Alas, Ari dropped the ball nwo and then . . .
>
>
> >that is, the kind of justice where an outcome is
> >rendered fair because fair procedures were
> followed,
>
> Are you suggesting that an adversarial/advocacy
> system,
> in which the quality (or even existence) of the
> advocacy
> is a function of the wealth available to each of the
> parties, is not inherently and irremediably unfair?
Well, leaving aside the "wealth of the parties" thing, one might, with Rawls, characterize adversary procedures as imperfect procedural justice. That is required when we don't know the correct answer to start with. Of course democracy itself provides only imperfect procedural justice -- unless, like Luke, you do know the correct answer,a nd than therefore impose it by fiat, circumventing democracy.
>
> >even if the outcome is wrong, i.e., based on a
> >factually wrong premise. jks
>
> Isn't the wrongness of an outcome defined by its
> factual wrongness as a *conclusion*, irrespective
> of the premises and deductions on which the
> outcome was based?
Depends on the kind of outcome, right? Someome may be convicted in error, giving the wrong outcome of finding an innocent person guilty, but be given due process up the wazoo, the best lawyers, etc., and having all the evidence against him, and in that sense not being wrongful. I have very different complaints if I say: The evidence was agaisnt me, I hada graet lawyer and a fair trial, the jury found me guilty, but dammit, I didn't do it; as opposed to sating: I was convicted on inadequate evidence, my lawyer was asleep, the trial was a kangaoo court, the judge was the victim's best friend and wouldn't recuse himself, etc. The second set of objections are process-based.
>
> And, by the way, wasn't the fact that humans are
> wired for logic conclusively demonstrated by
> Plato at Meno 81C-84A?
>
No dount. I recall that now . . . I knew it all along ;->
> Shane Mage
>
> "When we read on a printed page the doctrine of
> Pythagoras that all
> things are made of numbers, it seems mystical,
> mystifying, even
> downright silly.
>
> When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of
> Pythagoras that all
> things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently
> true." (N.
> Weiner)
>
>
> >--- Shane Mage <shmage at pipeline.com> wrote:
> >> >Justin writes:
> >> >
> >> >"We are obviously not wired for logic."
> >>
> >> At least not for the sort of logic that claims
> >> a man innocent of murder but convicted
> > > of murder was not *wrongfully* convicted.
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com