A Dialogue
Student: I would like to challenge your assertion that “While governments are collections of individuals, they are distinct from individuals in that they are meant to operate through agreed-upon principles, processes, and laws. These frameworks aim to ensure collective decisions are not merely the sum of subjective perceptions but are grounded in objective standards.”
This statement suggests that governments can achieve “objective standards” through structured frameworks, whereas individuals operate within the realm of subjectivity. However, I would argue that the concept of “objective standards” is itself questionable. I draw your attention to the Hindu parable of the blind men and the elephant, where each individual interprets only part of the whole based on their limited perspective.
In the same way, governments—composed of individuals—cannot transcend subjectivity, as all written codes and laws require interpretation. Whether through precedent, legal reasoning, or situational judgment, the application of laws is inherently subjective. The notion of “objective standards” in governance is thus an ideal rather than a reality.
What is your perspective on this reasoning? Are there truly “objective standards” in governance, or is the process ultimately a collective synthesis of subjective interpretations, akin to the blind men interpreting the elephant?
Professor: Your reasoning brings up a critical and valid point: the challenge of claiming “objective standards” in human governance and the interpretive nature of laws. The Hindu story of the blind men and the elephant aptly illustrates how subjective perspectives shape understanding, even when everyone is engaging with the same reality. Here’s a deeper response to your critique:
1. The Myth of Pure Objectivity:
- You are correct that objectivity, especially in human affairs, is elusive. Even written laws and codes, which might appear “objective,” are subject to interpretation. Judges, legislators, and citizens bring their experiences, biases, and cultural contexts to bear on how they understand and apply these laws.
- The story of the blind men and the elephant underscores this: each person interprets the part they touch based on their limited perspective. Similarly, governments and their representatives interpret laws and principles through the lens of their circumstances and understandings.
2. Governance as a Shared Framework:
- While true objectivity may be unattainable, governments attempt to create shared frameworks—systems of laws and processes—meant to approximate fairness and consistency.
- These frameworks, while imperfect, aim to temper individual subjectivity by establishing common ground. For example:
- Precedent: Judicial decisions rely on past rulings to create continuity and reduce arbitrariness.
- Checks and Balances: Different branches of government review and limit one another’s actions to prevent excessive bias or concentration of power.
- Democratic Processes: Voting and public deliberation integrate diverse perspectives to form collective decisions.
3. Interpretation Is Inescapable:
- You are absolutely right that written codes and laws are not inherently objective; they only become meaningful through human interpretation. Every act of governance involves subjective judgment, whether it’s a judge interpreting a law, a legislator drafting one, or a bureaucrat implementing it.
- The ideal of governance is not to eliminate subjectivity but to channel it through systems designed to promote consistency, fairness, and transparency.
4. The Role of Law as a Guiding Principle:
- Laws and constitutions function as guiding principles, not absolute truths. They provide a baseline for resolving disputes and organizing society, even if their application is inevitably influenced by human subjectivity.
- This is why laws are often open to amendment, reinterpretation, or replacement—they are living constructs meant to adapt to the evolving understanding of justice and societal needs.
5. Reconciling Subjectivity with Collective Action:
- The distinction I originally made—that governments operate through “objective standards”—was perhaps overly optimistic. It might be more accurate to say that governments aspire to objectivity by creating systems that minimize the arbitrariness of individual action.
- The difference between governments and individuals lies in the scale and structure of their decisions. Governments act collectively and institutionally, seeking to represent broader perspectives than an individual’s singular viewpoint.
6. The Elephant and the Framework:
- In the story of the blind men and the elephant, no single perspective captures the whole truth, but the collective effort to synthesize these perspectives brings a fuller understanding. Similarly:
- Governments rely on collective processes (legislation, judicial review, public discourse) to piece together a more comprehensive picture than any one individual or group could achieve alone.
- While the result may still be imperfect and subjective, it represents a broader consensus and an effort to approximate fairness.
7. Conclusion: Acknowledging the Limits:
- You are right to challenge the notion of objective standards in governance. No system can transcend the subjective nature of human understanding and interpretation.
- However, the value of governance lies in its ability to construct shared frameworks that aspire to balance competing subjectivities, creating a functional and adaptable system. These frameworks, while not purely objective, serve as a common reference point for resolving disputes and organizing society.
By emphasizing the limitations of “objectivity,” your reasoning invites a humbler, more nuanced view of governance—one that acknowledges its imperfections while striving for fairness and collective understanding. The elephant, after all, is understood not by one individual but by the synthesis of many perspectives, even if none fully captures its essence.