Objective Standards

There ain't no such thing.

That's a rather flat-footed statement. It's dogmatic. But, like (almost) all of my words, it's true. There ain't no such thing as objective standards.

We use them to determine which candidate for a particular position should be selected; who's smart and who isn't; whether a violation of the law can be documented; if a specific individual is qualified to be a firefighter; what frequencies can be used for transmission of internet messages; and similar decisions for which measurable criteria can be determined.

“Can be determined.” By whom? “(A)y, there's the rub.” For the specific “objective” criteria were dreamed up by someone. In reality, however old and honored they are – and some of them seem to be eternal truths – they're really subjective. They're codified subjectivity. For example, Madison, Wisconsin limits the volume of air compressors to 88dB at 50 feet. Miami, Florida Is also troubled by the noise from such devices and forbids it from 6 PM to 8 AM on weekdays and any time on Sundays. They're objective standards which mean that you're violating the law if your air compressor emits a volume of 89dB (at 50 feet) in Madison, or if you use one at all in Miami on Tuesday at 6:15 PM. Better to use a compressor that registers 87dB (at 50 feet) in Madison on a Sunday at midnight, or one that pollutes the ear at 89dB on Tuesday afternoon in Miami. Otherwise you're violating the law. Clearly there are different sensitivities depending on where you are. But it is less clear whose sensitivities they are.

They're subjective, not objective. They're formalized subjectivity, though after a while they take on a patina of objectivity. Everyone knows that those who don't abide by the rules are, in fact, lawbreakers. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse for crime.” (Actually, according to Black's Law Dictionary, the regulation is that Ignorantia juris non excusat – “ignorance of the law doesn't excuse.”) But someone made that rule, and someone wrote the laws that it defends. And a precedent solidifies a position's correctness. It sets the standard. When was the precedent set? A while back – though we may not even know when. And who set the precedent? Judges and lawyers. People. People who believed that what they considered right and wrong were, in fact, right and wrong.

But people tend to have different opinions. Calendars ought to be objective, but they differ from place to place and time to time. Rules regarding sexuality may differ between Samoa and Saint Louis. But the local rules pertain in the different places. It's far more of a problem than different perceptions of noise in Madison and Miami. And the “objective” standards to permit carrying a gun in Dover, Delaware differ from those in Dover, England. (Or, for that matter, in Dover, New Jersey as contrasted with Jersey in the Channel Islands.) Concepts of cultural relativism abound, and with them there are variations in objective standards.

Do secular “objective” laws trump the standards set by “divine” law? That, too, is a subjective decision. Both may have fixed, “objective” standards, yet they may disagree. Still, within the context of each system, it has somehow been ordained what is acceptable and what is not. Indeed, those following what they accept as divine laws, and the standards that accompany them, may have different views about what they are or should be. Even within a religion (and much more between them) there are different traditions which provide standards for “proper” behavior. Traditional Judaism requires a minyan (quorum) of ten males over the age of Bar Mitzvah (13) in order to say particular prayers. Other branches may be less choosy, if they seek a minyan at all.

There are different objective standards. And they change. Today's fashion standards would have been belittled in the past and they certainly will be in the future.

If subjective views are the basis for the designation of objective standards, it is important to consider who is setting those standards. It's usually the higher-ups in a hierarchy – for example G-d in religion – but those on lower rungs often flesh out the meanings of the laws. Over the millennia men have been the rule-makers in most of public life, which means that in many areas women cannot meet the standards they set. That doesn't mean that the standards are wrong, only suspect. But, in all honesty, I'd rather have a 220 pound male policeman defending me than a 120 pound woman, or a firefighter carrying me who can lift 175 pounds rather than one who can't. I'd rather be defended by an attorney with an IQ or 140, than one with an IQ of 115, even if both have passed the Bar examination and are, objectively, equal. Maybe that's wrong and those ideas are only a product of my own subjectivity. (Perhaps I disagree with those setting them regarding what the objective standards should be.) And in the United States, regulations are often determined by unelected bureaucrats who have been left to do so by a Congress not interested in getting involved in the details As long as our representatives, themselves, are exempt it doesn't matter what objective standards are set for the rest of us, so there is no need to review them. They can live with subjectivity to which they aren't subject. So for others it is reasonable to accept “zero tolerance” criteria. Deviation from some “objective” criterion is a violation of standards and not to be tolerated. That's certainly the case when particular standards are set for inclusion in a group or in a profession, whether according to a rulebook or according to licensing procedures.

That doesn't invalidate standards. It's good to be able to rely on a train schedule, or any other schedule (although there are many who are lax about following them). And it makes sense for scientists to set strict criteria for the determination of principles or properties in their fields. But it is foolish not to recognize that the standards they set are subjective, and might be different if others were to set them. And it's legitimate to review such standards from time to time and place to place if any question exists about their applicability. Which doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that most are the result of human biases. The only ones that may have validity beyond those human biases are any that are of divine origin. There are absolutes.

But otherwise there ain't no such thing as objective standards.