I'm happy you agree. — Merkwurdichliebe

You shouldn't be, because there's still a problem, even though we can agree.

Just out of curiousity and ignorance on my part, if you'll breifly explain, what is the more common use of the term? — Merkwurdichliebe

It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. Your definition is easily shown to be problematic.

Interesting, but I disagree.

Thank you sir.

It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. — S

I think this more aptly describes the universal rather than the objective.

Banno
5k
↪Frank Apisa


Two possibilities: Gods exist; Gods do not exist.
Two attitudes: I believe that.. ; I do not believe that...

Four possibilities:
a) I believe that gods exist
b) I believe that gods do not exist
c) I do not believe that gods exist
d) I do not believe that gods do not exist.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (b) because they imply "I believe that gods exist and do not exist.

One can consistently hold (c) and (d), by not having a belief about gods.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (c), since one is the negation of the other.

One can believe (b) and (d) by being agnostic. — Banno

I did NOT mention anything that I "believe."

I mentioned some things that I do NOT "believe."

Read my comment again...and you will see that.

But I do expect you to provide warrant for saying that "murder is wrong" is objectively true, if that's what you say or imply, and that's a reasonable expectation. — S

But I don't think it objectively true. That does not stop me from thinking it true.

You seem concerned that I don't use the term "moral objectivism". Is it that you think that moral statements being subjective renders them somehow less important? — Banno

No, on the contrary, I have made the point before that they're no less important if they're subjective.

My problem is that you have said things that seem to suggest that you are a moral objectivist, but you just don't seem to want to use that term. I say if the shoe fits, wear it.

Moral statements have a direction of fit such that we change how things are to make the statement so.

Suppose I think that one ought keep holy the Sabbath ( I don't).

If Fred comes along and says that we should open up shops on the Sabbath, I might simply say that he is wrong. That does not make my beliefs about the Sabbath any less subjective.

That is, keeping the Sabbath Holy, while not objective, can still determine my attitude towards Fred.

Yeah, that's not as clear as I would like it to be. We are in a culture that has valued objective truths because it seems easier to reach agreement on them. This has led to a devaluation of subjective truths.

Yet it is our attitude towards things that is most important.

What cannot be said is of far greater import than what can be said. — Banno

It's odd, because that's in sync with my own thinking, but you've said things like, "Kicking puppies is wrong", and seem to have suggested that it's something more than an indication of your own moral judgement, as though it was an independent moral fact that kicking puppies is wrong, irrespective of whether I judge it to be right or make any moral judgement at all on the matter.

But I don't think it objectively true. That does not stop me from thinking it true. — Banno

So either you go by an account of moral truth in accordance with moral subjectivism or you just don't want to use the term "objectively".

I thought it was the latter.

Btw, I thought I'd add:

I'm definitely not a Hegelian, but he says thought is what produces the universal, and that thought belongs to subjectivity.

So then, is the universal subjective? Whatcha think. Consider the epistemological question of identity, and please spare us the lame "family resemblance" spiel.

Sure. Just adding what I thought relevant.

It's odd, because that's in sync with my own thinking, but you've said things like, "Kicking puppies is wrong", and seem to have suggested that it's something more than an indication of your own moral judgement, as though it was an independent moral fact that kicking puppies is wrong, irrespective of whether I judged it to be right or make no judgement at all. — S

But kicking puppies is wrong. You agree with me. What more do you want? It's being objectively true (to misuse "objectively") would not make it any more true...?

There are sentences that have not been written, — Banno

I said "authored," not written. I use my term liberally, to include any that have been conceptualized, regardless of whether memorialized in writing, by utterance, or otherwise.

sentences come from a specific perspective, and my saying that we ought look to the use of a sentence in preference to looking at its meaning. — Banno

If you received a text with various misspellings and incorrect words placed in error by spell check, would you look to use or try to figure out what was meant?

Because knowledge involves belief. But knowledge and truth are distinct. — Banno

Are they? What is raw truth? When you say "truth" is that the noumena? I think it is. If all I can know is the phenomenal, then why talk about what really is?

I think this more aptly describes the universal rather than the objective. — Merkwurdichliebe

Well it doesn't. The universal would be something along the lines of that which is true in all cases or believed by all. The objective would be something along the lines of a fact that is independent of subjects and their thoughts, feelings, beliefs, judgement, and so on.

The existence of Jupiter does not depend on you or me or anyone else or anyone at all, nor on what we think or perceive or judge and so on. It is objective.

