“Most generally, perhaps, one could simply assume a society where everyone always has what they deserve; whatever one takes that to be. “
But do we know what each person deserves? Conventionally, we expect the legislature to decide what is just and create the law with that guiding them. But the feedback is weak when their conjecture turns out to be poor.
Common law allows for a more fault-tolerant/self-correcting model. And we can imagine even more flexible, market oriented alternatives.
>>“Most generally, perhaps, one could simply assume a society where everyone always has what they deserve; whatever one takes that to be. “
>But do we know what each person deserves?
This misunderstands the thought experiment. It refers to whatever any reader assumes to be deserved by his preferred theory of justice, for the sake of argument. If we assume that a society always has this, then there is no need to refer to additional principles to test its justice (they might even be incompatible with that justice). Hence such principles cannot even be a necessary part of the abstract conception of justice.
>Conventionally, we expect the legislature to decide what is just and create the law with that guiding them. But the feedback is weak when their conjecture turns out to be poor.
That sounds about right as regards what is conventionally expected and the weakness of feedback. But it seems far more realistic to expect the legislature to create law on the basis of what they think will win elections. And that feedback is quite strong. The legislature mainly pays lip service to the idea of justice; also in order to win elections.
>Common law allows for a more fault-tolerant/self-correcting model.
Agreed.
>And we can imagine even more flexible, market oriented alternatives.
Yes. Various law-and-order businesses set up to protect people and their legitimate property have a strong profit motive to keep experimenting to improve their results. I would regard that improvement as moving towards greater justice.
“Most generally, perhaps, one could simply assume a society where everyone always has what they deserve; whatever one takes that to be. “
But do we know what each person deserves? Conventionally, we expect the legislature to decide what is just and create the law with that guiding them. But the feedback is weak when their conjecture turns out to be poor.
Common law allows for a more fault-tolerant/self-correcting model. And we can imagine even more flexible, market oriented alternatives.
>>“Most generally, perhaps, one could simply assume a society where everyone always has what they deserve; whatever one takes that to be. “
>But do we know what each person deserves?
This misunderstands the thought experiment. It refers to whatever any reader assumes to be deserved by his preferred theory of justice, for the sake of argument. If we assume that a society always has this, then there is no need to refer to additional principles to test its justice (they might even be incompatible with that justice). Hence such principles cannot even be a necessary part of the abstract conception of justice.
>Conventionally, we expect the legislature to decide what is just and create the law with that guiding them. But the feedback is weak when their conjecture turns out to be poor.
That sounds about right as regards what is conventionally expected and the weakness of feedback. But it seems far more realistic to expect the legislature to create law on the basis of what they think will win elections. And that feedback is quite strong. The legislature mainly pays lip service to the idea of justice; also in order to win elections.
>Common law allows for a more fault-tolerant/self-correcting model.
Agreed.
>And we can imagine even more flexible, market oriented alternatives.
Yes. Various law-and-order businesses set up to protect people and their legitimate property have a strong profit motive to keep experimenting to improve their results. I would regard that improvement as moving towards greater justice.