Value Law and Objective Law
Posted: Wed May 19, 2021 12:32 pm
Value Law and Objective Law
Accepting that ethics or an ethos is the employment of values. Then some law may be quite objective, with its values dealt with separately or prior. While other law directly relates to values, and so can be criticised on the basis of those values.
The American Constitution First Amendment mentions religion etc. It therefore has an ambiguity to start with. Religion has to be defined. And if religion contains moral views, then either all moral views are permissible or all religions that exist have moralities that are permissible, or do not damage society. Or some religions must be proscribed.
A law that relates to plain objects may say ‘no entry’ etc etc. so that if the objects are clearly defined, then it is the prior values that need to be justified.
If a law says, do not kill, which is to say the taking away of sentient life. It is plainly objective, and only the prior values may be criticised, as being pacifist in tone. But if the law says, do not commit murder, then an ambiguity is involved as to what constitutes murder. There are other forms of killing, and some may be considered quite permissible, as with the police protecting life.
Life begins at conception, and sapient or indeed sentient life begins slightly later. A responsible altruist society or state, treats a sapient foetus as a person with social and parental rights, even before it is able to exist outside the womb. Albeit the mother’s survival having priority.
To protect ‘free speech’ implies that people may freely lie or distort facts. Virtually every pet term that involves the idea of absolute freedom is nonsense. That is not to say the establishment and its values may not be objected to. A responsible altruist society encourages criticism. Other society is indeed authoritarian, or against them may be quite amoral.
Which brings the matter to the critical matter, that every society must decide which of three plainly defined value forms it takes.
Accepting that ethics or an ethos is the employment of values. Then some law may be quite objective, with its values dealt with separately or prior. While other law directly relates to values, and so can be criticised on the basis of those values.
The American Constitution First Amendment mentions religion etc. It therefore has an ambiguity to start with. Religion has to be defined. And if religion contains moral views, then either all moral views are permissible or all religions that exist have moralities that are permissible, or do not damage society. Or some religions must be proscribed.
A law that relates to plain objects may say ‘no entry’ etc etc. so that if the objects are clearly defined, then it is the prior values that need to be justified.
If a law says, do not kill, which is to say the taking away of sentient life. It is plainly objective, and only the prior values may be criticised, as being pacifist in tone. But if the law says, do not commit murder, then an ambiguity is involved as to what constitutes murder. There are other forms of killing, and some may be considered quite permissible, as with the police protecting life.
Life begins at conception, and sapient or indeed sentient life begins slightly later. A responsible altruist society or state, treats a sapient foetus as a person with social and parental rights, even before it is able to exist outside the womb. Albeit the mother’s survival having priority.
To protect ‘free speech’ implies that people may freely lie or distort facts. Virtually every pet term that involves the idea of absolute freedom is nonsense. That is not to say the establishment and its values may not be objected to. A responsible altruist society encourages criticism. Other society is indeed authoritarian, or against them may be quite amoral.
Which brings the matter to the critical matter, that every society must decide which of three plainly defined value forms it takes.