prolog

Part 1: Do Humans Have Dignity?
_Often, when something is emphasized as being of great importance, it is often evidence that it has been greatly threatened and ignored.

Why the Constitution?
There are upper and lower levels of law.
The promise that all human beings have dignity
Now we must change the question—the death penalty.
Living like a human being
Human dignity is sensitivity

Part 2: Freedom to be Extraordinary, Freedom to be Vulgar, Freedom to be Subversive
_We need to open our clouded eyes when we look at each other.

The rule of law mindset
Chronicle of 'Freedom'
Freedom to be extraordinary, freedom to be mean, freedom to be subversive
Do I have the right to destroy myself?
Pollution called human

Part 3: Good intentions alone are not enough
_Many of the conflicts in the world are clashes between good intentions.

Justice vs.
freedom
Why on earth is the law so lenient on criminals?
What the Rule of Law System Misses
Sexual violence is a crime against freedom
The principle of prohibition of excess
Beautiful judgment and cool judgment

The 4th process is also for coexistence.
What's the most unsightly thing in the world? There are many answers, but if we had to choose the most universal, it'd be "being eaten raw."

What is justice?
The fair hell we desire
Underdog and Hatred of the Weak
Equality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Epilogue_Minimum Goodwill for Coexistence

"What we need now is the art of compromise that humanity has shared."

When each person's values ​​collide and interests clash,
Just look at who is breaking everyone's promise.

The art of compromise called "rule of law" as discussed by author Moon Yu-seok in "Declaration of an Individualist."

The more I missed the daily life I took for granted, the more I felt the weight of the pillars that had supported it.
Through the power of promises, rules, compromises, bargains, mutual understanding, self-restraint, and respect, we were able to pack our backpacks and set off to a strange city, and buy tteokbokki on the street in the middle of the night.
The law is the institutionalization of that power.


The law is both the 'minimum line' that must not be crossed between people and the 'minimum goodness' that people must bestow upon one another.
This is the pillar that has supported the civilized world.
This is not simply meant as a rule or obligation that must not be violated.
Law is a pillar of the civilized world in the sense that it is a means to guarantee the common values ​​that humanity has developed over a long history: human dignity, freedom, and equality.
One day in the spring of 2020, as I felt the fear that the pillars were collapsing all over the world, I felt compelled to write something about the law.
_From "Prologue"

The 'minimum amount of goodwill' we need, wounded and exhausted by extreme conflict and sharp hatred.

News of complex and confusing incidents and accidents are posted daily on internet portals. On social media and YouTube, criticism and condemnation pour in, and opinions clash fiercely. However, the incidents are quickly forgotten, leaving only resentment and mutual resentment.
It is a scene that has become familiar to us at some point.


Since each person's right and wrong are in conflict and interests are intertwined in multiple layers, it is necessary to clearly establish standards for judgment, but it is not easy to make a definitive decision.
As we enter an era of low growth, the pie we can share is getting smaller, and the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic is causing serious disruption to the values ​​we have upheld, further fueling fear and hatred toward one another.
This is why healthy value judgments and compromise for coexistence are more urgent than ever.


"Minimum Goodwill" is a book written by author Moon Yu-seok, who sharply criticized Korea's unique collectivist culture in "Declaration of an Individualist," and which examines the values ​​that individuals in a society should share from a legal perspective in a light-hearted and sharp manner.
We live in a time of concern, wondering if the constitutional values ​​of human dignity, freedom, and equality—a common declaration of rights and a promise for all humanity—are fading.
In an era where rapid scientific and technological advancements and an economic downturn that seems to be unending, everyone suffers from a vague sense of anxiety.
What is the strategy for wise coexistence, rather than a game of 'squid' of everyone against everyone?


The reason for human dignity is the heart that cannot bring itself to harm others.

All laws of the Republic of Korea are made in accordance with the Constitution, which is the supreme law.
And the Constitution is systematized based on human dignity.
It is the dignity of ‘all humans’, not of any particular class or class.
But in reality, we too often see human dignity being brutally violated and insulted.


Part 1 of the book, "Do Humans Have Dignity?", examines the history of the establishment of the concept of human dignity in detail and sharply criticizes Korean society for seeming to have forgotten the constitutional values ​​centered around it.
Human dignity is not sentimental humanism.
It is a value that humanity has agreed upon over a long period of time due to practical needs, the starting point of our country's legal system, and the core of the Constitution.
If we don't feel that way, it's because we either don't embody it in our lives or we think it's just hypocrisy and empty talk.


Part 1 consists of articles on whether humanity, which is considerate and respectful of one another, is being treated as an illusion due to the rampant abuse of power, tyranny, and violence from the wealthy to the consumers, why the law places human dignity as the highest value, and why “everyone’s personality” must be respected by the law even if someone gains a windfall. The sharp logic of author Moon Yu-seok, who has studied and applied law in practice as a judge for 23 years, unfolds in a fluid manner.

