Something that I noticed years ago when working in law: There are pro forma people who care mostly about the process. Was it orderly, were all of the steps followed, the i’s dotted, the t’s crossed? Speaking colorfully, they would fully support a well-oiled orphan crushing machine, often even if they’re the orphans. It does make sense, given that monstrous and unjust rules and procedures are still rules and procedures, with a soothing order to them. Unknown, unpredictable things are deeply frightening to most living creatures, after all.
On the other side, there are the people who care mostly about the outcome, about whether it was just. They’ve resisted the world’s attempts to beat the child’s fixation on fairness out of them. There will always be a dynamic tension between the two groups.
So, yes, letting individuals make vigilante decisions about what is just and fair leads to chaos, but justice and fairness are still important. The crux of the matter is that the orderly court system has to deliver actual fairness and justice more often than the chaos does. If it doesn’t, then the people who care more about justice and fairness will do the cost-benefit analysis and abandon the system. If you’re in the first group, you may feel that an established, orderly court system is good, per se, no matter its outcome. But understand that lots of people also live in the second group, so it does matter if the court system is rotten to the core. It matters a great deal, because those folks will jettison the system the moment the chaos looks like a better option.
Something that I noticed years ago when working in law: There are pro forma people who care mostly about the process. Was it orderly, were all of the steps followed, the i’s dotted, the t’s crossed? Speaking colorfully, they would fully support a well-oiled orphan crushing machine, often even if they’re the orphans. It does make sense, given that monstrous and unjust rules and procedures are still rules and procedures, with a soothing order to them. Unknown, unpredictable things are deeply frightening to most living creatures, after all.
On the other side, there are the people who care mostly about the outcome, about whether it was just. They’ve resisted the world’s attempts to beat the child’s fixation on fairness out of them. There will always be a dynamic tension between the two groups.
So, yes, letting individuals make vigilante decisions about what is just and fair leads to chaos, but justice and fairness are still important. The crux of the matter is that the orderly court system has to deliver actual fairness and justice more often than the chaos does. If it doesn’t, then the people who care more about justice and fairness will do the cost-benefit analysis and abandon the system. If you’re in the first group, you may feel that an established, orderly court system is good, per se, no matter its outcome. But understand that lots of people also live in the second group, so it does matter if the court system is rotten to the core. It matters a great deal, because those folks will jettison the system the moment the chaos looks like a better option.