Justice: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) (links) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Justice-blind-liberty-legal-theory-best-practices-evidence.jpg|thumb|She can still see how much money you have]] | [[File:Justice-blind-liberty-legal-theory-best-practices-evidence.jpg|thumb|She can still see how much [[money]] you have]] | ||
A sense of fairness and justice in [[society]] is essential to its [[happiness and well-being]]. <blockquote>''"Fairness is what justice really is."'' -[[wikipedia:Potter_Stewart|Potter Stewart]] </blockquote>When large segments of the population feel oppressed, like all the [[incentives]] of the system are stacked against them and their hopes for a better life, it is impossible for those people be as [[happy]] as they would be in a fair and just society. | A sense of fairness and justice in [[society]] is essential to its [[happiness and well-being]]. <blockquote>''"Fairness is what justice really is."'' -[[wikipedia:Potter_Stewart|Potter Stewart]] </blockquote>When large segments of the [[population]] feel oppressed, [[like]] all the [[incentives]] of the system are stacked against them and their hopes for a better [[life]], it is impossible for those people be as [[happy]] as they would be in a fair and just society. | ||
This page will outline the key factors required to make a system of laws and enforcement that maximizes the prevailing sense of justice in a society. | This page will outline the key factors required to make a system of laws and enforcement that maximizes the prevailing sense of justice in a society. | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
The source of legality can come from any [[authority]], be it [[government]], [[religion]], [[family]], or [[Capitalism|employer]]. It is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization hierarchical] and simple. Just do whatever the [[authority]] figure says. | The source of legality can come from any [[authority]], be it [[government]], [[religion]], [[family]], or [[Capitalism|employer]]. It is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_organization hierarchical] and simple. Just do whatever the [[authority]] figure says. | ||
The problems with this mindset are: | The [[problems]] with this [[mindset]] are: | ||
* It opposes necessary changes to the law, such as the legalization of recreational [[drugs]] and other [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime victimless crimes]. | * It opposes [[necessary]] changes to the law, such as the legalization of recreational [[drugs]] and other [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime victimless crimes]. | ||
* It encourages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution malicious prosecution] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement selective enforcement] | * It encourages [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution malicious prosecution] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_enforcement selective enforcement] | ||
* Unethical but not illegal acts are seen as clever workarounds instead of violations of [[social norms]], such as the many attempts to circumvent the results of the 2020 election in the US. | * [[Unethical]] but not illegal acts are seen as clever workarounds instead of violations of [[social norms]], such as the many attempts to circumvent the results of the 2020 election in the US. | ||
== Restorative Justice == | == Restorative Justice == | ||
The concept of [[wikipedia:Restorative_justice|Restorative Justice]] provides a model for [[community]] healing following a transgression that is not based on retribution. While this tends to deny the basic human instinct to seek revenge on wrongdoers, studies show that [https://psyche.co/ideas/restorative-justice-fits-human-nature-more-than-retribution-does restorative justice is better aligned with our nature]. | The [[concept]] of [[wikipedia:Restorative_justice|Restorative Justice]] provides a model for [[community]] [[healing]] following a transgression that is not based on retribution. While this tends to deny the basic human instinct to seek revenge on wrongdoers, studies show that [https://psyche.co/ideas/restorative-justice-fits-human-nature-more-than-retribution-does restorative justice is better aligned with our nature]. | ||
== Crime and Punishment == | == Crime and Punishment == | ||
Justice must also weigh the healing power of retribution against the redemptive nature of arbitrary punishment and find its [[incentives]] lacking. In the happiest countries, forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation are prioritized over retribution, reducing recidivism. Ironically it is the least religious countries that reflect the values of Jesus in their judicial systems. | Justice must also weigh the healing [[power]] of retribution against the redemptive [[nature]] of arbitrary punishment and find its [[incentives]] lacking. In the happiest countries, forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation are prioritized over retribution, reducing recidivism. Ironically it is the least [[religious]] countries that reflect the [[values]] of Jesus in their judicial systems. | ||
What role does punishment play in a society that maximizes [[happiness]]? | What role does punishment [[play]] in a society that maximizes [[happiness]]? | ||
== Civil Law == | == Civil Law == | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
== Policing == | == Policing == | ||
[[Evidence-Based Best Practices]] for effective policing that reduces crime, catches criminals and avoids prosecuting the innocent, and maintains positive community relationships. | [[Evidence-Based Best Practices]] for effective policing that reduces crime, catches criminals and avoids prosecuting the innocent, and maintains [[positive]] community [[relationships]]. | ||
== Enforcement of Social Norms == | == Enforcement of Social Norms == | ||
[[Cancel culture]] has shown the necessity for fairness in the enforcement of new [[cultural norms]] and [[Taboo|taboos]], lest they result in incentivizing polarization instead of values. Without the [[universal in-group]], those who are shunned by one group are simply embraced by the other, especially when there is not a consensus on what constitutes a violation of the [[taboo]]. | [[Cancel culture]] has shown the necessity for fairness in the enforcement of new [[cultural norms]] and [[Taboo|taboos]], lest they result in incentivizing [[polarization]] instead of values. Without the [[universal in-group]], those who are shunned by one group are simply embraced by the other, especially when there is not a consensus on what constitutes a violation of the [[taboo]]. | ||