The human dignity mentioned in the Constitution applies to ‘all humans.’
It is not that only those who always act morally and rationally are considered dignified.
Whether it is a divinely given characteristic or a result of evolution, all human beings have dignity because they have at least the 'ability' to make decisions based on reason and conscience, and those who break the law despite having that ability are punished.
Therefore, human dignity becomes the basis of universal human rights.
All human beings have dignity, and therefore their basic rights as human beings should be guaranteed regardless of their race, gender, religion, intelligence, or wealth, and regardless of whether they are good or evil, a saint or a criminal.
_Pages 41-42 of the text

We are in the midst of pollution called human beings.
Even though we are all different and uncomfortable, we have no choice but to compromise and live together.

We live in an age where we can easily access the world and the human population on Earth through the Internet and social media.
They display themselves, peek into other people's lives, envy them, and criticize them.
In a space where raw, undigested emotions overflow without filtering, invasions of privacy and character assassination are commonplace.
Moreover, social media platform companies even use algorithms to reinforce such indiscriminate defamation and hatred.


However, in my view, no one has the right to infringe upon the freedom of others simply because they find it unpleasant, and humans have an inherent freedom to be peculiar, mean, and subversive as long as it does not harm others.
No one has the right to criticize someone who seems too free-spirited, even if that person seems like a thorn in their side.
My freedom must stop where it does not infringe upon the freedom of others.


What is the most basic freedom?
The primal freedom before you can move, have a job, pursue an education, express yourself, or do anything cool.
It would just be the freedom of being alone in my space, the freedom of the thoughts in my head.
Before doing anything grand, the freedom to just be as I was born to be.
It's like the monologue-like line that Goo Dong-mae sadly repeated in the drama "Mr. Sunshine."
“Nothing.
“Just be, baby.” (…) Freedom does not make value judgments.
It does not only protect noble, moral, and good thoughts.
It does not protect only the privacy of one's life without shame, looking up to the sky.
Humans have the freedom to be as peculiar, mean, and subversive as they want, as long as they do not harm others.
_Main text, pages 100-101

Why on earth does the law ignore victims and lenient on criminals?

Public opinion is sharply divided on every social issue, but when it comes to heinous crimes that are too serious to even speak of, the entire nation trembles with anger and sorrow.
Voices calling for the death penalty for criminals are lining the comments on news articles.
But the final verdict often seems woefully inadequate to appease such righteous anger.
Why on earth does this happen?


Author Moon Yoo-seok says that this is because the 'humanism' and 'utilitarianism' inherent in our constitutional order demand that we approach punishment from the perspective of 'the minimum necessary.'
If the law is the 'minimum goodwill' required between people, then punishment is the 'minimum evilwill' required to run society.
Therefore, the rule of law system inevitably clashes with the people's sense of justice.
Even so, the author sharply asks whether the law is missing out on the very essence of humanity.
The question is whether the law is so easily overlooking human emotions and biases that it is even betraying citizens' trust in the effectiveness of the law.


Since ancient times, judges who listened carefully to the defendant's appeal and showed leniency were often called 'life-saving judges.'
On the other hand, judges who use detention like a knife and sentence heavy sentences are called cruel and harsh.
Why is that?
This is because the positions of the people that judges come into contact with are biased.
While the prosecutor is businesslike, the defendant, his family, and his lawyers risk their lives looking only at the judge.


Moreover, the judge's interpersonal relationships are narrow.
Both the judges who were my colleagues and the judges who were my seniors will one day become lawyers.
As time goes by, the judges are surrounded by lawyers.
And lawyers are people who represent the defendant's position.
No lawyer would dislike a judge who is good at giving leniency.
They will praise him as a 'judge who understands people' and a 'living Buddha' and hope that their case will be assigned to that judge.
Praise doesn't cost money, but a judge's leniency makes money for the lawyer.
_Main text, pages 155-156

Fair competition is possible because of 'social consideration'.

Part 4 of the book, which addresses the issues of fairness and justice, the biggest topic in our society today, by connecting them to the core value of the Constitution, equality, is the highlight of the book.
It offers an engaging exploration of the debate, from John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice," which systematically established the concept of modern equality, to Michael Sandel's "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?", which has recently garnered worldwide attention. It also provides a sharp analysis of the meaning and problems inherent in our society's debate over fair competition.


The article about the global phenomenon of hatred for the weak, which is expressed by people who have a backlash against discriminatory corrective measures, using the term "underdog," which is commonly used to mean "the error of thinking that the weak are always good," and the article discussing the changing concept of equality in the future era of artificial intelligence where a large portion of the human workforce will be replaced by robots, are also enjoyable to read along with the excellent logical development.
Above all, the author's questions and answers about how to apply and transform long-held values ​​in a rapidly changing era are another clear prescription for our turbulent times.


When asked what the clause on equality in the Constitution is, most people will answer, “All citizens are equal before the law.”
Is that really enough? Is equality "before the law" really all that matters? We must not stop there. We must find equality in the principle that "all citizens have the right to a decent life."
It is 'all citizens'.
Only when everyone can live a humane life can a society be called equal.
It's not about distributing the same amount to everyone, nor is it about making everyone rich.
At the very least, we should be able to live a ‘humane life.’
For this, ‘equality before the law’ alone is not enough.
We need 'equality under the law'.
_Main text, pages 232-233