Fewer Rules, Better People: The Case for Discretion

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.