From this understanding follows that any decision regarding a legal conflict necessarily is a subjective opinion. Impartial humans As far as the second premise, one hypothesis to explain this style of thinking is found in Plato and Aristotle. Their treaties show the preoccupation of setting criterion to designate those men that were born to decide the conflicts. Today, a few thousand years later, the basis of their theory is implicit in political organization although with a different rationale. Now it is supposed that those who decide legal conflicts are impartial not partial, not biased, neutral.
All human view is biased and subjective.
One approach, as Albert Einstein stated in relation of problems already formulated by everyone and only the solution missing, is to reformulate the old problems or to discover new problems. In other terms, to change the framework of reference of the old problem. One needs to take a perspective of legal problems out of the law, of the logic of the law. The attention must be paid in the creators and users of law, in humans with emotions and ideas and not in the logic of law. The hypothesis is that humans feel, think and behave depending in their biology and environment in which such biology has grown.