Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

contractualist OP t1_irqy50w wrote

Reply to comment by doireallyneedone11 in Three Types of Legal Regimes: Reasonable Law Regimes, Unreasonable Law Regimes, and Non-Law Regimes (or how law relates to morality) by contractualist

What reasonable people could agree to. Although this is more procedural fairness than substantive.

So long as rights are generally protected, the rule of law is respected, a functioning democratic process is in place, and the outcome isn't blantanly unjust, laws are reasonable (although not necessarily ideal).

1

doireallyneedone11 t1_irqy8b7 wrote

That's a pretty biased way to describe 'reasonable'.

2

contractualist OP t1_irr2vob wrote

Part of what makes laws reasonable is that they reflect universal principles that free people would accept, which require certain procedural mechanisms and don't presume any substantive conceptions of justice.

It's like saying a fair contract is one where the process is fair, and the outcome isn't substantially unjust. If those conditions are met, the contract is upheld; if not it becomes voidable/void. This is still a weak requirement and reasonable law regimes would encompass every liberal democracy.

1

doireallyneedone11 t1_irr3kvl wrote

I greatly doubt that there are such "universal principles" in the first place.

1

contractualist OP t1_irr4v7q wrote

Making the case for these universal principles is the purpose of my newsletter. I've made a previous argument recognizing the foundational principles of all just societies in the link below. If you have any criticisms, I'd love to hear them so I can address them in future posts.

https://garik.substack.com/p/foundation-principles-and-formal

1

doireallyneedone11 t1_irr51o9 wrote

Very interesting. I would surely look into it and share my thoughts, if any.

1