Interesting discussion. Here is my take on it. Consider the following statements S1 and S2:
S1: "This food tastes good"
S2: "I enjoy the taste of this food"
For both statements, I am the subject, the message is roughly the same, and both are true. But in S1, the object is 'food', and the property is 'goodness'. In S2, the object is "I", and the property is 'enjoyment'. S1 is subjective because not all subjects will agree that the food is good. S2 is objective because all subjects, upon observing me, would agree that I enjoy the food.
Conclusions: 'Goodness in taste' is a subjective property, not a property of food. 'Enjoyment' is an objective property of the object that is the person experiencing it. — Samuel Lacrampe
Yet another objective statement about some state-of-affairs. "That's how I am" is an objective statement.What I say isn't a claim: the subjective just is the subjective, that's how I am. It's only susceptible to ideas of truth or falsity if it becomes objective in some way. — mcdoodle
Unless I am mistaken, then it seems to me that both the "daytime-nighttime" and "road sign" examples are determined to be objective through a process similar to the objective-relative test, thereby arguing in favour of the test. — Samuel Lacrampe
So that would be an example of the object not changing state but the observer. If it's still there when you come back and it's just the same-- no, but if you come back and bring someone else with you, and the two of you walk around, look at it from different angles, maybe do so at different times of day and so on, then we start to think "objective". — Srap Tasmaner
Truth is not a criteria to determine if a property is linked to the object or subject. "Yellow is the best colour" is indubitably subjective, for how could there be an objectively best colour? Yet this statement is true to the speaker.You can't ever escape making objective statements whenever you associate truth to your statement. — Harry Hindu
This paradox is caused by not clearly identifying who or what is the object in the situation. Example:Nevertheless—to further complicate things—in accordance with Harry Hindu’s posts, this would also lead to conclusions such as: the presence of subjects is objectively real. [...] Also, leading to a kind of pseudo-paradox: the subject is itself objectively real; i.e., the presence of the subject is objective, and thereby fully entwined with objective reality in total. — javra
I screwed up. I still claim that whatever is measurable is objective, but it is not because it is a mathematical kind of property. I think it is actually because the property is measured by an instrument which cannot have any subjective bias.Any property that is physical is objective. Why? Because any physical property is measurable (at least in theory), and if measurable, then it is mathematical, and if mathematical, then it is logical, and logic is indubitably an objective property of reality. This is why a science is less prone to debate if it is quantifiable. — Samuel Lacrampe
I observe the colour yellow and say "Yellow is the best colour". In this case, the object is 'yellow', the subject is me, and the property is 'best colour'. The property is obviously subjective because it is not linked to the colour yellow in itself. Now, you come in, and observe me saying that statement "Yellow is the best colour", and so you conclude "Sam's best colour is yellow". In this case, the object is me, the subject is you, and the property is 'best colour being yellow'. The property is now objective, because any new subjects, you or someone else, will hear me saying "Yellow is the best colour".
To sum up, it is imperative to clearly identify who or what is the subject, object, and property for any given context. Once this is done, the paradox is resolved. — Samuel Lacrampe
Let's rely on the relative-objective test to determine if moral goodness is an objective property of human behaviour. Object 1: A man acts towards others as he would want them to act towards him. Object 2: The man acts in such a way that he would hate others to act towards him. Which object would subjects observe to have the highest degree of moral goodness? I foresee that a large majority would say object 1, and the remaining few, if any, would be indecisive. But I also expect that virtually nobody would choose object 2. If this is the case, then moral goodness is objective.BTW, a day ago you asked about the possibility of such things as moral goodness being objective. As far as I understand things, goodness can only hold the possibility of being objective from the vantage of being a lowest common denominator that is universal to all first-person points of view. — javra
Let's rely on the relative-objective test to determine if moral goodness is an objective property of human behaviour. Object 1: A man acts towards others as he would want them to act towards him. Object 2: The man acts in such a way that he would hate others to act towards him. Which object would subjects observe to have the highest degree of moral goodness? I foresee that a large majority would say object 1, and the remaining few, if any, would be indecisive. But I also expect that virtually nobody would choose object 2. If this is the case, then moral goodness is objective.
