Mainstream Morality: Subjective and Relative

Someone proposed another notion of justice to replace the one we'd been talking about: justice as the (fair and impartial) application of law (imposed by a higher authority). This seems like a derivative idea. That sense of the term is drained of meaning if said laws are themselves not just in the sense already being focused on: people getting/giving what is due.

If a king decides he would enjoy having his way with the lasses, then he could simply proclaim a law that kings can deflower virgins on their wedding night. (Ala Braveheart?) Fair and impartial application of this law handed down by a higher authority literally means getting Royally Scr… you know. It is relativist to call this "justice" on the mere grounds that a higher authority handed down a law that was applied in an evenhanded way. What makes the application of law just or not is the nature of the laws, not just the nature of their application. So let’s talk about what’s in the nature of laws that makes them good/proper/just or not.

You could talk about the work of some (sure, "fair and impartial") authorities -- like Popes, Rabbinical Scholars, and Supreme Court Justices -- who faithfully toil to interpret and apply the will of kings or gods or democratic bodies. But it is deeply relativist to say someone’s mere preference “properly” rules men's lives: this king’s, that god’s, some voting body’s – especially as interpreted by some religious or secular authority struggling to identify and enact that king's or god's or winning majority's whim. Surely you don't mean to define "justice" as the (even well-run) application of whim? Yes, people have done so throughout history, but let's not confuse Might with Right. The basis of morality can and should be objective instead of subjective, absolute instead of relative.

Put up or shut up, you say? Okay, here’s my nutshell of the objective basis of morality: (1) As living beings our existence is contingent -- some things further our life and happiness, others don’t; some things are values, some aren’t. It is an objective fact that some things kill us and others are good for our lives: the difference between poison and food is not a matter of subjective opinion. (2) As volitional beings we choose/act well or poorly relative to that objective standard. We therefore need objective principles, a code of objective values, to guide our choices and actions relative to that objective standard. (3) This is all a factual matter and acting on anybody’s subjective whim can kill you. This means gaining and using objective knowledge, and the fact that doing so is hard and error-prone does not change the fact that there is an objective reality out there for us to discover, and that it imposes an absolute standard of morality: life vs. death.

This is why I highlighted the fact that it is valuable to our lives to objectively judge peoples’ character and act accordingly (associating with sociopaths degrades your life while hanging with the honest and productive furthers it): it’s the objective basis of justice.