Logic of the justice of the law

[Speakpigeon]

Using your personal sense of logic, i.e. your logical intuition, thank you to answer the following two questions.

A) Which of the following propositions do you see as false, and which as true?

(s1) The law is just.
(s2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.
(s3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
(s4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(s5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

Thanks for your answers.
EB

 

[Jokodo]

Using your personal sense of logic, i.e. your logical intuition, thank you to answer the following two questions.

A) Which of the following propositions do you see as false, and which as true?

(s1) The law is just.
(s2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.
(s3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
(s4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?

(s5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

Thanks for your answers.
EB

Huh?

If we accept (s4), the only thing that follows is that innocent people going to jail isn't in and of itself conclusive evidence that the law is unjust. It doesn't magically become evidence of the opposite. And either way, you haven't included anything about whether innocent people do go to jail in your premises.

 

[fast]

(s1) The law is just.

False.

Yet, generally speaking and overall, it is. There will always be instances where a specific law is unjust or thrown together too quickly to accommodate the issues that aren’t so black and white. Although I don’t think a single instance (or even a few instances) of an unjust law warrants concluding the law is unjust, I think there’s too many circumstances where the law fails to account for exceptions.

(s2) Innocent people don’t go to jail.

False.

I don’t think even an explanation is called for on that obvious falsehood.

(s3) If the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.

That should be an easy answer, but I’m open-minded to not getting this one correct. Although I answer with a deep breath, I’m gonna go with true.

(s4) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

Squeamishly, I say true. That almost tripped me up.

B) That being said, do you see the following proposition as valid or not valid?
(s5) It is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail; therefore, the law is just.​

Not valid

By the way, do you notice the semantic ambiguity—or multiple interpretations?

It is not true that if A (the law is just), then B (innocent people don’t go to jail)
Vs
It is not true that (C) (if the law is just, then innocent people don’t go to jail).

 

[steve_bank]

The OP seems a bit strange. 'logic of the justice of the law' does mot seem to mean anything.

The 'justice system' is a euphemism. Civil law and law enforcement is meant to maintain civil order. Laws can be debated over morality, as with the death penalty. The logic of laws is keeping us from being at each other's throats. Traffic laws maintain an orderly personal transit system.

The social concept in modern democracies is equal protection under the law. The word justice in the legal system equated to fairness. Blacks being traffic stopped more than other s is an injustice, a lack of fairness. A criminal obviously guilty getting off on a technicality is an injustice, it is unfair to victims.

The fact that obvious guilty criminals get off on technologies is not justice, but it keeps order and overall fairness by adhering to rule of law.

It is not logical in a formal sense, it is a morality.

 

[Bronzeage]

Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.

 

[Speakpigeon]

By the way, do you notice the semantic ambiguity—or multiple interpretations?

It is not true that if A (the law is just), then B (innocent people don’t go to jail)

Not the correct interpretation.

Vs
It is not true that (C) (if the law is just, then innocent people don’t go to jail).

That's the correct interpretation.


We can't say: (It's not true that if A), then B.

Because "It's not true that if A" is not a proposition.

So we may say instead: If not A, then B.

Or, meaning something different: It's not true that (If A, then B).

And that is always written as: It's not true that if A, then B.

Because there's no... ambiguity.

Thanks for pointing out the possible misunderstanding.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

An obsession with simple syllogisms.

Expressing in symbolic logic would raise the quality of the threads and reduce subjectivity.

Rather than a syllogism make a logical statement offered for debate.

 

[fast]

I might be branching out a bit and deviating from the parameters of the thread, but I can’t help but think that the “just” in “justice” are not as synchronous as might be thought.

There are instances where justice has made its debute and prevailed over less preferred alternatives that neverless render imperfections that some may reason to be unjust.

If you are a strong suspect in an awful crime, it’s not necessarily an injustice that you are temporarily held in jail, yet there are those among us with their own shades of moral outtakes that will think otherwise. It’s not perfect and maybe perhaps not just, but it can nevertheless simultaneously be a consequence of the justice system.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.

It's either true or false that the law is just.
It's either true or false that innocent people don’t go to jail.
It's either true or false that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
It's either true or false that it is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

And the argument itself is either valid or not valid.​

I would have thought we all have a view on each of these questions.

And what you say suggests the law is not even meant to be just, and that even if it was meant to, it still wouldn't be because humans and human institutions are just not perfect things.

Yet, you don't actually answer the two questions...
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I might be branching out a bit and deviating from the parameters of the thread, but I can’t help but think that the “just” in “justice” are not as synchronous as might be thought.

There are instances where justice has made its debute and prevailed over less preferred alternatives that neverless render imperfections that some may reason to be unjust.

If you are a strong suspect in an awful crime, it’s not necessarily an injustice that you are temporarily held in jail, yet there are those among us with their own shades of moral outtakes that will think otherwise. It’s not perfect and maybe perhaps not just, but it can nevertheless simultaneously be a consequence of the justice system.

Usually, a law is considered just if it treats all citizens in the same way.
EB

 

[fast]

I might be branching out a bit and deviating from the parameters of the thread, but I can’t help but think that the “just” in “justice” are not as synchronous as might be thought.

There are instances where justice has made its debute and prevailed over less preferred alternatives that neverless render imperfections that some may reason to be unjust.

If you are a strong suspect in an awful crime, it’s not necessarily an injustice that you are temporarily held in jail, yet there are those among us with their own shades of moral outtakes that will think otherwise. It’s not perfect and maybe perhaps not just, but it can nevertheless simultaneously be a consequence of the justice system.

Usually, a law is considered just if it treats all citizens in the same way.
EB

That’s fairness, like justice—not right, like just.

A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Usually, a law is considered just if it treats all citizens in the same way.
EB

That’s fairness, like justice—not right, like just.

just
adj. 1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler. See Synonyms at fair.

just
adj 1. a. fair or impartial in action or judgement

just
adj. 1. guided by reason, justice, and fairness.

A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.

The expression "like crap" implies the owner doesn't treat people like he would be treated himself, whence would come the sense of unfairness.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

A business owner that treats all workers like crap is not treating them in a just manner, but they are all treated the same.

The expression "like crap" implies the owner doesn't treat people like he would be treated himself, whence would come the sense of unfairness.
EB

People who treat others like crap may also treat themselves like crap. Seems fair to one who does. Your contention not sufficient for rejection of fairness IMHO.

Is it fair to treat everyone the same way? People like fingerprints are all different. So probably not.

Fairness needs much specification, strong bounds.

 

[ronburgundy]

Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.

It's either true or false that the law is just.

That statement is false. "Just" means "based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair". Therefore, any statement that "X is just" is a subjective moral stance to which the concept of truth or falsehood does not even apply.

It has no more truth value than "Apples are better than oranges."

It's either true or false that innocent people don’t go to jail.

Agreed.

It's either true or false that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
It's either true or false that it is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

Neither of these statements are valid. Since "just" is a subjective preference and not a fact about the world, the truth of these two statements depends upon what subjective morals one has that determine what "just" means. If "just" means "innocent people don't go to jail" (no less valid a definition than any), then the first statement is true and the latter false. If "just" means something that is independent of innocent people going to jail, then the first statement is false and the latter is true.

As for the S5 conclusion in the OP, that is not valid, because S4 being true only implies that a particular condition does not preclude the law being just. It says nothing about the set of conditions that are neccessary and sufficient for the law to be just.

S5 has the illogical form
Not (If A, then B)
Therefore, A

 

[steve_bank]

Innocent people go to jail, guilty people go free. We have the principle of rule of law with an adversarial system. Prosecutors and defense lawyers bot argue aggressively and we accept the decision of a judge or jury regardless of the outcome.

We consider a jury of average people more just in the long run than judges making arbitrary rulings.

No system of fallible humans can be expected to meet an ideal of justice.

 

[fast]

Fairness lies in treating like cases alike and unlike cases unlike. A teacher that awards A-students with a star yet provides no star for lesser grade earning students is not treating lesser grade earners unfairly. In this case, not giving an A-student an earned star to a student who earns an ‘A’ is unfair to that student, and awarding a star to a lesser grade earner is unfair to all the students, especially the ‘A’ students.

If the teacher decides to award a star to a B-student but does so for a different reason (oh say, biggest improvement), then we need to be mindful of my first sentence: fairness has to do with like and unlike cases. In this scenario, there’s a special case (which is greatest improvement vs not greatest improvement). So long as the B student receives the star because of belonging to that case, that is not unfair to other students—even the A-students.

As to your “like crap” response, the group pertains to all workers. It would be unfair to treat one good. It would be right, but it would be unfair.

People too closely associate some forms of immoral behavior as being unfair. I’m just saying there is a difference worthy of being mindful of.

 

[Bronzeage]

Part of the problem is we don't have a neat definition of "just." The law can be used unjustly when society prefers it. In all the countries where slavery existed, it was a completely legal practice. If a person helped a slave escape, there would be a law which puts this person in jail. All perfectly just.

Logic and the law only work when the law, as it exists in a particular society, is seen as a closed system.

The reason law exists as an institution is to remove the burden of having to defend oneself and property from everyone else. It takes personal or family revenge out of the hands of the individual and hands it over to a separate authority. It's real purpose is to stop the endless cycle of vengeance attacks, which results when I kill someone, and his brother kills me, so my brother kills him, and on and on. The State takes over that function and everybody has to be happy with the result, more or less.

To apply logic and reason to the whole thing is to expect perfection from a human endeavor. We're just not that good at this sort of thing.

It's either true or false that the law is just.
It's either true or false that innocent people don’t go to jail.
It's either true or false that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.
It's either true or false that it is not true that if the law is just then innocent people don't go to jail.​

And the argument itself is either valid or not valid.​

I would have thought we all have a view on each of these questions.

And what you say suggests the law is not even meant to be just, and that even if it was meant to, it still wouldn't be because humans and human institutions are just not perfect things.

Yet, you don't actually answer the two questions...
EB

What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.

 

[steve_bank]

Some people fail to understand that beyond relatively simple situations, justice and morality along with right and wrong do not fit into syllogisms and black-white either or dichotomies.

That would ne a morality thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's either true or false that the law is just.

That statement is false.

See my new thread on this crucial point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

What I am saying, in plain language is, your argument is too silly for validity or non-validity to be considered.

More likely, you're too lazy to be bothered.

And the argument is definitely not too silly for most people to be willing to try to assess its validity.

Still, you're obviously not so lazy that you wouldn't want to post at least some cheap comment.
EB