Your Majesty,
What says you about the dog?
That’s pretty indisputable.
I have already weighed in about the dog.
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.
Claiming to have seen a faster car does not in fact make the car faster. You have to take the car to the track and actually…race it?
Against other cars, for example.
And building a race car based on how you imagine it will perform “on paper” – as an engineering project – is certainly not how most scientists approach their own work. They tend to test these assumptions “out in the world”.
And that is because “out in the world” the conditions can vary considerably. Track conditions, weather conditions; the reliability of the interacting parts; the capabilities of the car “in traffic”; the car’s cornering capacity; the car’s susceptibility to breakdowns and pit stops.
Similarly, if every single pregnancy was eactly the same, it might be considerably easier to calculate one’s moral perspective if, perchance, it happened to become an unwanted pregnancy.
Major misunderstanding between us here. There is a distinction between “subjective” and “subject dependent”. Language depends on a subject who uses it (it is “subject dependent”). But the referents of our words are not thereby “subjective”.
According to your view: “There is a tree in the yard” is a subjective claim—and that’s a misuse of language. I’d call it a reductio. Same with your view that math is subjective. You just misunderstand the important distinction.
Here’s the example I use to demonstrate the distinction between “subjective” and “subject dependent”. Physical health. It takes a physical subject to have physical health. Physical health is “subject-dependent”. But physical health is not subjective. It matters not what your opinion is about calories… if you have too many of them, you will get fat. The same principles and distinction apply to language. Subjects use language, but the referents of our words are not thereby subjective.
Ultimately, your view commits you to saying that math and science are subjective—and that’s just a reductio ad absurdum against your view. It’s absurd.
What is said was “this sentence is made by a mind”. It doesn’t matter what was called what within the statement.
Then he said, “the truth of the statement is not a matter of the mind”. Again, it doesn’t matter what was labeled what within the statement. The actual claim is not up to the reader. If the reader decides that he meant something other than what he really meant, it doesn’t make the claim false, but merely misrepresented or misunderstood. The effectiveness of or flaws in the communication does not determine the match between the intention and the reality. The message being garbled does not change what was trying to be sent. It is the match between the intention and the reality that determines the truth.
In public, certain definitions are expected and if those definitions are changed, one might think that a lie has been told because a false sense of “objective language” is assumed. But the question is always the intention of the author, not the susceptibility of the language to be confused. In obvious cases, one can claim that a lie was told only because it is obvious that the word choices were really intended to mean as they were read. But again, it is always a question of what was intended, and that has nothing to do with the language or someone else’s chosen interpretation. Either the intention matches reality or it doesn’t.
You just proved my point. It is the intention that counts, not the language.
You seem to have an interesting way of standing on both sides of an argument during a single post. 
That’s simply false. You do the science… you account for variations… you use the laws of nature… and it works. The only reasons scientists test anything, is to see if they have the actual science correct, if they’ve understood the variations, the complexities, etc. But if they work accurately on paper, and account for what they need to, and understand the relevant variables in play, then it will work in the world every single time.
You don’t need to fly to the moon in order to figure out how to fly to the moon. That’s just ridiculous.
So ultimately you understand now. Your metaphor is quite right. The question now is just how much you want to be the King of France. My own theories and philosophies have changed over the years. There is no reason why yours shouldn’t and you shouldn’t feel the least bit of anything wrong with toning down the relativism, even to a lesser degree of the same. Baby steps.
It would seem that you are right if we are to speak in good faith and with respect to general physical health. You would find very few people that disagree with the statement, “A five-hundred pound person is unhealthy.” However, such a person could view themselves as healthy and say, “But, I feel healthy.”
That’s beside the point. When you want to talk about an objective morality, then you’re going to be talking about an objectively correct moral decision, with exactitude. It would be like me asking you to point out a person who is in perfect physical health. You point at guy x, I say that guy x is a couple pounds underweight. You point at guy y, well, it turns out he has the beginning stages of liver failure and doesn’t know it.