Most conservatives would agree that [[racism]] and [[misogyny]] [[These things are bad, mkay?|are bad]], so the [[cancel culture]] debate is not about whether they should be [[taboo]], it is about whether or not the enforcement of the [[taboo]] is fair. | Most conservatives would agree that [[racism]] and [[misogyny]] [[These things are bad, mkay?|are bad]], so the [[cancel culture]] debate is not about whether they should be [[taboo]], it is about whether or not the enforcement of the [[taboo]] is fair. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Without a supermajority consensus on what the new [[social norms]] are, what constitutes a violation, and what a fair [[consequence]] for that violation should be, enforcement will tend to lead to a [[debate]] on fairness and an increase in polarization. | Without a supermajority consensus on what the new [[social norms]] are, what constitutes a violation, and what a fair [[consequence]] for that violation should be, enforcement will tend to lead to a [[debate]] on fairness and an increase in polarization. | ||
A healthy [[culture]] requires an authoritative document that can spell out these terms, which do not belong in the legal system. [[Religion]] and [[scripture]] has been the [[traditional]] source for this authority, but it can no longer serve that purpose in a multicultural, global [[society]]. We must collectively decide to pick a new authority and run with it so we can build a [[future]] that reinforces values instead of endlessly debating them. | A [[healthy]] [[culture]] requires an authoritative document that can spell out these terms, which do not belong in the legal system. [[Religion]] and [[scripture]] has been the [[traditional]] source for this authority, but it can no longer serve that [[purpose]] in a multicultural, global [[society]]. We must collectively decide to pick a new authority and run with it so we can build a [[future]] that reinforces values instead of endlessly debating them. | ||
== Justice and Legal Philosophy Videos == | == Justice and Legal Philosophy Videos == | ||
A short 10 minute introduction to the philosophy of justice and a 12 part Harvard lecture series. There are no in-betweens! | A short 10 minute introduction to the [[philosophy]] of justice and a 12 part Harvard lecture series. There are no in-betweens! | ||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90||center|What is Justice?|frame}} | {{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0CTHVCkm90||center|What is Justice?|frame}} | ||
Revision as of 14:19, 24 February 2025
A sense of fairness and justice in society is essential to its happiness and well-being.
"Fairness is what justice really is." -Potter Stewart
When large segments of the population feel oppressed, like all the incentives of the system are stacked against them and their hopes for a better life, it is impossible for those people be as happy as they would be in a fair and just society.
This page will outline the key factors required to make a system of laws and enforcement that maximizes the prevailing sense of justice in a society.
The Punishment module on Wi-Phi has a complete course on the ethics of crime and punishment, and how we implement a system of justice that is fair and restorative.
Legal Systems
Equal protection under the law must be rigorously protected in the incentive structures built into every aspect of our judicial, legislative and bureaucratic systems. When the law is perceived as unequal, those who are disadvantaged by it suffer significantly more than than those with advantage prosper. Therefore, it is a moral imperative according to utilitarian ethics.
Legalism
Stage 4 of Kholberg's moral development progression is where the majority of conservatives currently stand. The notion that "if it's legal then it's OK, if it's illegal then it's bad" provides a simple framework for understanding and conforming to the rules of society.
The source of legality can come from any authority, be it government, religion, family, or employer. It is hierarchical and simple. Just do whatever the authority figure says.
The problems with this mindset are:
- It opposes necessary changes to the law, such as the legalization of recreational drugs and other victimless crimes.
- It encourages malicious prosecution and selective enforcement
- Unethical but not illegal acts are seen as clever workarounds instead of violations of social norms, such as the many attempts to circumvent the results of the 2020 election in the US.
Restorative Justice
The concept of Restorative Justice provides a model for community healing following a transgression that is not based on retribution. While this tends to deny the basic human instinct to seek revenge on wrongdoers, studies show that restorative justice is better aligned with our nature.
Crime and Punishment
Justice must also weigh the healing power of retribution against the redemptive nature of arbitrary punishment and find its incentives lacking. In the happiest countries, forgiveness, redemption and rehabilitation are prioritized over retribution, reducing recidivism. Ironically it is the least religious countries that reflect the values of Jesus in their judicial systems.
What role does punishment play in a society that maximizes happiness?
Civil Law
What is the best way to resolve non-criminal disputes between people? How can fairness and justice be maximized in the civil system?
Policing
Evidence-Based Best Practices for effective policing that reduces crime, catches criminals and avoids prosecuting the innocent, and maintains positive community relationships.
Enforcement of Social Norms
Cancel culture has shown the necessity for fairness in the enforcement of new cultural norms and taboos, lest they result in incentivizing polarization instead of values. Without the universal in-group, those who are shunned by one group are simply embraced by the other, especially when there is not a consensus on what constitutes a violation of the taboo.
Most conservatives would agree that racism and misogyny are bad, so the cancel culture debate is not about whether they should be taboo, it is about whether or not the enforcement of the taboo is fair.
Without a supermajority consensus on what the new social norms are, what constitutes a violation, and what a fair consequence for that violation should be, enforcement will tend to lead to a debate on fairness and an increase in polarization.
A healthy culture requires an authoritative document that can spell out these terms, which do not belong in the legal system. Religion and scripture has been the traditional source for this authority, but it can no longer serve that purpose in a multicultural, global society. We must collectively decide to pick a new authority and run with it so we can build a future that reinforces values instead of endlessly debating them.
Justice and Legal Philosophy Videos
A short 10 minute introduction to the philosophy of justice and a 12 part Harvard lecture series. There are no in-betweens!