Quote:
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
A good explanation of the political divide at The Week. |
I read the article you linked to xoB, and I liked the article, but I disagreed with the hypothesis that there are two groups, "Do-Gooders" and "Rule-Followers".
Indeed those tendencies are found in all of us to some degree or another, and the article even mentions clear cases when the same person justifies their decision by one of those principles and then the other. I believe that *all* such decisions are made in the spirit of "doing good". I think the outcomes of such contests are really a battle between people who have different ideas about what is good, or about which good is more important. I often want to do good, have a chance to take an action, and I have to choose which good I want to do. It's a matter of prioritization, in my head. And it's just the same in each of the heads of the justices, but they then have to work together to come to a joint decision as a court. Think of all the individual choices and voices we see and hear from them.
I think people try to do good all the time. Even when rule following is used as a justification, I think it's really saying that the good done by this decision includes preservation of the system of rules we have in place, and coincidentally, it complements the good outcome I've chosen. Double good outcomes when it also can be justified by the rules. "*Bonus*, see, the rules are supported!"
Our disagreements are more about what constitutes good, or which good is better, and the rules are just another justification for our decisions. Someone who says they're doing it just because the rules say so reminds me of Sergeant Schultz, "I vas *chust* following orDERS!"