- MBTI
- INTJ - A
- Enneagram
- 10000
In establishing legitimate/reasonable norms for a society, I think the question of objectivity is not so important as authority.
Almost no society claims that its laws/norms are objectively absolutely right/good - but simply that they are not unreasonable (for the functioning of the society) and that they are legitimate - ie. established and enforced by the state's authority.
Indeed, only religious institutions / religions claim an objective morality - and this only in very few articles (which may be elaborated into many particular instances) - eg. ten commandments.
So returning to societies, rules cannot be acceptable unless promulgated by the state authority - because only that authority has responsibility for the state as a whole. Otherwise, every man and his dog would be promulgating contradictory laws.
As for reasonableness, there is no objective reason why a country should designate one side of the road or another for traffic flow. However, it is reasonable that all vehicles should use only one side of the road for travel - otherwise transport could not function. Similarly, pedastry should be outlawed because whether a child can decide or not, that child does not have either the experience/knowledge to understand the full significance and consequences of such actions. Moreover, children do not have the means to resist coercion towards such actions, which an adults have, exposing them to exploitation. Ultimately, there may be the occasional case, where a minor's sexual liberties are enfringed upon by the laws of the state, but this is nevertheless a reasonalbe infringement in light of the bad/abuse which is averted by the same laws.
Living in society gives one benefits which one could not have otherwise, but it also demands giving up some freedoms which one could have outside society. Society is the compromise between the needs of the many and the needs of the one. (Capt. Spock comes to mind ).
Almost no society claims that its laws/norms are objectively absolutely right/good - but simply that they are not unreasonable (for the functioning of the society) and that they are legitimate - ie. established and enforced by the state's authority.
Indeed, only religious institutions / religions claim an objective morality - and this only in very few articles (which may be elaborated into many particular instances) - eg. ten commandments.
So returning to societies, rules cannot be acceptable unless promulgated by the state authority - because only that authority has responsibility for the state as a whole. Otherwise, every man and his dog would be promulgating contradictory laws.
As for reasonableness, there is no objective reason why a country should designate one side of the road or another for traffic flow. However, it is reasonable that all vehicles should use only one side of the road for travel - otherwise transport could not function. Similarly, pedastry should be outlawed because whether a child can decide or not, that child does not have either the experience/knowledge to understand the full significance and consequences of such actions. Moreover, children do not have the means to resist coercion towards such actions, which an adults have, exposing them to exploitation. Ultimately, there may be the occasional case, where a minor's sexual liberties are enfringed upon by the laws of the state, but this is nevertheless a reasonalbe infringement in light of the bad/abuse which is averted by the same laws.
Living in society gives one benefits which one could not have otherwise, but it also demands giving up some freedoms which one could have outside society. Society is the compromise between the needs of the many and the needs of the one. (Capt. Spock comes to mind ).
Last edited: