I only claim we are equal in ontological value; and as such, we ought to treat all humans as ourselves (also human) would want to be treated if we were in their shoes(emphasis mine).

This quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone has the same morality and/or personal value system, i.e; not everyone likes being treated the same way in the same situation.

However, valuing another simply because they are human is the best starting point, for afterall, we all have much more in common - particularly during the formative years - than many may think/believe.

There are a whole realm of statements that are true of everyone regardless of individual particulars.

I’ve been thinking about this some. As before, I agree that your position serves as a very good rule of thumb. I feel I could easily complicate this issue, but I don’t believe that so doing would result in the obtainment of a more satisfactory answer. Because of this, I’ll back away from the conversation for the time being. All the same, at the end of the day, we’re in agreement in regard to the Golden Rule being a good.

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent. — creativesoul

I agree when it comes to thought, belief and perhaps meaning, by definition of the words; but why truth? Is it not true that the Earth revolved around the sun way before subjects like humans existed?

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether... — creativesoul

I understand the inherent challenge; but what about things that are indubitably objectively true, such as "2+2=4", or "a triangle has three sides"?

This quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone has the same morality and/or personal value system, i.e; not everyone likes being treated the same way in the same situation. — creativesoul

I think everyone does. To quote C.S. Lewis:
"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new [moral] value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in." - The Abolition of Man

Who would want injustice and not want justice done to them?

Right on. To loop back to the original topic: If ontological values are real, then morality is objective. Failure to prove that ontological values are real, then we may be able to rely on the relative-objective test to prove that morality is an objective property of reality.

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.
— creativesoul
I agree when it comes to thought, belief and perhaps meaning, by definition of the words; but why truth? — Samuel Lacrampe

On my view, truth is correspondence 'between' thought/belief and fact/reality. It is presupposed within thought/belief formation. Without an agent there is no thought/belief. Without thought/belief there is nothing to be true/false.

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether...
— creativesoul
I understand the inherent challenge; but what about things that are indubitably objectively true, such as "2+2=4", or "a triangle has three sides"? — Samuel Lacrampe

Those sorts of things are "true" by definition. Our definition.

It's not merely a challenge. The dichotomy cannot account of the aforementioned things. It is found to be sorely lacking in explanatory power. In addition, because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof.

The dichotomy, if strictly adhered to, is untenable, useless.

Yes, I see what you mean now, and think you are correct. For a while, I was wandering what the difference was between the terms 'truth' and 'reality'. As I now understand, reality cannot be true or false; it just is. Only statements/thoughts are true or false, and these necessitate a subject. So reality is linked to the object, where as truth is linked to the subject, even if the truth is about an object.

Those sorts of things are "true" by definition. Our definition. — creativesoul

This is getting interesting. I challenge your claim about man-made definition of things, by summoning Plato and his theory of forms or essences. Words, such as 'triangle', are indeed man-made; but concepts, such as 'the surface that has three sides', are part of reality. Words are signs that point to concepts, and us subjects can discover these concepts through abstraction. This explains how Socrates could argue with others about the objective definition of concepts like 'justice', instead of arbitrarily making up a definition that they can all choose to agree on. To sum up, if we know the essence of a word, then it follows that the essential properties are objective properties of the concept. E.g. 'having three sides' is an objective property of the concept we call 'triangle'.

I would agree that we can find ourselves defining(talking about) that which is not existentially contingent upon human thought/belief and/or language. The dichotomy still fails for all the reasons given heretofore.

This quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone has the same morality and/or personal value system, i.e; not everyone likes being treated the same way in the same situation.
— creativesoul
I think everyone does. To quote C.S. Lewis:
"The human mind has no more power of inventing a new [moral] value than of imagining a new primary colour, or, indeed, of creating a new sun and a new sky for it to move in." - The Abolition of Man — Samuel Lacrampe

If it were true that everyone presupposes that everyone else has the same morality and/or personal value system, then we would not be having this conversation, for I wouldn't have been able to point out that not everyone does.

C.S. Lewis is assuming that humans do not determine their own codes of conduct/morality.

E.g. a triangle necessarily has the property of having 3 sides. — Samuel Lacrampe

Not this again :-x

Hey! This is my discussion and I can talk about whatever I want in it. >:)

As you wish. A triangle with an amount of sides other than three can exist, as triangles aren't defined by having three sides. Instead, there's a concept of triangle and it's a huge coincidence every shape that fits our false definition of triangle is a triangle and vice versa.

I would think that finding necessary properties of concepts would be sufficient to prove that we can in fact escape said dichotomy. But here is another reason: How do you explain the phenomenon that many subjects agree on a given property of an object? E.g. all subjects observe that the chair has four legs.

A triangle with an amount of sides other than three can exist, as triangles aren't defined by having three sides. — BlueBanana

What do you mean "triangles are not defined by having three sides"? What is the true definition then?

