Just to add - but again, not for dispute - 'objective', as I am using the term, is not synonymous with 'external'. 'Objective', as I am using it, means 'exists outside of minds' or, if one prefers, 'made of something non-mental'.
'External' just means 'out there'. — Bartricks
It is 'a god' not 'God'.
She's a god because her value are moral values, rather than her values being moral values because she's a god. — Bartricks
I think moral values are the values of one subject. — Bartricks
Relevance? — Bartricks
If someone asked me, for instance, "why do you value kindness in others, including in others you will never meet?" I would say "I just do". — Bartricks
This, I think, is easily demonstrated. For though you may value helping the unfortune, it is surely clear to our reason that it is morally valuable to help the unfortunate regardless of whether you happen to value it? — Bartricks
it seems to me that you are saying something about what may characterise moral values as opposed to other kinds of values — Bartricks
My arguments assume nothing about what distinguishes moral values from other kinds of values apart from being distinct from our own values. — Bartricks
Can't the process of judging value be made objective?
So, while a subject values x or not the valuation itself is objective? It would be like someone using an instrument (objective) to do the measurement instead of without one (subjective) — TheMadFool
So the universality of moral values, though an apparent feature of most of them, is not, I think, an essential feature of them. — Bartricks
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.