This is a followup to my two big issues regarding truth. To really understand my point, you should probably read my article taking a stab at Subjective Truth, and my article's (may not exist yet) taking a stab at Moral Relativism.

Law and Justice. Humanity and Personhood. Ethics and Morality. Each of these pairs has some vague idea of an Ideal. The other of these pairs is Humanity's weak attempt to enforce that "objective" Ideal. When I refer to "my three issues" these are the ones I am talking about.

If there is a Reality regarding my three issues...that is, something which, if disbelived would make a person Wrong, then we need to figure out what it is. How should we go about this? How will we know what was Right, what was Valueable, what is a Person, what is Justice? There, that should please those of you who like open ended questions.

Note that to avoid a false dilemma, I must slightly hedge my bets. If there is an objective standard for these Three, that does not mean that humans cannot create further subjective standards. However, all subjective standards have certain properties, so one can easily separate off the set of subjective standards for these Three, and apply the logic below. My logic applies to the objective standards if they exist.

Else, who cares? If there is no objective truth, no Reality about one of the above three things, then I have serious rant material available to me. I like rant material. >=D

If there is no Morality, why do we care about what is "Right?" Nothing is Right. Nothing is Wrong. Actions just happen. Sure...people might be bothered by what you do, but does that make it Wrong? No. (Remember, there is No Wrong). Ah, but what if it is illegal? A good point. Sort of.

If there is no Justice, why do we have Law? And if the Law is not meant to enforce Morality, then why do we have people hypocritically blaming other people who Murder when they themselves speed AND jaywalk? If Justice is merely a cultural construct...then it has no objective meaning. If Morality has no objective truth, then the Justice is empty. Chaos.

If there is no objective standard for Personhood, then why is this the genre of crime and of sin that most appalls? A place where my Three issues unite...Law, Morality and Personhood...fails on that which is arguably it's most important point if there is no Personhood. If personhood is simply a cultural construct then all cultural constructs are in question since they may not have been made by humans that are not (objectively) people (see below). Chaos.

Before there were people, what was a person? If there is an objective standard for a person, separate from people, this is no problem. People are whatever the objective standard says. If there is no objective standard, if Personhood is a cultural construct, then we await a Culture of People to define what Personhood. Now it is apparent. Personhood as a Cultural Construct has a problem. People cannot be defined without Cultures. Cultures cannot be defined without people. Look for a more in depth, more disturbing and somewhat less concise discussion of this topic.

I'm done. Don't hide from the Truth. If that truth is appalling, then know it. If that truth conflicts with an appalling world then know it. Be appalled. Be very appalled. :)

~ensis

Note: An Incomplete system of Justice means that some of the Laws enforce Justice and some of them enforce the whim of society. This makes much more sense then a completely subjective Justice, but has all the disadvantages of both systems. If there is an objective standard, then for a person to be Just, one must obey it. The laws that do not enforce justice, these are laws you obey to avoid being punished and are as important as gangs making threats on innocents. Why make laws that are not Just? Laws that do not enforce Justice are not Just.