More Boundaries of Objectivity

If one accepts that objective reasoning and argument can only start if there is agreement on starting axioms, then one must take that most ad hoc arguments are subjective, and have motives other than getting to the objective truth of the matter.
When something bad happens, our natural human instinct is to find out why. Whether if it is for a death, injury, loss of money or change of weather, we often look for something or someone to blame, especially other than oneself, or something we cling close to. We are instinctively aware of moral hazard and a skewed profit motive, and we instinctively believe in making and enforcing laws that aim to prevent cheating the system for selfish motives. When something bad happens, we tend to put it in the context of our interpretation of the law, rather than the risk/reward calculations of game theory. Well designed law can in fact be viewed as a special case in game theory where crime, on balance, doesn't pay. With international law especially, the unenforceability of many nominal laws, a lack of jurisdictional clarity with potentially enforceable ones, and overlapping disfunctional multilateral entities each with their own agenda, the assumption of well designed law should really be thrown out. With well designed law the objectivity of the law is tested in court.


7)Blame - Marconomics views the discussion and analysis of blame as too subjective to be considered scientific with some exception. To objectively analyse blame requires agreement on who makes the rules, what evidence to take into account, and the criteria by which judgement should be made (as who is to blame) The exceptions are where there is strong separation of powers of making, policing and judgement of laws. Then there can be something resembling scientific objectivity. Thus for the most part arguments about ill deeds ought to revolve around what strategies to take to move to a system with strong separation of powers to fairly deter, prosecute and convict evil-doers.