When you discuss morality, you are not actually dicussing actions, you are discussing what you think of those actions. When you discuss physical health you are not discussing people, you are discussing what you think of those people.
Math is subjective because it is purely a human construct and is used predominantly to describe relationships. Math does not occur in nature, the relationships that Math describes occasionally do, but not Math itself. It’s basically the same thing with science, the basic goal of science is to try to determine what objectively exists, in terms of things and relationships, and to determine what is objectively true. We apply names to these things in the language of science. The chemical formula for Magnesium Hydroxide Mg(OH)2 is a human construct and is not a priori knowledge, that there is actual, physical Magnesium Hydroxide is, however, objective.
That doesn’t really work, because then we could claim that it was always our intention to speak the truth. That’s precisely why people must agree as to the meaning of the words, otherwise, the intention of the speaker does not matter and nobody would be able to ascertain the truth of the speaker’s statements.
I would argue that the effectiveness of or flaws in the communication are determinative of everything, which is precisely why language must be agreed upon. For instance, if I don’t have a, “Code names,” game with someone and they see that a tanker truck is crossing the intersection in front of me and that person yells, “Floor it!” when the actual intention, or what they wanted, was the equivalent of, “STOP!!!” then we’re probably going to die.
To that extent, how well we agree upon language or communicate can actually have a bearing upon reality itself. In the reality where you tell me to stop, we may live, in the reality where you yell at me to floor it, if I listen, we probably die.
The other problem with that is that we have to communicate well in order to communicate our intentions. I would argue that this is true to the extent that if we run around calling trees, “Glasses of root beer,” and nobody else is in on the, “Code name game,” they’re going to think that we’re crazy when we say we liked to climb glasses of root beer and drink trees when we were kids.
Depending on how poorly one does or does not communicate, the intentions behind a certain statement may never be known, and as such, are completely irrelevant to anything including the truth or falsity of the statement.
The intention can count for something, but only where the language is agreed upon. With, “Code words,” we have a pre-arranged agreement (just like we learn language from our parents, as children) that a certain phrase has a certain meaning. With something such as, “Code words,” to say that the language doesn’t count is an act of sheer folly. How could I play code words with someone who is not using language in the same way that I am? They would think that I was talking nonsense, or at a minimum, literally talking about having Meat Loaf for dinner, which has nothing to do with what I want to convey.
I guess I should also point out that intention is also subjective, which is precisely why we may misunderstand what another person’s intention is. If intention were objective, there would be far fewer misunderstandings, especially those that occur despite the fact we are using language the same way!
What? Why?
No, you are talking about actions.
No, wrong again. This isn’t about whether you like the person… it’s about physiology, biology… human health.
Stop right there. Did you forget the distinction I just made for you? Key point: If your position requires you to say that math is subjective (i.e., dependent on the opinions of people), then you need to reconsider your position. And you need to reconsider it fast.
I would say that for it to be objective, it first has to be physical, but we’ll ignore that for right now. Even if it did not have to be physical, the decision must be objectively correct, with exactitude, because an object is one thing. In other words, there could only be one, “Most moral,” decision if morality is objective. You could not have two, “Most moral,” decisions where the decisions are opposed to one another. We certainly may have different ideas of what makes the decision the, “Most moral,” one, though, and that’s what makes it subjective. We can not know that a moral decision we made is the best one, we can know when we have walked into a tree.
There certainly is an action to be discussed, but when we’re discussing morality, we’re talking about the meaning that the action had for us, individually. What action could have happened that would have been, “More moral,” or better, what action could have happened that would have been, “Less moral,” or worse. Furthermore, we often gauge the morality of actions to what we, individually, think we would do in the same situation. A moral disagreement is nothing more than a disagreement about how two people think things should be done, with the exception being that someone could admit to not acting within the confines of his/her own morality.
