I Scott Alexander has a new blog post up in which he complains about a phenomenon he calls justice creep. A move in language away from talking about how it would be nice to help certain groups or causes, to talking about securing justice for those causes:
I think this is a great post. I have quibble on the Iraq war example - I think it's highly relevant that Saddam had invaded both Kuwait and Iran unprovoked previously and had had and had used chemical weapons. I don't think this changes anything substantively in your argument, but I think it underplays the degree to which Saddam was a danger to international community.
After reading both posts, I think I agree more with you - we probably should consider more things as issues of justice, not fewer. I do still think it's pretty arbitrary how we chose to frame things - in a society with slightly different values (or even with the same values?) we could well be talking about social issues in terms of "Duty" or "Virtue" with much the same results, so I think it's just a matter of what we find most compelling. It may actually be worth considering whether different frames work better in different contexts or cultures? (e.g. Liberal vs Conservative, Eastern vs Western)
I do feel like there are issues with framing things in terms of justice though - it may constrain the scope of the problem too much, and encourage disengagement if you're just a regular person - after all, we leave justice to the justice system! As Scott observes, many people have a purely punitive conception of justice, so maybe environmental justice just looks like doing nothing until it's too late and then punishing a small number of people for our collective guilt, which is probably not going to help much. This is probably an issue with how we conceptualise justice more than anything else, but it is still worth considering.
Regarding the person with the gun denying you shelter, I believe the case falls under the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue . I am actually surprised (okay, maybe "disappointed but not surprised") to find that common law jurisdictions generally do not contain this kind of provision. However, in large swaths of the world, including where I live, the man's actions would indeed be considered a crime.
As for the widow's mite, do you think what the widow did was sustainable? Do you think it should be socially encouraged? As impressive as it is, the widow should probably keep her money and build up to a situation where she can contribute from her surplus.
The veil of the law, as you call it, has an important role you ignore. The alternative is escalating blood feuds until you get a full-scale civil war, someone wins, then establishes the law and its veil again and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Or you can speedrun the whole process via a revolution with extra genocide on top. Don't poke the veil, there's a Chesterton's bull behind it.
The macaroon consumed is fuel for the engine of progress. The person in the room who could figure out how to fix the poisonous gas thing needs lots and lots of macaroon, and the other people are helping that person in many ways - some direct, some indirect. The people below and those who claim to speak for them only have "stop eating macaroon then let's all slowly starve ourselves to death" as their policy proposal. And the biggest joke is, at this point the gas is slowly being released anyway...
I’m surprised to see this kind of take from Scott; I vividly recall an analogy involving fisheries that he made a while ago illustrating the tendency toward defection/breakdown in coordination problems where the penalties are longer-term and more abstract than the payouts. Did he forget?
I think this is a great post. I have quibble on the Iraq war example - I think it's highly relevant that Saddam had invaded both Kuwait and Iran unprovoked previously and had had and had used chemical weapons. I don't think this changes anything substantively in your argument, but I think it underplays the degree to which Saddam was a danger to international community.
After reading both posts, I think I agree more with you - we probably should consider more things as issues of justice, not fewer. I do still think it's pretty arbitrary how we chose to frame things - in a society with slightly different values (or even with the same values?) we could well be talking about social issues in terms of "Duty" or "Virtue" with much the same results, so I think it's just a matter of what we find most compelling. It may actually be worth considering whether different frames work better in different contexts or cultures? (e.g. Liberal vs Conservative, Eastern vs Western)
I do feel like there are issues with framing things in terms of justice though - it may constrain the scope of the problem too much, and encourage disengagement if you're just a regular person - after all, we leave justice to the justice system! As Scott observes, many people have a purely punitive conception of justice, so maybe environmental justice just looks like doing nothing until it's too late and then punishing a small number of people for our collective guilt, which is probably not going to help much. This is probably an issue with how we conceptualise justice more than anything else, but it is still worth considering.
Regarding the person with the gun denying you shelter, I believe the case falls under the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue . I am actually surprised (okay, maybe "disappointed but not surprised") to find that common law jurisdictions generally do not contain this kind of provision. However, in large swaths of the world, including where I live, the man's actions would indeed be considered a crime.
As for the widow's mite, do you think what the widow did was sustainable? Do you think it should be socially encouraged? As impressive as it is, the widow should probably keep her money and build up to a situation where she can contribute from her surplus.
The veil of the law, as you call it, has an important role you ignore. The alternative is escalating blood feuds until you get a full-scale civil war, someone wins, then establishes the law and its veil again and everyone breathes a sigh of relief. Or you can speedrun the whole process via a revolution with extra genocide on top. Don't poke the veil, there's a Chesterton's bull behind it.
The macaroon consumed is fuel for the engine of progress. The person in the room who could figure out how to fix the poisonous gas thing needs lots and lots of macaroon, and the other people are helping that person in many ways - some direct, some indirect. The people below and those who claim to speak for them only have "stop eating macaroon then let's all slowly starve ourselves to death" as their policy proposal. And the biggest joke is, at this point the gas is slowly being released anyway...
I’m surprised to see this kind of take from Scott; I vividly recall an analogy involving fisheries that he made a while ago illustrating the tendency toward defection/breakdown in coordination problems where the penalties are longer-term and more abstract than the payouts. Did he forget?