F
fakename
Guest
Here’s a dilemma about the constitution of a society.
For instance, assume that a law exists which has an unintended side effect (a law against murder that sometimes imprisons the innocent). Consequently, the equitable thing to do would be to weaken the law by allowing exemptions/arbitrators/etc. However, if the law is weakened then that might result in it becoming unenforceable and so you would have to start from scratch.
What is worse then, an attitude which turns a blind eye to what is fair but wishes to maintain justice or an attitude that wants to be fair even if the law against murder has to be destroyed?
For instance, assume that a law exists which has an unintended side effect (a law against murder that sometimes imprisons the innocent). Consequently, the equitable thing to do would be to weaken the law by allowing exemptions/arbitrators/etc. However, if the law is weakened then that might result in it becoming unenforceable and so you would have to start from scratch.
What is worse then, an attitude which turns a blind eye to what is fair but wishes to maintain justice or an attitude that wants to be fair even if the law against murder has to be destroyed?