Huh. That’s weird. My working definition of justice is “treating significantly similar things in appropriately similar ways, while also treating significantly different things in appropriately different ways”. I find myself regularly falling back to this concept, and getting use from doing so.
Also, I rarely see anyone else doing anything even slightly similar, so I don’t think of myself as using a “common tactic” here? Also, I have some formal philosophic training, and my definition comes from a distillation of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates, and so it makes sense to me that since most people lack similar exposure they would lack the concept by default.
Both “incentive alignment” and “justice” feel like something a slave might beg a master to give them so that the slave was punished and rewarded in less insane ways, so I can see how they might be conflated, but I don’t see how “incentive alignment” would serve Robinson Crusoe if he was trying to figure out a good approach to which fruits to eat, or which parts of an island to use in different ways.
What do you think normal people mean by “justice” when you say it is something they can somehow use to prove the existence of free will and justify bad politics?
‘Justice’ has got to be one of the worst commonsense concepts.
It is used to ‘prove’ the existence of free will and it is the basis of a lot of suboptimal political and economic decision making.
Taboo ‘justice’ and talk about incentive alignment instead.
Huh. That’s weird. My working definition of justice is “treating significantly similar things in appropriately similar ways, while also treating significantly different things in appropriately different ways”. I find myself regularly falling back to this concept, and getting use from doing so.
Also, I rarely see anyone else doing anything even slightly similar, so I don’t think of myself as using a “common tactic” here? Also, I have some formal philosophic training, and my definition comes from a distillation of Aristotle and Plato and Socrates, and so it makes sense to me that since most people lack similar exposure they would lack the concept by default.
Both “incentive alignment” and “justice” feel like something a slave might beg a master to give them so that the slave was punished and rewarded in less insane ways, so I can see how they might be conflated, but I don’t see how “incentive alignment” would serve Robinson Crusoe if he was trying to figure out a good approach to which fruits to eat, or which parts of an island to use in different ways.
What do you think normal people mean by “justice” when you say it is something they can somehow use to prove the existence of free will and justify bad politics?