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

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: On Casuistry

#41

Post by TimTheTinker »

pdonis wrote: post #39
TimTheTinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one does have to have some objective way to test for them I disagree. Just because a fully objective test is impracticable doesn’t mean the ideal doesn’t exist or shouldn’t be taught or strived toward—or that objective values and duties don’t exist. Beyond that, appeals courts exist as a check on injustice in lower court rulings. They do try to objectively verify whether a given ruling was just. Yes, individuals do…

> there are objective standards to apply and evaluate decisions by, even if those standards can only be intuitively defined To me this is a contradiction in terms: "only intuitively defined" means human intuition, i.e., subjectivity, is involved. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

I think it's more of an acknowledgment that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to any system of reasoning or knowledge. Even known true statements can't be proved all the way down --- at some point they have to rest on axioms that are assumed (or taken on faith).

We could take it a step further and discuss what establishes objective moral values and duties, but that plants us firmly in a discussion centering around worldviews and their truth/falsehood.

All to say, I believe there is an objectively true worldview upon which objective moral values and duties rest, upon which an objective jurisprudence can rest, upon which good (though inescapably subjective) judicial opinions can be issued. Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm frustrated with what seems an intentional departure from objectivity (and an originalist jurisprudence to boot) as the goal in certain circles.

Re: On Casuistry

#42

Post by TimTheTinker »

pdonis wrote: post #40
TimTheTinker wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> one does have to have some objective way to test for them I disagree. Just because a fully objective test is impracticable doesn’t mean the ideal doesn’t exist or shouldn’t be taught or strived toward—or that objective values and duties don’t exist. Beyond that, appeals courts exist as a check on injustice in lower court rulings. They do try to objectively verify whether a given ruling was just. Yes, individuals do…

> appeals courts exist as a check on injustice in lower court rulings. They do try to objectively verify whether a given ruling was just. You evidently haven't read many appeals court opinions or looked at the actual rules for when a case can be appealed at all. Those rules have little if anything to do with whether the ruling was just. They mostly have to do with whether particular procedural rules were followed. As…

I have no doubt you're right. I have read through several appeals court rulings, but they all ruled on the merits (if they didn't I stopped reading, haha).

Guess I'm speaking more about what I believe is the ideal.

Re: On Casuistry

#43

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #29
bilbo0s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions

The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.

I can always move

Not if the local people with power disallow it. Or are you saying you always want non-local people to have power over the local people so that the locals are compelled to allow you to leave?

Re: On Casuistry

#44

Post by pdonis »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #41
pdonis wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are objective standards to apply and evaluate decisions by, even if those standards can only be intuitively defined To me this is a contradiction in terms: "only intuitively defined" means human intuition, i.e., subjectivity, is involved. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

I think it's more of an acknowledgment that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to any system of reasoning or knowledge. Even known true statements can't be proved all the way down --- at some point they have to rest on axioms that are assumed (or taken on faith). We could take it a step further and discuss what establishes objective moral values and duties, but that plants us firmly in a discussion centering arou…

> I think it's more of an acknowledgment that Gödel's incompleteness theorem applies to any system of reasoning or knowledge

Godel's theorem is a limitation on any system of formal rules, but it's not the limitation I'm talking about.

> Even known true statements can't be proved all the way down --- at some point they have to rest on axioms that are assumed (or taken on faith).

This is a different limitation from Godel's theorem, but it's also not quite the limitation I'm talking about (though I think it's related to it--see below).

> I believe there is an objectively true worldview upon which objective moral values and duties rest

This is the limitation I'm talking about. Even if you have an objectively true view of the world, moral values and duties aren't just about the way the world is; they're about the way humans want the world to be. And human wants are subjective; if you and I disagree about how we want the world to be, there is no objective way to resolve our disagreement.

Re: On Casuistry

#45

Post by pdonis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #43
pdonis wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. I can always move Not if the local people with power disallow it. Or are you saying you always want non-local people to have power over the local people so that the locals are co…

> The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions.

If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the places they govern. That's true even of many so-called "local" officials: mayors and city council members often don't live in the cities they govern.

> Not if the local people with power disallow it.

How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local, their power will be too limited.

Basically, your picture of "local" seems to be the way "local" works in our current society, which allows localities that are politically favored by higher level governments to draw on resources from those governments. But that's not actaully local; it's the higher level, non-local governments using the lower-level governments as political tools.

Re: On Casuistry

#46

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #30
bilbo0s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If a corrupt government is given power to decide any punishment it pleases for not abiding by its laws, and given the power technical and legal to preclude non-local actors from interfering with its actions, then good luck with your non-compliance. Personally, my experience has been that such circumstances only yield busier gulags, but your mileage may vary.

And I mean really, social policy? So what if people in Mississipi decide they still want slavery or jim crow? Those are binary choices. There is no way to implement your "neither side should have the power to get their preferred laws passed" legislative scheme. What I mean in practice is that you either have slavery, or you do not have slavery. There is no state that a free portion of society can be in where they both have and don't have slavery. At some point, you have to choose. What I'm asking, is what happens when the inevitably corrupt government officials choose to infringe on the freedoms of the citizens? Of course, we hope that they will never make choices that infringe on the freedoms of citizens. But humor me, what happens if they do?

