The acceptance of an objective judgment is firstly justified by its power of making someone who adheres to it free from others’ beliefs. But it is a freedom for taking the things judged into possession.
In spite of its definition as a judgment that is free from subjectivity, the objectivity represents the chance of capturing the fact objectively exposed from the possibility of being possessed by others.
The continual fading of objective things from their vivid meaning in someone’s life is the result of such possessions. An objective fact becomes of yourself as long as it can be forsaken, since the main interest in the relation humans have with the things of the world is to tame them from any possible inadvertent entrance in their lives.
The goal of human communities is also the same prevention from any unexpected actions of other individuals. Both the positive and negative actions need to respect a social order, since the history keeps the memories of the punishments applied to those who made good unexpectedly. The laws issued for instituting such order strive for objectivity and for replacing the more difficult effort of judging by yourself your relation with other individuals.
If the moral indifference produced by a legalistic perception of others is generally deemed to be an evil, then its pair in knowledge, the objectivity, should be at least cautiously embraced, since it is a possible evil done to things. The objective ownership over things should fear more than the subjectivity of judgments about those things, because subjective thoughts keep the things in the lively state of being objects of a debatable judgment.