lsayre wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:00 am
If objectivity doesn't exist, then the objective standard of blind justice and an equal application and upholding of the law (to all) is impossible. And only subjective law would remain. Law that is applicable differently (and applied at the level of not at all to brutally) to different groups and classes and identities and circumstances. Law that is the antithesis of being blind and equal to all. Law that is insane. The sort of law that stands down (on order) while businesses are looted and burned and entire city blocks are destroyed or declared to be a new nation, but sends a group of people who walk unarmed through their Capital for a couple hours to an oppressive gulag with no right to a speedy trial or any basic rights at all. We have witnessed what the world will be like when objectivity is declared to be impossible, and all that remains is subjectivity.
Okay, I'm going to dissect this because none of this made sense.
Firstly, the "standard" of "blind justice and an equal application and upholding of the law" is not some inherently objective standard. It is a cultural idea primarily invented by a handful of (white) elitist men, who were reacting to the widely perceived injustices of other European systems of law at the time. And in application, the "blind" and "equal" part has never actually been practiced. Black men are more likely to get greater sentences for the same crimes as White men in the United States, which supposedly upholds these ideals. Women have been habitually denied equal access to protections like men (just recently the Supreme Court of the USA decided to take away their ability to control their bodies). Justice has never been blind, and the idea of it "being blind" was never more than unachievable, because justice and its enacting has always been at the behest of biased human beings. Law and justice have always been subjective both in application and upholding. Everything is dependent on the biases of a jury, a judge, the police, etc. All of whom have been shown to have historically racist, sexist, and anti-LGBTQ+ tendencies throughout the nation of the USA... among other nations I could easily mention. The "standard" for this kind of law was made by biased White men a few hundred years ago. If you think it is "objective" as a standard, then I think you don't know how it came about or who made it. In the United States, this conception of law became upheld by the same men who thought the 3/5's compromise was acceptable, and who also owned slaves, who were not considered people deserving of equal protection under the law. And at the time of its making, neither were women for that matter either. Law and its application have always been subjective. If you want a case in point, just ask Judge Cannon and their irrational and hokum abuse of the law to attempt to protect Donald Trump from criminal investigation. Like you think the law is objective? I'm sure the principal drafter and writer of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution James Madison was definitely objective in how he conceptualized equality, while owning close to 100 slaves. I'm sure Thomas Jefferson definitely was objective in his consideration of "all men are created equal"... while he owned slaves and r*p*d one of them by which there are descendants to this day. I'm sure the standards they set were very "objective". "Equal" did not mean what it does now. Standards change.
Given this, secondly, it therefore does not follow this law is "insane" or anything. Subjective law is what has always dominated our lands, and has continued to do so. A malleable process of governance meant to alter with the times and country. As it always has. The law is not static and objective. Standards change with time.
We have witnessed what the world will be like when objectivity is declared to be impossible, and all that remains is subjectivity.
Yeah, it looks like it always has. The idea of "Objective law" has never stopped any of those things you talk about. The law is a subjective tool, applied with the discretion of biased judges, juries, and law enforcement, which often targets, denigrates and attacks minorities. Equal protections under the law as a standard has never been an objective idea. In reality, it at first meant white-cis-het-men. People of Color, women, queer people, immigrants, etc. were never given the equal protections because it was never designed to extend to them at first. The "standard" was never objective to begin with.
And controversial, but everything you listed is what I consider good civil duty at work. When the system of law fails, when justice fails, when the police are utilized as a weapon against protesters, then riots and violence against the state are, in my opinion, moral necessities for restoring it. And curiously enough, I'm sure that the people who set up the United States' (supposed) "standard" of equal protections under the law would agree, given that those same men led a rebellion against their own nation. When those who uphold the law refuse to be held accountable, they must be pressured and face consequences.
Also, most of the "riots" and such you describe were provoked by police... in virtually all instances. In the USA, the police are an antagonistic force that, according to our Supreme Court, is not even required to protect us. They antagonize and harass people, are habitually corrupt, and commit mass violence with no serious repercussions 99% of the time. In most cases of riots during the George Floyd Protests, for instance, the police were more often than not the violent instigators. And in areas where the police did not violently suppress people, protests remained largely peaceful. So... maybe the problem is the law and its enforcement, not the people. I mean, these riots started in the first place because of police brutality and murder of a man who... allegedly used a counterfeit dollar bill (George Floyd). And then also shot and killed an innocent woman in her apartment (Breonna Taylor). And when they moved to arrest and then shot and murdered a man for sleeping in a Wendy's Parking Lot (Rayshard Brooks).
We have seen what subjectivity in the law looks like. It looks like it has always looked like. And pretending it has an "objective standard" just isn't true. The law, its writing, and its application have always been matters of human subjectivity. For as long as humanity has existed, the law has always been subjective both in its formulation and in its application. The ideal of "Equal Protections" didn't mean back then what it does now, and how laws are interpreted and enacted by judges, juries, and law enforcement has been up to various levels of personal discretion.
And the idea that the law was "meant" to be objective seems shoddy at best. The realization that we need tools to alter the law, dismiss old laws, or reinterpret those we have seems a clear indication that we at least tacitly acknowledge that the law is not only subjective, but also has the ability to become outdated and that it is limited to the perceptions, classes, and understandings of its own time. It is odd to me that those who uphold this "objective" understanding of law tend to also be the ones who make the way for authoritarianism and the state control of people's bodily autonomy. Let us turn back to Roe v. Wade and how the same people restricting people's access to abortion are the same people fighting and arguing that "postmodern neo-Marxists" and "Social Justice Warriors" and "Critical Race Theorists" are trying to destroy objective truth and law...
And LASTLY:
This is all completely irrelevant to Neil's point about how we gain knowledge of the world and reconstruct the past as historians. The reconstructing of the past is not an objective process. It is a subjective process as Neil described. I will not be responding to anything more about legal objectivity or anything like that. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The fact that you go on to cite Ayn Rand of all people kinda just shows you are reactionary and not actually trying to engage with what Neil is actually saying. Neil never once advocated against the idea of objectivity in law. So this is just absurdist argumentation on your part.