↪creativesoul
I would think that finding necessary properties of concepts would be sufficient to prove that we can in fact escape said dichotomy. But here is another reason: How do you explain the phenomenon that many subjects agree on a given property of an object? E.g. all subjects observe that the chair has four legs. — Samuel Lacrampe

I'm not sure what the issue is.

There is no need to provide a way to prove that we can 'escape' the objective/subjective dichotomy. We know that it is an utterly inadequate framework because it cannot take account of that which consists in/of and/or requires both, and is thus neither.

What more explanation is needed?

The concept of triangleness. We recognize triangles without having to count their sides or amount of angles, because they seem triangle-ish.

Similarly I could ask, do you claim the definition of triangle to be that they have three sides or that they have three angles? What if there was hypothetically speaking a shape that only had one of those properties? And on a related note, how should we approach the fact that real life triangles don't have straight sides, or that we can recognize this as a triangle?

I am not saying that everyone presupposes that; and just because some do not, it does not follow that it is false, because no one's opinion is infallible. Admittedly, neither is C.S. Lewis. Let's raise the quality of the arguments on both sides.

I summon the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you want them to do unto you. The fact is that this rule occurs in some form in nearly every religion and ethical tradition. Source. And this rule implies that all humans have equal ontological value, or else we would not demand to treat them as equals.

The golden rule quite mistakenly presupposes that everyone likes being treated the same way.

It's not good to treat another in a way that they do not like being treated simply because it is a way in which we like being treated.

Understand?

Maybe I was attacking a straw man the whole time. Can you clarify what position you have in this discussion? I genuinely thought you were claiming that it is impossible for us to determine if a property is objective or subjective, that is, linked to the object or the subject. If that is not the position you are defending, then just ignore my previous comment.

The subjective/objective dichotomy is inherently incapable of taking account of that which requires, consists in/of, and/or is existentially contingent upon both a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent.

Truth. Meaning. Thought. Belief. All of these things require, consist in/of, and/or are existentially contingent upon both, a subject/agent and something other than the subject/agent and therefore are neither objective nor subjective.

Everything ever thought, believed, spoken and/or written comes through a subject. Strictly speaking, nothing ever thought, believed, spoken, and/or written is objective. That doesn't mean that everything is subjective. It means that the objective/subjective dichotomy is fraught. Best to abandon it altogether.

The dichotomy cannot account of the aforementioned things. It is found to be sorely lacking in explanatory power. In addition, because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof.

The dichotomy, if strictly adhered to, is untenable, useless.

I would agree that we can find ourselves defining(talking about) that which is not existentially contingent upon human thought/belief and/or language. The objective/subjective dichotomy still fails for all the reasons given heretofore.

Here are all the essential properties of the concept of triangle-ness: 'flat surface' + 'three straight sides'. This implies that it also has three angles, and so it would be redundant to add it as a property, similar with the property that the sum of its angles is 180 deg.

What if there was hypothetically speaking a shape that only had one of those properties? — BlueBanana

There is: a flat surface with three angles and rounded sides. Like this. Clearly, this is not a triangle.

And on a related note, how should we approach the fact that real life triangles don't have straight sides, or that we can recognize this as a triangle? — BlueBanana

Perfect triangles can exist, even if only in our minds. I am guessing you know what I am talking about, and this fact proves that we both have the same concept of what a triangle is. As for your linked example, sure I can guess the shape of a triangle in there, but I would not bet all my money on it, because it does not clearly show the aforementioned essential properties.

This is what I suspected before; and I find a contradiction in the following two statements:

(1) "... because everything ever thought/believed and/or spoken comes through a subject, there is no such thing as an objective thought, belief, and/or statement thereof."
(2) "I would agree that we can find ourselves defining(talking about) that which is not existentially contingent upon human thought/belief and/or language."

Best I can agree with, is that the thought is subjective in the sense that the subject produces it, but the content of the thought can be objective, if it is about the object.

If that were the case then all thoughts about the object would be equally objective and subjective.

:s

There is no contradiction. The first statement shows the consequence of employing the dichotomy. The second rejects it.

If that were the case than all thoughts about the object would be equally objective and subjective. — creativesoul

Indeed they are. If I say "God exists" and you say "God does not exist", both of our claims are equally objective, even though one must be true and the other one must be false.

If all claims are equally subjective and equally objective, then what is added to our understanding by virtue of using the objective/subjective dichotomy aside from unnecessarily overcomplicating the discussion?

The same would apply to any and all claims regarding any and all things...

Who does not like justice, and likes injustice done to themselves? Who does not like being treated with respect? Who likes being lied to? Virtually nobody. But maybe I misunderstand your statement. Maybe you can provide an example, and I will see if I can clarify how the Golden Rule applies.

If the thought content is about the object, then it is objective; and if it is about the subject, then it is subjective. The important thing is to figure out if it is in fact about the object or about the subject. "The ball is round" is an easy enough example of an objective statement. But what about "the ball is beautiful"? Is 'beauty' an objective or subjective property? The relative-objective test can determine this.