Value Law and Objective Law

[RWStanding]

Value Law and Objective Law
Accepting that ethics or an ethos is the employment of values. Then some law may be quite objective, with its values dealt with separately or prior. While other law directly relates to values, and so can be criticised on the basis of those values.
The American Constitution First Amendment mentions religion etc. It therefore has an ambiguity to start with. Religion has to be defined. And if religion contains moral views, then either all moral views are permissible or all religions that exist have moralities that are permissible, or do not damage society. Or some religions must be proscribed.
A law that relates to plain objects may say ‘no entry’ etc etc. so that if the objects are clearly defined, then it is the prior values that need to be justified.
If a law says, do not kill, which is to say the taking away of sentient life. It is plainly objective, and only the prior values may be criticised, as being pacifist in tone. But if the law says, do not commit murder, then an ambiguity is involved as to what constitutes murder. There are other forms of killing, and some may be considered quite permissible, as with the police protecting life.
Life begins at conception, and sapient or indeed sentient life begins slightly later. A responsible altruist society or state, treats a sapient foetus as a person with social and parental rights, even before it is able to exist outside the womb. Albeit the mother’s survival having priority.
To protect ‘free speech’ implies that people may freely lie or distort facts. Virtually every pet term that involves the idea of absolute freedom is nonsense. That is not to say the establishment and its values may not be objected to. A responsible altruist society encourages criticism. Other society is indeed authoritarian, or against them may be quite amoral.
Which brings the matter to the critical matter, that every society must decide which of three plainly defined value forms it takes.

[RCSaunders]

Value Law and Objective Law
Accepting that ethics or an ethos is the employment of values. Then some law may be quite objective, with its values dealt with separately or prior. While other law directly relates to values, and so can be criticised on the basis of those values.
The American Constitution First Amendment mentions religion etc. It therefore has an ambiguity to start with. Religion has to be defined. And if religion contains moral views, then either all moral views are permissible or all religions that exist have moralities that are permissible, or do not damage society. Or some religions must be proscribed.
A law that relates to plain objects may say ‘no entry’ etc etc. so that if the objects are clearly defined, then it is the prior values that need to be justified.
If a law says, do not kill, which is to say the taking away of sentient life. It is plainly objective, and only the prior values may be criticised, as being pacifist in tone. But if the law says, do not commit murder, then an ambiguity is involved as to what constitutes murder. There are other forms of killing, and some may be considered quite permissible, as with the police protecting life.
Life begins at conception, and sapient or indeed sentient life begins slightly later. A responsible altruist society or state, treats a sapient foetus as a person with social and parental rights, even before it is able to exist outside the womb. Albeit the mother’s survival having priority.
To protect ‘free speech’ implies that people may freely lie or distort facts. Virtually every pet term that involves the idea of absolute freedom is nonsense. That is not to say the establishment and its values may not be objected to. A responsible altruist society encourages criticism. Other society is indeed authoritarian, or against them may be quite amoral.
Which brings the matter to the critical matter, that every society must decide which of three plainly defined value forms it takes.

Pehaps if you pick one subject and address that it would mean something. This is all over the map. What do you think you are talking about?

I suggest you begin by explaining what you think a value is, and how one determines what is of positive value and what isn't. You don't seem to know what a value is.

What has the definition of religion got to do with values. Until you explain what values are, discussing how they ought to be implemented is pointless.

You really cannot criticize a particular law based on values which you have not yet defined. "If a law says, do not kill, which is to say the taking away of sentient life. It is plainly objective ..." is just nonsense, because you define neither what the value of killing (positive or negative), sentient life is, or what the objective of the value is. Is killing a poisonous or rabid animal about to attack a child good or evil and why? What determines if a creature is sentient? Are fish sentient? are lobsters sentient? are jelly fish sentient? is an amoeba, like one that causes dysentery, sentient? is a malaria mosquito sentient?

You are just plain mistaken about some things. "Life begins at conception," is not true except for animals that reproduce sexually. There is no, "conception," for other organisms.

Why do you mention, "To protect ‘free speech’ implies that people may freely lie or distort facts?" Do you object to the fact that one should be able to think write and say whatever they choose to say? Every piece of fiction you have ever read is a, "distortion of facts," because it describes what is not true and never existed. Do you want to eliminate every work of fiction? Who would decide what others ought to be allowed to write or not write?

Perhaps you should think these things through a little more.