Thoughts? — Samuel Lacrampe
Only if the speaker is a solipsist and doesn't believe in other minds who think, "Blue is the best colour", or "Green is the best colour". How can the speaker hold opposing view points and still consider one as "true". One is simply making a value statement, not a truth statement.Truth is not a criteria to determine if a property is linked to the object or subject. "Yellow is the best colour" is indubitably subjective, for how could there be an objectively best colour? Yet this statement is true to the speaker. — Samuel Lacrampe
Then I don't get why they'd say "This food tastes good", as opposed to "My mental state is this food tasting good." Both are true, and objective.If subject 1 says "this food tastes good", and subject 2 says "this food tastes bad", both are giving true information. But truth cannot contradict truth. Therefore the truth in both statements cannot be about the object, which is the same in both statements; and must be about the subjects, which differ in both statements. — Samuel Lacrampe
Exactly. Once we switch to speaking objectively, we switch to stating truths about the way things are - the way reality actually is. The subject is an object, state-of-affairs, or an aspect of reality, that we talk about and have an expectation of truth associated with what we are talking about.To sum up, it is imperative to clearly identify who or what is the subject, object, and property for any given context. Once this is done, the paradox is resolved. — Samuel Lacrampe
Then I don't get why they'd say "This food tastes good", as opposed to "My mental state is this food tasting good." Both are true, and objective. — Harry Hindu
A subjective statement can still be true or false. Say that in truth, I feel that yellow is the best colour. So if I say "Yellow is my best colour", then I speak the truth. But if I say "Blue is my best colour", then I don't speak the truth. I guess subjective truth is synonymous to honesty.One is simply making a value statement, not a truth statement. — Harry Hindu
I guess you are right that we can always turn a subjective statement into an objective one by making ourselves the object, and our feeling or perception into the property; and since feelings and perceptions are objective properties of ourselves, then this will always result in an objective statement.Then I don't get why they'd say "This food tastes good", as opposed to "My mental state is this food tasting good." Both are true, and objective. — Harry Hindu
Sure we can. The previous statement "Some things are objective" is undeniably true and objective, as previously demonstrated. Another example is the laws of logic and math: Even if there were an evil demon feeding me false data my whole life, he could not feed me illogical or mathematically wrong information, like seeing a square circle, or seeing 2 apples and 2 more apples, and only seeing 3 apples as a result.Can we even access this objective reality? — TheMadFool
It could be the case, but how would you account for the fact that all subjects observe the same property? There is indeed the hypothesis that we all coincidently project the exact same subjective property onto the object, but this hypothesis is much less likely than the hypothesis that we are observing a property of the object.Your method that many same observations is objective amounts to saying subjective + subjective + subjective +... = objective and that means the objective is only a subset of the subjective. — TheMadFool
I see what you mean now. "This food is good" is not literally true because it is formulated as as though goodness is a property of the food, which it is not. I accept the distinction. Just a side note that this type of statement would be an expression of common language, and everyone understands what the speaker means by it.What you say isn't literally true. — Harry Hindu
Could we generalize that all that is considered good is a value? What if I said "I find this food to taste good, and yet I do not value taste"? I don't see anything contradictory in that statement, and it would imply that not all that we find good is a value statement. It seems to me that we consciously choose our values, but we don't necessarily consciously choose what tastes good to us.So, to say that something is "the color white", is to say something about the object. To say that something is "good" is to make a value statement. — Harry Hindu
I disagree when it comes to two values, which I claim are objective: health, and morality. The second one may be harder to prove, so I will focus on the first one for now.There is no objective good and bad - only goals and what is helpful and harmful to achieving them. — Harry Hindu
As I said, if something is good, it helps you achieve your goal. Your goal would be to seek pleasurable experiences and the food's taste does just that. This is why some people turn to food in order to alleviate stress. Feeling good, rather than feeling bad or stressed is a goal that every human has. It's just that different things make different people feel good. You eating good food and me listening to good music are two different actions but achieve the same goal for each of us - providing stress relief.Could we generalize that all that is considered good is a value? What if I said "I find this food to taste good, and yet I do not value taste"? I don't see anything contradictory in that statement, and it would imply that not all that we find good is a value statement. It seems to me that we consciously choose our values, but we don't necessarily consciously choose what tastes good to us. — Samuel Lacrampe
Being healthy is a sub-goal of survival. To say that one has good or bad health is to say that their health is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival.I disagree when it comes to two values, which I claim are objective: health, and morality. The second one may be harder to prove, so I will focus on the first one for now.
