Nihilist Hippie
Define "steal".
"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom
Citizen
Objective: Adjective. "Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective)."
Subjective: Adjective. "Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective)."
It helps to define our terms here. Based on these definitions, it makes no sense to describe "moral law" as objective. Moral laws exist only in the mind. They do not exist independently of thought. One cannot perceive moral laws or observe them in nature. They only have essence because people give them essence.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
By that argument, any abstract idea at all is subjective. There's no physical object called "the United States", so it must be subjective, right?
And incidentally, the relevant dictionary definition of objective is "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions". Your definition seems to be something about the object of a sentence.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
I think better way would be this:
Solid law: Nothing can change it and it is true, no matter what. Natural Law, suchs as E=MC2. You can't change it or break it(altouhg you can understand/perceive it wrong).
Subjective law: Can be changed. For example, let's for sake of argument say abortion is illegal. This is later change to be legal. Law was not solid, since it was able to change.
Any godly being could turn any solid law into subjective law.
@Lawyerdude: You seem to be confusing objective and subjective with descriptive and prescriptive.
Objective means the law is independent of the observer; subjective means it isn't. Whether or not you can violate a law makes no difference to whether it's objective.
On the other hand, descriptive laws describe a behavior while prescriptive laws prescribe behavior. If a descriptive law is violated, it's inaccurate; violation makes no difference to the status of prescriptive laws. Everybody (well, for the most part everybody) agrees that moral law is prescriptive, the only controversy is whether it's objective subjective.
There can be such a thing as an objective prescriptive law. Ordinary legal-system law is objective and prescriptive. It's unarguably illegal to steal things, and you could violate the law and steal things anyways.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1