Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On Casuistry

philosophynow.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: On Casuistry

#21

Post by throw0101a »

User23 wrote: post #18

Any discussion of philosophical casuistry should include the Jesuits' abuse of the technique[1]. They basically made it a synonym for deceptive argument. Put another way, it's an excellent technique for picking an outcome and then arguing to it. Great when you want to please your wealthy donors, not so great if you care about justice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casuistry#History

A fuller and more balanced examination of the technique from antiquity to the 1600s (where it got labelled as being "bad") to the modern era:

* https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520069602/the-abuse-of-casu...

* https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/954645.The_Abuse_of_C...

Old review:

* https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/293127

Re: On Casuistry

#22

Post by emmelaich »

voldacar wrote: post #5

> Under casuistry, communities themselves deal with those accused of disturbing the community’s peace or of harming some of its members To think that this turns out well displays either staggering ignorance or the naïvete of an infant. This is how you get lynchings, folks.

It's also how you get mercy.

Non-local justice can get you genocide.

Re: On Casuistry

#23

Post by bilbo0s »

emmelaich wrote: post #22
voldacar wrote: post #5

> Under casuistry, communities themselves deal with those accused of disturbing the community’s peace or of harming some of its members To think that this turns out well displays either staggering ignorance or the naïvete of an infant. This is how you get lynchings, folks.

It's also how you get mercy. Non-local justice can get you genocide.

Non-local justice can get you genocide.

As can local justice. Those too anxious to deal out their own interpretation of "justice" are generally deadly whether they live on the other side of a continent, or next door.

Re: On Casuistry

#24

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #9
voldacar wrote: post #5

> Under casuistry, communities themselves deal with those accused of disturbing the community’s peace or of harming some of its members To think that this turns out well displays either staggering ignorance or the naïvete of an infant. This is how you get lynchings, folks.

> To think that this turns out well displays either staggering ignorance or the naïvete of an infant. Unfortunately, so does thinking that the alternative, trying to have governments spell out everything in advance and dictate outcomes from the top down without being able to take into account the circumstances of individual cases, turns out well. The unpleasant truth is that if you live in a community whose members a…

The unpleasant truth is that if you live in a community whose members are not good people, you won't have good outcomes

Again, the quandary is that if you live in a community whose members are "good" people, you also won't have good outcomes. That's the nature of people. They are not "bad" or "good". They are just humans. Their actions are sometimes "bad", sometimes "good", but rarely are their actions consistently the one or the other. That's just the nature of being human. In fact, it's the entire reason we talk about "justice" in the first place.

Re: On Casuistry

#25

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #15
voldacar wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good observation. There needs to be some kind of feedback loop to suppress the tyrannical bureaucratizing tendency of the modern state. It is obvious that our own society does not have any such feedback loop. However, the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system where a judge basically rules based either on the will of the crowd or his own personal interests, and then calls it "communit…

> the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system There is no reason why a local justice system can't be accountable to the people who live in the community. But, as I said in another comment upthread, if the people in the community aren't good people, you aren't going to have good outcomes no matter what kind of system you set up, or what kind of laws you write. > It's like the person who wrote the…

Again, the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining a difference. In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people.

In fact, given the people, local or non-local, have power, it is a virtual certainty that there will be some level of corruption among them.

Re: On Casuistry

#26

Post by TimTheTinker »

pdonis wrote: post #14
TimTheTinker wrote: post #12

Much of the discussion, both in the article and in the comments, seems to hinge on having a good definition of legal justice. May I suggest the following: "Legal justice occurs when all individual persons are treated equally and fairly under the law, and when no person is allowed to wrongfully take advantage of another." As others have mentioned, I think this philosophy's weakness is that it leads to the very opposit…

> There ought to be an objective legal standard There can't be, because there is irremovable subjectivity in your definition of legal justice: "equally and fairly" are subjective, and so is "wrongfully take advantage". There is no way to write an objective rule that will handle every case. You have to apply human judgment to each individual case, and human judgment will always be subjective. Written laws attempt to s…

One doesn’t need to invoke platonic forms to assert that equality and fairness do exist as objective moral values and duties.

