Kenny wrote:PaulSacramento wrote:To reiterate, this is Ken's definition of objective:
objective means not based on personal opinions, beliefs, not influenced by extenuating circumstances, or biases.
That is the definition that he is working with for formulating his views.
Yes. Now don’t misunderstand me, the way a law is created is subjective, because people with various ideas use a system to get laws created; but once it is implemented, its enforcement is (supposed to be) objective. Think about it; if laws were subjective, how could they be enforced? If the law says it is illegal to steal, but allows for personal biases and extenuating circumstances, it could be legal to steal if I am hungry and in need of food, or feel I deserve what someone else has. If the law says it is illegal to beat my wife, but allowed for extenuating circumstances or personal biases, it could be okay to beat her if she p**ssed me off, if I am drunk, or used a stick no bigger than my thumb to beat her with! (Sharia Law) If the enforcement of laws were subjective, it would be equal to no law at all. No! laws are objective; that means no matter how hungry I am or deserving I may be, if I steal the law will come down on me. It doesn't matter how angry she made me, how drunk I am; or what type of stick I used, if I beat my wife the law will come down on me.
Now I’ve got a feeling there is much of what I said that you disagree with; so go ahead; tell me where I’ve gone wrong.
I think you are confusing whether the Law is objective ( it can't be since it is created by subjective means and is dependent on those very means) with the objective enforcing of the law.
And even then, as we know, the enforcing of the law is NOT consistent and doesn't always happen and the reason is becaus personal opinion and bias are applied to it.
Your example of stealing is a good one and here is why:
Objective morality ( morality from which the law comes from) says that stealing is wrong, it may be condoned but it is always wrong.
The Law states that stealing is wrong ( because objective morality tells us this).
Since The Law came AFTER morals ( you need to accept that there is a right and wrong before you decide what is wright and wrong) then the Law is dependent on morals.
At best, the law is an expression of objective morals.
BUT, lets assume that you are correct and the Law is objective, what does that mean?
It means that Morals, the foundation of the Law must therefore be objective.