The law decides fair. It's not subjective.
Laws are constantly changing for a reason, "fairness" isn't set in stone nor objective.
Are you American by any chance ? I've seen a lot of American talking like that about "law" as if they were god given, immutable, objective and fair.
Maybe I'm being pedantic, but laws themselves are objective. At least, they are crafted to be an objective description of what is "right" and "wrong". Said another way, laws exist to objectify the morals of the law's author.
I think what you are trying to say is that laws are not self-justifying. Laws draw an objective view of the world, but we can subjectively agree that we don't like that view and then change it.
This could be an issue of articles: Laws are objective; the law is subjective.
To whit, a Law does not always describing discrete actions and consequences.
To say a Law is Objective is not saying anything, because the Law is necessarily interpreted in any frame of reference. A single Law is necessarily subjective and following this, The Law in aggregate is subjective.
At least talk about why you think deontology is better than other forms of norm setting, why the law must be right even though there are many different and contradictory laws in different places, and how you propose to make new rules if not based on a concept of "right" that is independent from the existing rules.
It will never be "fair" because it only very rarely take all of the circumstances into account - as Anatole France put it: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
Neither is it particularly objective - its application, especially in a common-law system, is extremely subjective. (You're bound by whatever the judge in previous cases thought the law was - E.g. in the US "stare decisis" is enshrined pretty much as an immutable rule)
It has never been a framework of "right or wrong", either. It is a framework on how disputes get settled. There is no interest in "right" beyond "the authors of the law at the time thought it was a good idea"
To take a trivial example: Slavery was recognized as morally wrong long before the law actually made it something that was not allowed. The law still allows carceral slavery, even though there is growing consensus that that's morally wrong.
As for "better" systems - there's certainly a large faction of countries making the case a civil law system is better than a common law system. But you don't need a "better system" - the law can only be meaningful if we accept that at all times, it will be flawed, it is not "fair and objective", it needs to be tempered with compassion, and it is our job to improve upon what we have.
That certainly IS a consistent position one could take. Most people feel that there are certain moral imperatives that exist independent of government-defined laws and that government laws can be fair or unfair. However, the position you take here -- that "fair" means whatever the government says -- is a possible basis for ethics.
But I, and most people, find it to be deficient. It requires that you admit that (for one example) slavery in the USA before 1863 was fair which I (and most people) disagree with. I'm sure you can find other examples if you wish.
Are you sure this is what you want to base your definition of "fair" on?
It’s only the laws which are unfair AND which affect a majority of voters, where you could maybe claim democracy has weighed in on the fairness.
History is littered with laws which are only unfair to minorities, which I think proves my point.
MLK
If you believe any given law is unfair, it is your duty to disobey. This is called civil disobedience.
They can be better, but you have to understand them to know how to improve them.
Perhaps you mean: they are full of bugs, fragile, broken, but occasionally they work?
Improving legacy code always means to understand business logic and if possible the motivation behind it. Then you have a replacement built and you can justify why it is better.
Shall I go on?
"laws aren't broken" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen "justice" in action, or are walking around with their eyes shut.
"Legacy" code that only "occasionally works" doesn't sound like something worth keeping around. It sounds like something to dump in the trash and never look back.
If you have working legacy code though, even if it occasionally fails because it's full of bugs and fundamental flaws, should be replaced very carefully, and only with in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system.
Based on the broken laws you list, I assume you're talking about America. American laws are indeed very broken, but dumping it in the trash and never looking back would be a one-way ticket to a bloodbath. It is both important very important to fix our very broken laws, and important to do so very carefully and only with an in-depth understanding of what is working and what is broken about the existing system.
If I were to give you as much benefit of the doubt as you give your parent, I'd say that "occasionally laws work" is the kind of thing someone says when they've never seen how much worse it can get.
yes this has often happened
> and need to be changed again
the thing is, they often don't get changed.
Law endeavours, or let me say: should endeavour...
To be fair.
And fairness is entirely a human emotional pursuit.