Laws are very much subjective. They're results of their time and the people in charge of voting them. That's why the US still has people in jail for life for non violent weed related crimes while you can now legally buy and consume weed in half of the country.
Laws are constantly changing for a reason, "fairness" isn't set in stone nor objective.
Are you American by any chance ? I've seen a lot of American talking like that about "law" as if they were god given, immutable, objective and fair.
But, in that sense, fairness is also subjective. There are viewpoints that call what Google did unfair and viewpoints that call it fair. What overarching philosophy do we use to decide which is the right viewpoint?
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but laws themselves are objective. At least, they are crafted to be an objective description of what is "right" and "wrong". Said another way, laws exist to objectify the morals of the law's author.
I think what you are trying to say is that laws are not self-justifying. Laws draw an objective view of the world, but we can subjectively agree that we don't like that view and then change it.
In a common-law system the written (legislated) law is not actually the law, it's the court's interpretation of how it should be applied, taking into account similarities to other laws and the precedents set in applying them, that determines what it actually means. That makes it quite subjective and vulnerable to initial precedents in applying it.
why is this downvoted? Without getting into a debate about what true objectivity is and whether or not it exists, In the US, the majority of laws are objective; and it's the application of those laws that is subjective.
This could be an issue of articles: Laws are objective; the law is subjective.
Laws consist of literal syntax, but that does not make a Law "objective". Wittgenstein made issue of the fallability of the English language. English is not a special case (just the applicable one).
To whit, a Law does not always describing discrete actions and consequences.
To say a Law is Objective is not saying anything, because the Law is necessarily interpreted in any frame of reference. A single Law is necessarily subjective and following this, The Law in aggregate is subjective.
There is no end to this debate. The buck stops at the law. As of today this is fair and objective. Without this we have no framework to judge right or wrong. You can handwave around this but this is the best jurisprudence has come up with over the years. Do you have a better system than pitchforks on HN?
The law is not "fair and objective". It is a representation of the morals of the particular group holding power at the time of its writing.
It will never be "fair" because it only very rarely take all of the circumstances into account - as Anatole France put it: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
Neither is it particularly objective - its application, especially in a common-law system, is extremely subjective. (You're bound by whatever the judge in previous cases thought the law was - E.g. in the US "stare decisis" is enshrined pretty much as an immutable rule)
It has never been a framework of "right or wrong", either. It is a framework on how disputes get settled. There is no interest in "right" beyond "the authors of the law at the time thought it was a good idea"
To take a trivial example: Slavery was recognized as morally wrong long before the law actually made it something that was not allowed. The law still allows carceral slavery, even though there is growing consensus that that's morally wrong.
As for "better" systems - there's certainly a large faction of countries making the case a civil law system is better than a common law system. But you don't need a "better system" - the law can only be meaningful if we accept that at all times, it will be flawed, it is not "fair and objective", it needs to be tempered with compassion, and it is our job to improve upon what we have.
You can't just say "there is no end" and follow it with "my end is the right end".
At least talk about why you think deontology is better than other forms of norm setting, why the law must be right even though there are many different and contradictory laws in different places, and how you propose to make new rules if not based on a concept of "right" that is independent from the existing rules.
Why do you think that law is necessarily deontological? There are many areas of the law in the US that tilt towards consequentialism, such as antitrust law (does it harm the consumer?)
That certainly IS a consistent position one could take. Most people feel that there are certain moral imperatives that exist independent of government-defined laws and that government laws can be fair or unfair. However, the position you take here -- that "fair" means whatever the government says -- is a possible basis for ethics.
But I, and most people, find it to be deficient. It requires that you admit that (for one example) slavery in the USA before 1863 was fair which I (and most people) disagree with. I'm sure you can find other examples if you wish.
Are you sure this is what you want to base your definition of "fair" on?
In a democracy the government is inherently an extension of the people and so when you frame it as fair meaning whatever the government defines it as you are, at the same time, acknowledging that the majority have already decided the matter to be fair. Whether or not those people are willing to admit to the world or themselves that they believe the law to be moral, it is from their consent as a mass that the law was able to manifest. So at the very least the law is what most people most people think is morally fair.
The US is not a democracy by definition, and even if you want to substitute in “republic” here, the description of how the law-making sausage factory works here is idealistic at best.
Laws decide nothing. They are just a bunch of rules made up by those in power. Way too many of them are the direct result of lobbying by billion dollar industries. Copyright is an example. People vote for and elect representatives and they end up serving these elite groups instead. How is that fair?
If you believe any given law is unfair, it is your duty to disobey. This is called civil disobedience.
It seems I respect working code more than you do. I wouldn't say laws are broken.
Improving legacy code always means to understand business logic and if possible the motivation behind it. Then you have a replacement built and you can justify why it is better.
Plenty of laws are broken. Drug control laws, white collar crime laws, whistleblower protections, copyright, IP, patent, child support & alimony, parent-child access / visitation, execution or the lack of it, gun control or the lack of it, fucking mandatory sentencing.
Shall I go on?
"laws aren't broken" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen "justice" in action, or are walking around with their eyes shut.
I think your parent was just trying to say "laws are important".
"Legacy" code that only "occasionally works" doesn't sound like something worth keeping around. It sounds like something to dump in the trash and never look back.
If you have working legacy code though, even if it occasionally fails because it's full of bugs and fundamental flaws, should be replaced very carefully, and only with in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system.
Based on the broken laws you list, I assume you're talking about America. American laws are indeed very broken, but dumping it in the trash and never looking back would be a one-way ticket to a bloodbath. It is both important very important to fix our very broken laws, and important to do so very carefully and only with an in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system.
If I were to give you as much benefit of the doubt as you give your parent, I'd say that "occasionally laws work" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen how much worse it can get.
Law also says that erratic criminals can be restrained by kneeling on them, one of the reasons which hastened George Floyd's death. I don't think law is always right.
Emotional appeals shouldn’t* hold any weight when considering the law. You’ll end up creating highly biased or illogical laws that cater to the culture of the times and need to be changed again shortly. Kneeling may cause the death of some but save the lives of countless others. “The law isn’t always right” isn’t an objective statement because “right” is relative to the observer.
The last sentence without the context of the preceding sentences would seem that way, yes. However in the context of “laws created as a response to emotional appeals” it becomes a warning to remember that everyone has feelings and everyone’s feelings are different when creating or considering the law.
Why wouldn't the police respond appropriately to an active shooter situation and instead rely on this supposedly amazingly effective "neck kneeling" technique?
I’m sure police are trained in many different ways in the many different places that they exist, but my statement doesn’t specify police it specifies the act of kneeling on a neck of an erratic criminal
I really cannot understand where you are coming from with this mindset and the arguments you've made in this thread, and I am glad your mindset is not more common. I'll leave it at that.
I’m coming from a place of seeking to understand objective truth. My arguments are pretty straightforward and literal, there really isn’t much to understand beyond what’s written
I didn't mean understanding what you have written, I can do that well enough. I meant understanding the mindset of someone with those thoughts. I cannot put myself in your shoes is all I am saying, I do not understand the worldview that would allow me to get to a point where I could think those thoughts and feel I was an objectively "good" person.
Hopefully you never fall into the habit of trying to judge good and evil. Hopefully you also never fall into the habit of adopting for yourself the view that others have of you. It’s entirely possible (and I encourage you to seek out the numerous writings of the philosophers that discovered this before us) to live a life and conduct oneself without a notion of good and evil. One of my favorites is Beyond Good and Evil.