Moral discussions tend to go, “Deeper,” than the action, though. They go deeper than that which is merely objective. We get into morality when we try to decide what certain actions mean to us. The guy kicks his dog, one physical object interacts with another, that’s what happens, “On the surface,” which is to say objectively. However, there is a reason why the guy kicked his dog, there are emotions that seeing the kicking off the dog may or may not illicit from you, and you may or may not feel a certain way about the dog being kicked. When you get into considerations beyond the physical act itself you have gone beyond the objective and have entered into the subjective.
No, wrong again. This isn’t about whether you like the person… it’s about physiology, biology… human health.
[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about liking the person or not. I meant whether or not you think the person is healthy. I might know something about the person that you do not know, or, we may just look at a person and disagree, in general, as to whether or not the person is healthy.
Stop right there. Did you forget the distinction I just made for you? Key point: If your position requires you to say that math is subjective (i.e., dependent on the opinions of people), then you need to reconsider your position. And you need to reconsider it fast.
[/quote]
I’m going to try this again, because I like you. You cannot have Math without people and you cannot have Math without a language. You cannot have morality without people or a language. You can have a tree without people being present. You can have a dog without a person existing. The dog can piss on the tree whether or not a person is there. People are also objective in that they exist, physically. Math does not physically exist, some things that Math describes do.
The practically has nothing at all to do with the reality.
He didn’t claim that such was the best thing since peanut butter.
He merely stated the truth of it, not that any moron couldn’t screw it up.
I’m having trouble figuring out what you mean in the first sentence.
Pav,
- You don’t need an exact answer to do morality objectively. That’s just obvious. All you have to do is have something more than, “Well, killing is morally right because I think it is”. (—That’s subjective)
- The most rational decision is the one with the balance of reasons in its favor.
- As I’ve said before—and after this, I won’t repeat myself for you—some people do not know when they’ve walked into a tree. Fact. They call it a wall, or a house, or a horse. I’ve already been through this before. I just can’t stomach it to have to repeat it.
Simply fucking false.
[/quote]
Simply fucking false. Why don’t you try to do alittle philosophy and ask the question: “Why do I think what I do?”. You’ll come up with reasons. Some of them will be better than others. Some of them will frankly be bad reasons to think what you do. (E.g., The dog ought to have suffered because it has four legs). In a moral disagreement, you examine reasons for what you think… the same as in any other fucking area of inquiry.
This is why Faust has no business being here. He thinks the dog ought not have suffered—but he can’t name a single fucking reason. ‘Rational discussion’—that’s what we do here, right?
No offence, but I can’t read the rest right now…
Right, so you back up your subjective statement with, “Reasons,” but guess what, the reasons themselves are also subjective. I think killing is morally wrong because I don’t think one human being has the right to take another human being’s life away. That’s my opinion, it’s a reason, but it’s also an opinion. It’s not objectively true or false, my reasons are just as subjective as my moral assertion was in the first place.
I think it is morally wrong to kill someone because, pursuant to the Golden Rule, I would certainly not want to be killed and it wouldn’t be right to do something to someone that I would not want done to myself. Again, “The Golden Rule,” is not objectively true or false. It’s a choice. Some people abide by it, some people don’t, most people situationally abide by it.
I do not think it is morally right to kill someone because it will have a negative emotional impact on that person’s family. Subjective. For other people, the emotional impact on the person’s family may well be a non-consideration.
The reasons are no less subjective than the blanket moral statement.
I would say that is definitionally true, almost by necessity. The question is what decision, with countless possible decisions available in some situations, is the most rational? How do we weigh reasons in favor of something versus reasons against something? Quantitatively? Qualitatively (which is to say different reasons have more or less strength than other reasons)? Both? These are all subjective considerations. They vary from person to person.
A tree is one thing. An individual tree does not vary, it changes, but it does not vary.
