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.