makes sense.
> What's important, as Justin keeps emphasizing, is a good method
> for adjudicating between people with different moral beliefs and
> practical objectives.
would the method be derived from a shared set of beliefs and objectives?
> Encouraging judges to make legal
> judgments on the basis on their own moral sentiments rather
> than law only exacerbates the problems. (Again, it is only
> in a fantasy world where all people had the same
> moral beliefs that legal judgments based on personal moral
> sentiment would be consistent and fair.)
but is the law (and its application) well-defined? are their additional rules of thumb provided to the judge? if the judge brings in some personal criteria or method in interpreting and deciding issues, can that be avoided? if not, what are such personal criteria based on? what if it turns out that they are the judge's personal moral sentiments?
--ravi