I agree that applying them in particular cases is inescapably subjective since judges are subject to human limitations. But in doing so, one ought to strive for objectivity as much as possible.

A good ruling is good insofar as it was able to preserve, despite the judge’s human limitations, fidelity to the law and to legal justice.

Re: On Casuistry

#27

Post by voldacar »

bilbo0s wrote: post #24
pdonis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To think that this turns out well displays either staggering ignorance or the naïvete of an infant. Unfortunately, so does thinking that the alternative, trying to have governments spell out everything in advance and dictate outcomes from the top down without being able to take into account the circumstances of individual cases, turns out well. The unpleasant truth is that if you live in a community whose members a…

The unpleasant truth is that if you live in a community whose members are not good people, you won't have good outcomes Again, the quandary is that if you live in a community whose members are "good" people, you also won't have good outcomes. That's the nature of people. They are not "bad" or "good". They are just humans. Their actions are sometimes "bad", sometimes "good", but rarely are their actions consistently t…

There is definitely such a thing as moral virtue or character. Maybe "bad" and "good" are too simplistic but there are definitely more virtuous and less virtuous humans

Re: On Casuistry

#28

Post by pdonis »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #26
pdonis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There ought to be an objective legal standard There can't be, because there is irremovable subjectivity in your definition of legal justice: "equally and fairly" are subjective, and so is "wrongfully take advantage". There is no way to write an objective rule that will handle every case. You have to apply human judgment to each individual case, and human judgment will always be subjective. Written laws attempt to s…

One doesn’t need to invoke platonic forms to assert that equality and fairness do exist as objective moral values and duties. I agree that applying them in particular cases is inescapably subjective since judges are subject to human limitations. But in doing so, one ought to strive for objectivity as much as possible. A good ruling is good insofar as it was able to preserve, despite the judge’s human limitations, fid…

> One doesn’t need to invoke platonic forms to assert that equality and fairness do exist as objective moral values and duties.

No, but one does have to have some objective way to test for them. And there isn't any. Ultimately, every person has to judge for themselves what does and does not count as equality and fairness.

Re: On Casuistry

#29

Post by pdonis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #25
pdonis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system There is no reason why a local justice system can't be accountable to the people who live in the community. But, as I said in another comment upthread, if the people in the community aren't good people, you aren't going to have good outcomes no matter what kind of system you set up, or what kind of laws you write. > It's like the person who wrote the…

Again, the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining a difference. In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. In fact, given the people, local or non-local, have power, it is a virtual certainty that there will be some level of corruption among them.

> the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people

Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions. Non-local people don't.

> In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people.

But the tyranny is much more limited in scope if it's only local people; they will have limited resources at their command, and worst case I can always move. If the entire planet is a tyranny, I'm screwed.

Re: On Casuistry

#30

Post by pdonis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #25
pdonis wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the answer is not some kind of local unaccountable justice system There is no reason why a local justice system can't be accountable to the people who live in the community. But, as I said in another comment upthread, if the people in the community aren't good people, you aren't going to have good outcomes no matter what kind of system you set up, or what kind of laws you write. > It's like the person who wrote the…

Again, the flaw is that local people can be as corrupt as non-local people. I'm having a difficult time ascertaining a difference. In either case, a man is obliged to live under the tyranny of potentially corrupt people. In fact, given the people, local or non-local, have power, it is a virtual certainty that there will be some level of corruption among them.

> given the people, local or non-local, have power

That's not a given. Governments only have power to the extent that citizens agree to abide by the government's laws. If enough citizens get fed up with the laws, they stop abiding by them. Sometimes it's open revolution, as happened for instance in the United States in the late 1700s. Sometimes it's just selective noncompliance when people know a law is unenforceable, as for instance the way most Americans today treat speed limits and many other traffic laws.

A more difficult situation is when a society at large is split between two very different views of what kinds of laws are good social policy. IMO, in such cases neither side should have the power to get their preferred laws passed; laws affecting entire societies should only be passed when there is a broad consensus that they are good laws, or at least acceptable.

Post reply on HN