All law is predicated upon the notion that there is a non-subjective morality which exists.
Not really. It is predicated on the notion that there is a
collectively-agreed morality which exists. It doesn't require it to be written down in the laws of physics.
Regardless, that's besides the point. The point is that calling a law unjust and ignoring it doesn't do much unless you can get the law changed. Otherwise you're just ignoring laws that don't suit you, and that opens a pandora's box where your 'foes' can do the same (just as you can abuse
legal means, and they can too). That's really the only point I was making.
I can give you examples. You do know that empiricism does not require you have the formulae to describe an observation for that observation to exist.
Yes. I was being hyperbolic.
The Fugitive Slave Act was objectively unjust by the standards of those who enacted them. Being able to deprive citizens of other states of life, liberty, and property without due process of law not only violates the basic legal principles of the society that created them, it violates it's own internal justification of enforcing a state's right to internal governance.
Specific examples aside, it's not unjust if you live in a society where some group is considered sub-human. It's abhorrent to us, sure, but it's not
objectively unjust. It really depends on what we see as "just".
It doesn't take magical thinking to view some tenants of justice as universal, basically constituting the very idea of 'justice'.
How can they be universal when many don't hold them? You could say they were universal if virtually every human had them, but it still wouldn't be objective. Universal is a better term for this.
Do you understand my screen name?
No, actually. What does it mean?
You've been gone a while.
Just a few months!
There have been several threads talking about this very issue and I am one who believes that there can be axioms of human behavior similar to the regular, scientific concept of 'axiom.' Has nothing at all to do with deities or magical thinking; just observation and extrapolation like everything else in science.
Yes, this makes sense. I was addressing the idea that value judgments can be 'objective', which has a specific meaning. I didn't mean to derail the thread, but as usual these conversations tend to get out of hand.
Sorry about that.
Trump has his own heck-of-a-job Brownie.