--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wrote: > > > As long as we have non-robotic judges, the > > > subjective moral visions of > > > judges will play a role. > > JKS: > > Of course. As I know better than you! > > It's likely, but personal experience isn't always > better than theoretical > understanding, since personal experience is on the > level of anecdotes: it > can give one a vision of the trees without an > understanding of the forest. > (Of course, theoretical understsnding can be wrong, > too.)
True, but apart from having seen the subjective moral visions of many different judges operate on actual cases up close and friendly for four years, I like to think I have theoretical understanding too. I've even written on the topic, the paper's seeking a home. ANyway, I can tell you from personal experience that in ordinary judicial decision, evenw hen judgesare doing their jobs (and not going against the moral judgment of the legislature or the Constitution's framers and ratifiers), personal moral judgment enters in, among otherplaces, in discretionary decisions, as well as in what bothers the judge. Judge Cummings was once verey disturbed by a plausible argument of a criminal defendant (bank robber) that there was racial discrimination involved in his jury choice, but couldn't be othered about what I thought was a troublesome aspect of his sentencing. This was because he hated discrimination, but thought that criminals deserved what they got, pretty much. > > My view is that we shouldn't rely on the current > legal system or the > politicians -- but instead should figure out how to > change the balance of > power (favoring the "good guys" of course). Yes, why not both? > But I wasn't advocating the taking of moral stands > by individual judges. Good. > Maybe I might, but I haven't thought about it > enough. You shouldn't. Advocate it that is. Think about is another matter. > > This is way off the subject under discussion (or at > least what I was talking > about, i.e., the contradiction between morality and > the current judicial > system). I think the confusion arises because you are attacking the immorality of the law, as you see it, not focusing narrowly (as I am) on the role of the judge. Hence "judicial system" is misleading. > > as a an ethicist friend of mine says, one of the > strongest (and easiest) > moral cases one can make is by pointing to the > contradiction between moral > theory and actual practice (i.e., hypocrisy), > because there's no need to > develop basic moral principles I think that's cheap, actually, not strong. (which some say is > impossible). But no one except philosophers really believes that. (According to > Cornell West's dissertation, Marx's ethics ended up > focussing precisely on > this contraecitions.) Not West's strongest argument in my view. jks __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