Re: On Casuistry

#47

Post by bilbo0s »

pdonis wrote: post #45
bilbo0s wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but at least local people have some skin in the game; they have to live locally with the consequences of their actions The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. I can always move Not if the local people with power disallow it. Or are you saying you always want non-local people to have power over the local people so that the locals are co…

> The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the place…

consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else

But consequences may not apply to everyone else. What if local bosses make a law that firearms holders have to turn in their firearms? What if local bosses make a law that blacks have to be slaves? What are the consequences that the local bosses are living with? (Assuming no interference by non local authorities.)

How are they going to prevent people from leaving? If the only resources they can draw on are local

Local bosses make law that it's illegal for anyone other than his henchmen and women to have firearms. Local bosses also make law that leaving town is illegal. Local bosses also orders searches of homes to confiscate firearms. Finally, local bosses authorize deadly force to deal with law breakers.

In this scenario, no outside help is necessary for the local bosses. (I suppose the factory they buy their guns from might be from outside the locality, but that's about it.) Heck, the bosses might even have the support of many of the pearl clutching local citizens. Some of whom might even, gasp, sell me out to the local bosses.

This example is contrived, but has happened often enough in human history for me to want to know how the local citizens can leave before I would concede to living under such a system. There has never been an example of such a system in modern history where non-local powers were not involved in liberating the local citizenry. So if you can outline a credible method for the unarmed citizenry to exercise the freedom to move away, I'd certainly be interested in hearing it.

Re: On Casuistry

#48

Post by pdonis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #46
pdonis wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If a corrupt government is given power to decide any punishment it pleases for not abiding by its laws, and given the power technical and legal to preclude non-local actors from interfering with its actions, then good luck with your non-compliance. Personally, my experience has been that such circumstances only yield busier gulags, but your mileage may vary. And I mean really, social policy? So what if people in Miss…

> If a corrupt government is given power to decide any punishment it pleases for not abiding by its laws, and given the power technical and legal to preclude non-local actors from interfering with its actions

Who is giving the corrupt local government that power? The answer, historically, has always been: a higher-level government. And that's also the answer with corrupt localities today. They only survive because they have political friends in higher places.

> my experience has been that such circumstances only yield busier gulags

Which places with gulags have you lived in? (That's a serious question, btw: we have had posters on here who are from the former Soviet Union or one of its satellites and who have had direct personal experience of such things.)

> So what if people in Mississipi decide they still want slavery

They can't just decide they want slavery: they would have to get people in the same community to become slaves. Historically, that's never happened. Slavery has never been a local process; it's never that some people in a particular community just decide to enslave the others. It always happens as a result of non-local invasions (usually wars of conquest). Maintaining slavery as an institution also has never, historically, been done locally; it has always needed higher level non-local enforcement. For example, slavery only survived in the antebellum US South because both State and Federal governments enforced it. And even then they couldn't really enforce it; purposeful non-compliance by many people in the North with things like fugitive slave laws was common and almost never punished.

> What I'm asking, is what happens when the inevitably corrupt government officials choose to infringe on the freedoms of the citizens?

I've already answered this: citizens start finding ways not to comply, because enforcement can never be perfect; and eventually, if things get bad enough, they revolt.

The worst case is something like the Soviet Union or China, where a high-level central government is willing to use enough force even to put down open revolt. However, first, this is obviously not a local government doing this--no local government in history has had that much force at its disposal--and second, even that won't last: the Soviet Union fell apart, and if history is any indication, China will eventually do the same if its government continues with the level of repression it has shown thus far.

Re: On Casuistry

#49

Post by pdonis »

bilbo0s wrote: post #47
pdonis wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of their corruption is precisely so that they don't have to live with the consequences of their actions. If they're local, they live there, so they can't avoid the consequences. The law of unintended consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else. The reason corrupt officials in our current system can avoid those consequences is that they don't have to live in the place…

consequences applies to corrupt officials just like it applies to everybody else But consequences may not apply to everyone else. What if local bosses make a law that firearms holders have to turn in their firearms? What if local bosses make a law that blacks have to be slaves? What are the consequences that the local bosses are living with? (Assuming no interference by non local authorities.) How are they going to p…

> What if local bosses make a law that firearms holders have to turn in their firearms?

How are they going to enforce such a law? (Same question for your other examples.)

> (Assuming no interference by non local authorities.)

You must be joking. Without support from non-local authorities, local bosses would simply be laughed at if they tried such things. Where you see such things going on in localities, it's because of support from non-local authorities.

> This example is contrived, but has happened often enough in human history

Please give specific examples. I'm not aware of any case where local bosses got away with such things without any support from a non-local, higher-level government.

> if you can outline a credible method for the unarmed citizenry...

In the historically default situation, the citizenry is not unarmed. Having large numbers of citizens unarmed is a recent and historically aberrant situation, and requires a huge level of support from higher level governments to even make possible. Local authorities in a society where higher level governments do not exist or do not provide such huge support for disarming citizens simply won't have unarmed citizens to play with.

Re: On Casuistry

#50

Post by emmelaich »

bilbo0s wrote: post #23
emmelaich wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're assuming that someone's own interpretation of justice differs majorly from someone else's justice. Both unnamed and anonymous.

Which seems like a peculiar position when put like that. Would you like to add some qualifiers?

I'm guessing that you equate other justice as laid down by by some benevolent and learned body of people.

All senses of justice come from somewhere humble.

Post reply on HN