Fair enough, there's a practical reason for it. As you point out, ultimately something has to get done about what's going on, and this abstraction helps get it done.
I suppose the danger then is an over-reliance... because while the psychological quirk isn't all of the reason for this drive's existance, it's very significant, and the system is inherantly flawed as it is. We must avoid basing too much on subjective opinion but at the same time avoid trying to reduce everything to a tally sheet or point system. We want to avoid the muddy middle where we can, but we must've be afraid to get into it to haul the best resolution out of it rather than settle for an easy, ill-fitting answer.
Perhaps then, the distinction is between necessarily establishing quantifiable qualities to use with precedents and the less desirable but more attractive practice of arbitrating based on inflexible parameters. God, that was a mouthful. Anyway, I guess our system of law tries to do this already, but kind of teeters back and forth between the extremes.
I wish I had more solutions. Mostly I just wanted to warn against the allure of neat-n-tidy systems that achieve their cleanliness by sweeping things under rugs. If we tortured information out of somebody, and that info saved 500 lives, we can't just forget about the torture. We have to address it, even if that means accepting it on some level.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-04-26 12:32 am (UTC)I suppose the danger then is an over-reliance... because while the psychological quirk isn't all of the reason for this drive's existance, it's very significant, and the system is inherantly flawed as it is. We must avoid basing too much on subjective opinion but at the same time avoid trying to reduce everything to a tally sheet or point system. We want to avoid the muddy middle where we can, but we must've be afraid to get into it to haul the best resolution out of it rather than settle for an easy, ill-fitting answer.
Perhaps then, the distinction is between necessarily establishing quantifiable qualities to use with precedents and the less desirable but more attractive practice of arbitrating based on inflexible parameters. God, that was a mouthful. Anyway, I guess our system of law tries to do this already, but kind of teeters back and forth between the extremes.
I wish I had more solutions. Mostly I just wanted to warn against the allure of neat-n-tidy systems that achieve their cleanliness by sweeping things under rugs. If we tortured information out of somebody, and that info saved 500 lives, we can't just forget about the torture. We have to address it, even if that means accepting it on some level.