Some years ago had to someone to court since I had to get the issue sorted out quickly and did know that clear rules would put everything in right path eventually (hopefully)
During the court case I wasn't told by the defendant what he/she thought would be reasonable and judge wasn't convinced and I asked to flip all the solutions other way round since the person and the lawyer thought it was fair to all of us. Luckily the judge got the point and proposed it as a solution.
Got the other side thinking and coming back to the table with more sensible mind set.
It is court and people try to push limits. however I started to think how we view differently often when something is done to us or our friends and support we still give them when they wrong others. (there is a lot wrong/one sided info) but also a lot of self deception when if judged neutrally we would look into different way, compared to someone hurting our friend /us.
Then I read the following article when searching for answers. Any good theories/ideas/books on subject? I thought it always would be easier to lean on/practise moral hypocrisy when getting on the wrong side from personal/emotional/subjective point of view.
These findings raise some thorny questions. It’s often suggested that abstract moral reasoning is in some sense better, more impartial, or fairer than judgments rooted in the messy details of specific events. In part, this draws on the idea that emotional responses, which are elicited when we consider the details of individual moral dilemmas, get in the way of clear moral reasoning, leading us to be swayed by emotionally salient by morally irrelevant issues. But the studies described here suggest just the opposite: that taking an abstract position actually facilitates and promotes self-serving, hypocritical judgments.
https://philosopherinthemirror.wordp...w-to-avoid-it/
Last edited by vento; 12-28-2017 at 07:40 PM.
