= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mstevens comments on Open Thread, February 15-29, 2012 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (194)
It seems a suspicious coincidence that our puny human ideas of justice would automatically be a) physically possible b) have reasonable cost, but this is a very popular belief.
I don't think it's suspicious at all. The legal tradition deliberately orders its exponents to restrict its scope to enforceable laws without too major backlashes. (I know there are legal maxims expressing these concepts, but they just aren't coming to mind for some reason.)
EDIT: Mnemosyne popped up an example maxim: 'Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.'
Puny compared to what?
Indeed. There are no ideas of justice on exhibit other than human ones, so calling them "puny" seems like merely saying nasty things about reality.