don't go to jail" (no less valid a definition than any), then the first statement is true and the latter false. If "just" means something that is independent of innocent people going to jail, then the first statement is false and the latter is true.

    As for the S5 conclusion in the OP, that is not valid, because S4 being true only implies that a particular condition does not preclude the law being just. It says nothing about the set of conditions that are neccessary and sufficient for the law to be just.

    S5 has the illogical form
    Not (If A, then B)
    Therefore, A

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,034
    Rep Power
    13
    Innocent people go to jail, guilty people go free. We have the principle of rule of law with an adversarial system. Prosecutors and defense lawyers bot argue aggressively and we accept the decision of a judge or jury regardless of the outcome.

    We consider a jury of average people more just in the long run than judges making arbitrary rulings.

    No system of fallible humans can be expected to meet an ideal of justice.

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,293
    Archived
    14,025
    Total Posts
    19,318
    Rep Power
    61
    Fairness lies in treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. A teacher that awards A-students with a star yet provides no star for lesser grade earning students is not treating lesser grade earners unfairly. In this case, not giving an A-student an earned star to a student who earns an ‘A’ is unfair to that student, and awarding a star to a lesser grade earner is unfair to all the students, especially the ‘A’ students.

    If the teacher decides to award a star to a B-student but does so for a different reason (oh say, biggest improvement), then we need to be mindful of my first sentence: fairness has to do with like and unlike cases. In this scenario, there’s a special case (which is greatest improvement vs not greatest improvement). So long as the B student receives the star because of belonging to that case, that is not unfair to other students—even the A-students.

    As to your “like crap” response, the group pertains to all workers. It would be unfair to treat one good. It would be right, but it would be unfair.

    People too closely associate some forms of immoral behavior as being unfair. I’m just saying there is a difference worthy of being mindful of.

  7. Top | #17
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,762
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,330
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

    Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

    The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

    To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.
    It's either true or false that the law is just.
    It's either true or false that innocent people don’t go to jail.
    It's either true or false that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
    It's either true or false that it is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

    And the argument itself is either valid or not valid.​

    I would have thought we all have a view on each of these questions.

    And what you say suggests the law is not even meant to be just, and that even if it was meant to, it still wouldn't be because humans and human institutions are just not perfect things.

    Yet, you don't actually answer the two questions...
    EB
    What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.

  8. Top | #18
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,034
    Rep Power
    13
    Some people fail to understand that beyond relatively simple situations, justice and morality along with right and wrong do not fit into syllogisms and black-white either or dichotomies.

    That would ne a morality thread.

  9. Top | #19
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
    It's either true or false that the law is just.
    That statement is false.
    See my new thread on this crucial point.
    EB

  10. Top | #20
    Contributor Speakpigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Paris, France, EU
    Posts
    6,314
    Archived
    3,662
    Total Posts
    9,976
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Bronzeage View Post
    What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.
    More likely, you're too lazy to be bothered.

    And the argument is definitely not too silly for most people to be willing to try to assess its validity.

    Still, you're obviously not so lazy that you wouldn't want to post at least some cheap comment.
    EB

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2019, 06:25 AM
  2. Whence comes logic
    By Speakpigeon in forum Other Philosophical Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-16-2018, 08:27 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-01-2018, 01:09 AM
  4. What is logic?
    By Speakpigeon in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 03-20-2017, 12:35 PM
  5. Deductive Logic, Inductive Logic, and Logical Fallacies
    By Trodon in forum Logic and Epistemology
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-08-2015, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •