I believe that Mo_ is unintentionally clouding the issue of objectivity and subjectivity, here. The first statement is made by a thing with a mind, but the truth of falsity of the claim is NOT independent of a mind. We decide what it is we are going to call a, “Tree,” or a, “Yard,” so the language itself is subjective. Anything linguistic is going to be subjective and is only useful where two subjects agree on meaning.
The only thing that objectively exists is the actual object that we are calling, “Tree,” in the actual area that we are calling a, “Yard,” that we call them, “Tree,” and, “Yard,” does not affect their material existence. We could theoretically say, “The Shrimp Scampi is in the Pot,” and if we agree that, “Shrimp Scampi,” refers to what we conceptualize, currently, as a, “Tree,” and that the, “Pot,” is what we conceptualize currently as, “Yard,” then the statement is no less correct. The language, again, is subjective. If I can get someone to agree with me that we will call the tree, “Shrimp Scampi,” and the yard, “Pot,” then the statement is still perfectly sensible.
That seems like nonsense, but when you were a kid, did you never play, “Code words,” with a friend of yours? I certainly know that I played such a game, and the way it worked is that if we didn’t want the adults to know what we were talking about (or other kids) we would make a statement that seemed to have absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, but we agreed on what the statements, “Really,” meant within certain contexts, making communication possible. “A rose by any other name,” I keep telling you guys.
Here’s an example:
“What’s up?”
“Nothing. I can’t wait for dinner, I should have ate the rest of my burger at school.”
“Didn’t you get enough lunch?”
“No. I’ve been hungry for awhile now. Are you staying for dinner?”
“No, my Mom’s making Meat Loaf, then I have to do homework. I’ll meet you at the park at 7:00 and we’ll shoot some hoops.”
“Cool. See you later.”
TRANSLATION:
“What’s up?”
“I’m out of cigarettes and I’ve been fiending for one. Nobody at school had any.”
“Nobody?”
“Nobody. I’ve been fiending for a cigarette for awhile now, do you have any?”
“Not that I can part with. I’m going to go buy some, but I have to do something else first. I’ll meet you at the park with them at 7:00.”
“I’ll have money for them. See you later.”
It’s a totally different conversation. That’s why we must agree on language, but the language, itself, is subjective. The first statement Mo_ makes abovce is also subjective, it’s based on an agreement of definitions. What is objective are the things, (Tree, Yard) being referenced, the references themselves (i.e. words) are not.
The truth or falsity of the second statement is certainly not independent of the mind, particularly when there are any number of minds that can come up with scenarios where they, subjectively, believe that killing is not morally wrong.
If you invoke the use of language, written or oral, the statement is subjective. Period.