Yes, we examine reasons, that’s fine. The examination and comparison of our reasons does not give the reasons objectivity. I think for something to be morally objectively true you would need the agreement of every single individual moral agent in the Universe, at a minimum.
Firstly, i don’t mean that i think the dog ought not to have suffered. I mean that i think that the dog ought not to have been abused. For that, i have given a reason - that i have a soft spot for dogs - that i like dogs.
On that first part, it makes no sense to say that the ought not to have suffered. To use the word “ought”, you have to assign some kind of responsibility to someone. Sometimes, animals suffer even when it’s nobody’s fault. My claim is that the dog ought not to have been abused. Hopefully, you can make out the distinction.
As for this:
This is just soooo wrong. You claim it takes a physical subject to have physical health. You mean, like a human? A physical object?
This is you modus operandi - just use the words you wish to make your point. To call a human a “subject” in order to establish that the human’s health is “subject-dependent” is just ridiculous. You seem to be saying that humans are subjects and nonhmans are objects and…this is like a grammar lesson gone evil. I am a "subject’ only to myself. The s/o dichotomy describes a relation, not a set of atomic definitons.
Subjects use language - again, as in “humans are subjects” - ??? - that’s not what the subjective-objective dichotomy is even about.
i think I have finally understood your misunderstanding, which is both profound and uninteresting. I’ve never been able to say that before.
You’re right, i really don’t belong here.
No, but we don’t throw up our hands and say some forms of cancer are just beyond science’s purview. There’s a method to tackle them. How does prudentiality apply to fundamental values?
Let’s specify act consequentialism - rule consequentialism is applied deontology insofar as the motive to action is rule-following (because that generally has the best consequences) rather than examination of the specifics, and I shall treat it as such.
Virtue ethics and deontology can conflict with consequentialism in, for example, the concept of a just war Some things may cause more suffering than alternatives but should still be done because it is important to fight the good fight. Virtue ethics and consequentialism conflict with deontology insofar as they insist on specifics and context, and are prepared to bend rules in certain circumstances. Consequentialism and deontology conflict with virtue ethics in that they make no demands of intention or character.
I like cherries, because they’re objectively soft and sweet and juicy. Now my liking cherries is objective fact. What’s left to subjectivity?
Contextual is not the same as (culturally) relative unless the culture’s view of killing is part of the context. I don’t think extracultural morality makes sense, personally - I don’t believe that it’s up to everyone to make up morality as they go along, nor do I think morality is something that’s discovered, like new planets or chemical processes. I think that morality is a society’s way of realising its vision of how people should be guided by common values. Those values and visions are entirely products of human minds interacting - and responding to their (objective) environment. But mind-dependent they are.
I shall moderate my language accordingly, apologies.
A statement about the existence of a tree in a yard is objectively true or false whether it’s in English or French or Japanese, and whether or not I understand it. At least, by the standard understanding of statements relating to the world.
A statement about which political candidate one should vote for may reference objective criteria, but it is subjective - there is no objectively best candidate (usually, assuming a lack of death or severe mental impairment, say) as what is ‘best’ depends on the values I wish the candidate to support.
Sorry, that was supposed to be “the practicality…”.
How practical something is has no bearing on its validity.
I agree with the second paragraph entirely.
I agree with the first paragraph, but my statement was meant to be one having more to do with usefulness than anything. The tree is certainly the tree in any language or no language at all, my point is that what we decide to call the, “Tree,” is subjective, and to give the linguistics any meaning we have to be in agreement about language. A Japanese individual can talk about the tree until he/she is blue in the face, but it will mean absolutely nothing to me (though it means something to them and they are referring to an object) because I speak absolutely no Japanese.
In that sense, that we use language is an objective fact. We hear ourselves making sounds, and there are sound waves that physically exist that we produce. We can see writing and recognize the writing as language whether or not we understand it. It is what the sounds (or words) being produced mean that is subjective, because the same word can certainly mean two different things to two different people.