In today’s post, we have more ideas inspired by Barry Lamb’s fewer books rules, better people.
When Lamb agreed with legalism in his book, one of the main values he insisted on preserving legalism is the idea that justice needs to treat it in the same way. If you and I are engaged in the same behavior, but you are punished for it while I am not, then it is arbitration and unfair. So far, so good.
However, there is a problem. Legalism allows clear and consistent definitions for rules of conduct to be understood by citizens and enrollees. Unfortunately, a consistent definition that accurately categorizes all cases has turned out to be a dead end. When I discuss in my post on Daniel Dennett’s main mammal thought experiments, the line is always arbitrary and there are clear cases where the line mistakenly defines things.
This does not only define mammals. Michael Huemer wrote an entire book on the nature of knowledge over 350 pages. And in the opening line of the first chapter after the introduction, Huemer writes, “In this chapter we will attempt to define ‘knowledge’.” He starts with the definition of the fundamental first pass of knowledge as a legitimate belief. This indicates that there is a situation where there is a submarine of what knowledge is. I’m on a similar point, the ethical intuition of books about defining things as simple as tables. He tries to solve the definition of the table to the students – and no matter how careful they try to create the definition, you can still find an obvious small table case of the Allen table.
This does not mean that it is pointless to try to define things, or that the unpleasant nature of the fraudulent behavior of definitions indicates the complete meaninglessness of the phenomenon before the definition is attempted to be written. However, it should be noted that if you dig deep enough for definition, if it collapses, when it happens, you may be able to stick to the definition for itself.
One example that comes to mind is the Clean Waters Act, passed by Congress. The purpose of this law is to put limits on those abandoned in “US waters.” But simply saying “US waters” is too vague – it has ended the definition of more needs. So the regulators are trying to do exactly that, adding that among the other clauses there are areas that are “suitable to support and that normal circumstances support. This is the prevalence of vegetation that is usually adapted to living in saturated soil conditions.”
This turns out to be a problem for his father, a duo named Ocie and Carey Mills who were building a cabin on wooded land in Florida. Unfortunately, this wooded lot contains small patches of wetland grass and small patches of wetland grass grass. Thus, by introducing, they were guilty of “discharge agent pollutants into the navigable body of the United States” by burying sand and dirt in that plot on dry land as part of building the cabin. The judge said Mills was not realistic to understand that dry land constitutes “navigable water” based on the basis that “there may be saturated sales vegetation, as in the situation here.”
(As a postscript, they were instructed to stir up the “contaminants” after Relaase. In this example, they were able to convince the judge who presided over the incident on the news. The wetlands that make up “navigable water” explained the legal definition used in this case.
And this could be a case in which restrictions on drawing lines and establishing legal definitions could be reactive. This is what legalism intends to preserve. With one hand, you have a prototype case where Summon dumps waste into the river. Meanwhile, the factory has subfiltered in driveways on dry land. If that’s true for the judge to see both of these cases and say, “Yes, people in both of these situations should feel federal prisons – after all, the requirements of justice that I treat before like Cassé,” then it would seem like a Monty Python sketch. This was when we were not treating it like a case, but rather pretending that a very similar case actually looked similar, and the act of placing soil in a driveway on dry land was treated the same as throwing it into a river. This SEM is as arbitrary as what legalism hopes is working hard.
It should be kept in mind that if there are requirements of justice that we treat similarly, by-book’s legalism that refuses to make distinctions or exceptions can lead to us as if we were to treat the wild and obvious unalikes cales.
(0 comments)
Source link