What is good in terms of health is objective. I am sure there is a standard criteria in evaluating if a living cell is healthy or not. And so, using the relative-objective test, every subject observing two cells of different health state would agree on which cell is the healthiest. Furthermore, if health was only a matter of opinion, then there would no health practitioners to tell us what is healthy for us. — Samuel Lacrampe
Assuming what you say is true, it still does not follow that all that is subjectively good is necessarily a value statement. Let's say I like the taste of donuts, so their taste is, to me, good. But because of health reasons, I have a negative value about eating donuts. Well this does not change the fact that they taste good to me. So a negative value is compatible with a subjective good.As I said, if something is good, it helps you achieve your goal. Your goal would be to seek pleasurable experiences and the food's taste does just that. This is why some people turn to food in order to alleviate stress. Feeling good, rather than feeling bad or stressed is a goal that every human has. It's just that different things make different people feel good. You eating good food and me listening to good music are two different actions but achieve the same goal for each of us - providing stress relief. — Harry Hindu
I agree. Now, in your last statement, the object is 'one', and the property is 'good or bad health', or 'health that is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival'. The property is linked to the object; therefore 'goodness of health' is objective.Being healthy is a sub-goal of survival. To say that one has good or bad health is to say that their health is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival. — Harry Hindu
No bully wants to be bullied. Therefore even the unjust person perceives the unjust treatment to be bad. They do it not because they believe it is moral, but typically to gain pleasure or avoid displeasure. E.g. it is easier to lie than to tell an uncomfortable truth. So I claim that no one, not even the immoral ones, can perceive object 2 to be morally better than object 1.I’d say a lot of people are this way and find a sense of satisfaction in so being: bullies, for instance — javra
This seems to be a good goal in general, but there are exceptions to it. Would it be okay for me to withhold truth from you, on the grounds that learning it would make you suffer? E.g. I know your spouse cheats on you, and you ask me if this is true or not. Lying to you would be moral according to your philosophy of minimizing suffering, but immoral according to the Golden Rule, because nobody wants to be lied to.Myself, I’d for example here lean more on Buddhist-like philosophy of suffering and the desire to minimize it--or at least something similar to this perspective. — javra
I mentioned conflicting goals earlier. This is an example of that. You have two conflicting goals. One is that you want to experience the taste of donuts, the other goal is that you want to live a long time. The taste of donuts is good, however the impact on your health is bad, so not eating the donuts would be good, but then so is the taste. What should you do? Which goal will win out?Assuming what you say is true, it still does not follow that all that is subjectively good is necessarily a value statement. Let's say I like the taste of donuts, so their taste is, to me, good. But because of health reasons, I have a negative value about eating donuts. Well this does not change the fact that they taste good to me. So a negative value is compatible with a subjective good. — Samuel Lacrampe
I think it would be more accurate and simpler to use the terms, "healthy" and "unhealthy" rather than "good health" and "bad health", as that is what you objectively mean by using the terms "good health" and "bad health". Being in good health is bad if you intend to commit suicide, or if you intend to follow through on a hunger strike.I agree. Now, in your last statement, the object is 'one', and the property is 'good or bad health', or 'health that is beneficial or a hindrance to their survival'. The property is linked to the object; therefore 'goodness of health' is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe
No bully wants to be bullied. Therefore even the unjust person perceives the unjust treatment to be bad. [...] So I claim that no one, not even the immoral ones, can perceive object 2 to be morally better than object 1. — Samuel Lacrampe
This seems to be a good goal in general, but there are exceptions to it. Would it be okay for me to withhold truth from you, on the grounds that learning it would make you suffer? — Samuel Lacrampe
I agree that the goal of wanting to be healthy can cause the negative value about eating the donut. But where does the goal of "wanting to experience the taste of donuts" come from? Just because I like the taste of donuts, it does not follow that I have a goal associated to it, does it? One does not control their taste buds like they can control their hands. Maybe with time and perseverance, we may be able to change our habits and modify our subjective preferences, but it can't happen by mere will power.I mentioned conflicting goals earlier. This is an example of that. You have two conflicting goals. One is that you want to experience the taste of donuts, the other goal is that you want to live a long time. — Harry Hindu
This sounds ad hoc. You could do this for any type of good: goodness in taste is tasty or delicious; goodness at a task is skilled; goodness of a song is pleasurable, and so on. I will resist the temptation to ask for a definition of 'goodness'... Instead, let's just agree that we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means. With that, let's consider the following dialogue.I think it would be more accurate and simpler to use the terms, "healthy" and "unhealthy" rather than "good health" and "bad health", as that is what you objectively mean by using the terms "good health" and "bad health". — Harry Hindu
The goal of wanting to experience the taste of donuts comes from the stored experience of eating a donut and you enjoying it. We all seek to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid unpleasant ones. That is the ultimate goal from which all other sub-goals are derived.I agree that the goal of wanting to be healthy can cause the negative value about eating the donut. But where does the goal of "wanting to experience the taste of donuts" come from? — Samuel Lacrampe
Like I said, you can be full but still like the taste of donuts. Again, we are simply talking about a conflict of goals - you being full and you liking the taste of donuts. You being full doesn't make the donut taste bad, it still tastes good, which is why you have a conflict of goals. If the donut tastes bad when you are full, then you wouldn't have a conflict.Just because I like the taste of donuts, it does not follow that I have a goal associated to it, does it? One does not control their taste buds like they can control their hands. Maybe with time and perseverance, we may be able to change our habits and modify our subjective preferences, but it can't happen by mere will power. — Samuel Lacrampe
If both persons are using the word "good" to mean taste and health, then their sentences wouldn't make any sense as they would be:This sounds ad hoc. You could do this for any type of good: goodness in taste is tasty or delicious; goodness at a task is skilled; goodness of a song is pleasurable, and so on. I will resist the temptation to ask for a definition of 'goodness'... Instead, let's just agree that we all have an implicit knowledge of what goodness means. With that, let's consider the following dialogue.
Person P1: "I don't want to eat this food because it does not taste good."
Person P2: "You should still eat it because it is good for you".
Both persons are using the word 'good'. P1 uses it to mean taste, and P2 uses it to mean health. — Samuel Lacrampe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.