| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="LawContempSoc" |
|---|
I don't know what 'refactor' means, |
| | solely on outrage came from. Not from me, so far as I know.
Might it be a red herring? |
|
<
< | 5) Knowing injustice when we see it is easy. Identifying and implementing positive justice is very very hard. |
>
> | 5) Knowing injustice when we see it is easy. Identifying and implementing positive justice is hard. |
| |
- How do you know? The proposition is not obvious. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need is
|
|
<
< | not a very very hard place to start. Nor is the principle of |
>
> | not a hard place to start. Nor is the principle of |
| | equal dignity and respect for all persons. The details may be
complex, but the details of injustice are no easier to arrange,
so it's not clear what head-shaking about the devilishness of
details really amounts to. |
|
>
> | * Maybe it's not obviously true, but it isn't obviously false, either. I think that broad, just-sounding propositions like those you cited, the ideological launching pads for the Russian and French revolutions, respectively, resulted in less-than-ideal consequences. I don't think it was a problem with details, though I can understand if someone thinks it is. But that's merely a disagreement. |
| | 6) But after all, that's what we have two more years to think about.
-- AndrewCase - 13 Feb 2009 |
| | enrolling in this course. I don't see any grounds for that
assumption. |
|
>
> | * All I was really doing at the outset was draw attention to the state side of the social contract. We grant states power over us in exchange for what many of us see as benefits. Perhaps the word "oppress" is too strong or made it sound like I was complaining about the dynamic. |
| | 4) If my goal is to do justice, (2) and (3) together present a problem: my efforts to implement positive justice, if they meet with any success, might only lead to new and unforeseen injustices.
- There's no evidence offered for this proposition, and if one
|
| | motionless, concerned with the unforeseen injustices that would
result from dealing with the existing wrong. |
|
>
> | * These are more specific issues, and I think are therefore less likely to result in unforseen consequences than trying to implement an aphorism like "from each according to his abilities. . ." But, for example, I have spent enough time inside enough New York City public high school classrooms to know that this city runs a segregated school system 50+ years after Brown -- were the efforts to integrate the schools unsuccessful because people were not trying hard enough? Because they met with resistance? Because they were operating under a system of beliefs where they just assumed if they won a few court battles everything else would take care of itself? |
| | 5) One potential response is to avoid this difficulty altogether by simply remaining a perpetual critic of particular injustices, and to leave building things to others.
I'm not at all convinced this is the best response, or even a particularly good one; I'm just curious about what others think. |
| | -- MichaelHolloway - 13 Feb 2009 |
|
<
< | Thank you Michael. I think we're on the same page now.
-- AndrewCase - 13 Feb 2009 |
| | Michael, could you draw out #3 a bit? I'm not quite sure what you are saying, and on the surface, I disagree with that assertion.
I also am not sure that #4 is so self evident. From of view that we live in a relativist society, then yes, clearly Newton's 3rd law will apply. But I think there are ways of implementing justice that present an overall decrease in societal injustice. |