> A word crime in a sense as a fault, as something objectively morally reprehensible itself
If you want to appeal to a “crime” beyond what people decide is wrong, you are starting to smuggle in an objective moral standard. I think that is hard without appealing to a God or gods.
> I think that is hard without appealing to a God or gods.
You know, people used to do so.
Even without that, the loss of objective examination of a fault as a key discerning factor for a justice system was to the detriment of justice.
This leads to a situation when even supreme court judges of countries are being confused by hundreds of contradictory laws of modern legal systems, and can not simply say what is the overall meaning of the law on a given subject without spending hours on research, and writing a lengthy opinion.
If you want to appeal to a “crime” beyond what people decide is wrong, you are starting to smuggle in an objective moral standard. I think that is hard without appealing to a God or gods.