But kicking puppies is wrong. You agree with me. What more do you want? It's being objectively true (to misuse "objectively") would not make it any more true...? — Banno

Yes, I agree with you that kicking puppies is wrong. You've just left me confused about your stance in meta-ethics, because I thought we disagreed.

What is raw truth? — Hanover

I've no idea.

When you say "truth" is that the noumena? — Hanover

Again, you have lost me.

If all I can know is the phenomenal... — Hanover

Why would you think that?

...then why talk about what really is? — Hanover

Or what really, really is? or what really, really, really is?

Do you insist that every sentence has an implied perspective?
— Banno

I insist that every sentence is authored, and every author has perspective, so every sentence must have perspective. — Hanover

I said "authored," not written. — Hanover

There are sentences unwritten, unsaid, unthought. Who authored them?

I think we do. But only about how we ought use the word "objective".

Did I catch up?

I think we do. But only about how we ought use the word "objective". — Banno

I think that we ought to use it with regards to what's objective, and if we interpret moral statements in that way, then they'll be false or unwarranted at best. So it makes more sense to interpret them subjectively, by which I mean as a reflection of moral judgement.

So, instead of "murder is wrong" being false or unwarranted, it is true and warranted. At least when I say it, going by my judgement.

The universal:

The universal would be something along the lines of true in all cases or believed by all — S

And this also holds true for:

It would be something along the lines of a fact that doesn't depend on anyone's opinion or whether it is a commonly held opinion. — S

And, concerning Jupiter:
suppose I see Jupiter in a picture and identify it as jupiter. Then, at a later time I observed Jupiter through a telescope, and identify it as Jupiter. That us the universal, for although I perceive particulars with no necessary causal or logical relation, I understand them to be identical.

I feel it is important for us to clarify these terms, but I may be mistaken

Did I catch up? — Banno

No, motion is an illusion. Everything is appearance. :wink:

You instigator.. :up:

So, instead of "murder is wrong" being false or unwarranted, it is true and warranted. At least when I say it, going by my judgement. — S

I'd go with "true yet unwarranted".

Even if what's objective is also universal, that doesn't mean that they don't have distinct meanings, nor does it mean that they mean anything other than what I just set out.

The universal is a red herring. The topic is the subjective-objective distinction.

I'd go with "true yet unwarranted". — Banno

Why unwarranted?

S & Banno:

It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms...

I prefer moral relativism and absolute morality. But I don't expect anyone to adopt my definitions, I'm not a nazi of lexicon like S.

Here's an example for the sort of post I have in mind in the OP:

My argument:

A "fact" is just an opinion that a person is confident about. For example, the statement "it's a fact the Earth goes around the Sun" actually means "we're really really confident the Earth goes around the Sun."

However, before anyone jumps in and claims I'm a relativist moron, I also claim that some opinions are better and more useful than others. For example, While both of the following statements "the Earth goes around the Sun" and "the Sun goes aorund the Earth" are technical opinions, the first opinion is more useful for launching satellites and doing astronomy then the second. Just because all statements are opinions, does not mean all opinions are created equal.

Why am I posting this? Because I'm tired of people claiming "X is a fact.' The moment someone claims anything, they're just offering their opinion.

What are your thoughts? — YuZhonglu

See how it confuses belief and truth?

It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms... — Merkwurdichliebe

Yep. It's one of the misused of objective and subjective to which this thread is addressed. Like Harry said:

Right. In other words, subjective statements are value statements. They associate some notion of "good" and "bad", or "right" and "wrong" to some aspect of the world. Subjective statements are similar to a category error in that a person associates the feeling with the object - as if it were an objective feature of that object that everyone would agree with. — Harry Hindu

S & Banno:

It is my opinion moral objectivism and moral subjectivism are misleading terms...

I prefer moral relativism and absolute morality. But I don't expect anyone to adopt my definitions, I'm not a nazi of lexicon like S. — Merkwurdichliebe

They are two sets of terms with distinct meanings. Which set of terms is more appropriate to use will depend on the context. And we're supposed to be talking about the subjective-objective distinction, so it is obviously the former set of terms which is more appropriate.

I think applying them to moral statements - looking for objective morality - is a misuse. Not because there are no objective moral facts, but because morality is not the sort of thing that can be objective.

But that does not imply that it is not something about which we can agree.

That's the error made by folk who think that being objective means being in agreement.

It's a minefield. Needs to be kept simple and we need to take small steps.

Again, you want me to justify my preference for vanilla ice? No? Then why do I need to justify my preference for not committing murder?