Highlights From The Comments On Justice Creep

Companion Highlights to 'Justice Creep' (parent scored 72), with substantial original Scott argument. He develops the incel/'sexual justice' thought experiment as the key test case — the 'philosophical living fossil' of the pre-modern view that inequality isn't automatically injustice, which the modern 'inequality-caused-by-human-choices = injustice' meme has almost driven extinct. He gratefully adopts Brad Foley's Haidtian reframe (the shift from Care/Harm to Fairness foundations, admitting he's more comfortable with Care/Harm and can't confidently answer 'is it unfair?'), works through the animal-justice case (clearest justice case yet, oddly least-used term), the hog-farm middle ground, AJPio's Rawlsian social-bases-of-self-respect exposition, and Darwin's utopia/dystopia low-hanging-fruit inversion. Lands on 'I have no idea what justice is, but I care about people' + a UBI framed on Care/Harm rather than Fairness.

Quality 71 · Strong. Strong, top of the companion band: genuinely advances the parent's argument (the Haidt reframe Scott says would have improved the original, the incel test-case, animal-justice) with real philosophical work; effectively a light essay. Held at 71 by its highlights format and the parent's 72.

Claude’s paradigm shift 50 · Moderate. Notable: the Care/Harm-vs-Fairness reframing and the incel-symmetry argument are a fresh sharpening of the justice-creep thesis.

Real-world impact 2 · Minor. Within-discourse: shapes how readers think about justice vs welfare framings; no material reach.