Fewer Rules, Better People
The Case for Discretion
-
- $16.99
Publisher Description
A philosopher argues that the proliferation of rules and mandates is making us dumber, less moral, more deceptive, and less able to govern important institutions.
Wherever there’s a rule, there is someone with the power to apply or ignore it—or add to it, in the interest of justice. From enforcing chores to issuing life sentences, decision-makers deliver flawed and sometimes arbitrary outcomes. But is their use of discretion good or bad overall? As a society, should we seek to minimize or maximize discretion, with all its potential for bias and other kinds of human error?
Reframing our understanding of justice and ethics, philosopher Barry Lam argues that while use of discretion—whether by a sports referee, a parent, a police officer, or a judge—can never be perfect, removing it has even more problematic effects. Mandatory arrests and sentencing laws have not eliminated bias, but have corrupted the courtroom, institutionalized lying, and brought about even more unjust and arbitrary results. Fewer Rules, Better People is a bold, riveting treatise that sheds new light on political debates about law and justice while aiming to prepare us for the imminent threat of more “perfect,” discretion-less rule enforcement by AI.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Lam, a philosophy professor at the University of California-Riverside, debuts with an intriguing if mostly anecdotal argument "for the value of discretionary decision-making in criminal justice and organizations of scale." Unlike rules, which can result in injustices as actions and people are treated categorically and subtleties are ignored, discretion fosters moral consideration of behavior and maximizes "fairness, justice, efficiency, and effectiveness," according to the author. Marshaling examples from the criminal justice system, bureaucracies, and artificial intelligence, he criticizes rule-bound practices as rooted in legalism, or the idea of "operat under a system of policy, procedure, and law" that aims for fairness but fails to consider how decision-makers' identities change how they enforce rules. Lam proposes that organizations should be staffed with decision-makers who are trained to use their discretion, who exercise moral responsibility, and who are regulated by ethics boards. Unfortunately, his argument is weakened by a failure to satisfactorily define discretion in the first place, and to adequately consider the moral, organizational, and political ramifications involved (for instance, how exactly would a society identify someone with the wisdom or morals to exercise proper discretion?). The result is a provocative yet incomplete look at what it might take to create a fairer world.
