You can say it’s subjective if you want to but then you have to differentiate between different kinds of subjectivities. Otherwise, you’re making the same kind of mistake Biguous is making and that is equalizing subjectivies by reducing them to “it’s whatever makes you feel good” way of thinking.
To me, to be objective means to have a full aerial, all-embracing, view of impulses within your nervous system. It means nothing more than this. To be subjective means to be selective – it means you are excluding certain impulses from your view.
I have no idea what “different kinds of subjectivities” means. As far I know, there is only one ‘subjective’.
That sounds subjective.
I’m pretty sure that’s not in accord with any definition of ‘subjective’. It just sounds like subjectively favoring some impulses over other impulses, but objectiveness is not ‘equal’ treatment or consideration of all impulses.
Objectivity means registering and processing every incoming impulse within your mind. Subjectivity means excluding certain impulses from being registered (Apollonian nihilism) or processed (Dionysian nihilism.)
There is no other concept of objectivity that is realistic. There is no absolute objectivity. It’s a lie people believe due to inter-subjectivity, which is to say, due to shared means of perception.
Their language is corrupt. You do not want to use a popular language that is corrupt. You want to force upon them the right language. If they don’t like it, it’s their problem not yours.
So the Earth isn’t spinning in the right direction. You are going to correct it?
It isn’t your Earth. And it isn’t your language. You have no power over either.
Abusing their words IS the “corruption”. They provide plenty of other words with which to express your view of how things “should be” (by your personal view).
Neither you nor I declare and set their standards for anything. And thus if we wish to communicate without mindless confrontation, we are both confined to their standard. It is a bit like filling out an IRS form. What you think things mean provides no protection at all against the consequences of your presumptions. Just try to tell them what “inflammable” really means.
Since others are talking about issues that are independent of personal opinion, whether that is what “objective” really should mean or not, do you believe that there really are such issues and more specifically, are there any issues that could be called “moral behavior” that fit such an independent standing?
This is most definitely not true. Whether we all know, or even any of us know, the truth of objective morality or indeed whether such a thing exists at all, has no bearing on whether it does and what it consists of. You may as well say that if mathematics is objective, it must be within human genes. It is a complete misunderstanding of what it means for something to be objective.
You seem to be assuming that we need to have morality “programmed in” somehow. This does not have to be the case and, given widespread disagreement about moral issues, it seems it is not the case.
James: I have never given the definition of a “living being” overly much thought as I don’t think it is relevant to morality. I suppose I would say that to be living one must have the capacity for growth, reproduction, change and death. Although a cluster definition might be more useful. Either way, I would say a living being is anything for which it is true that it is “alive”. Does that answer your question?
Certainly you agree that moral behavior is only relevant to living beings? Thus there must be something about being alive that makes moral behavior relevant. And I would add that morality is actually only relevant to a special case of the living, specifically the sentient with capability of conscience. Insects are alive and one could stretch the notion of morality to fit their case, but what would be the point. Morality involves rules to play by and only a specific class of living creature can do that, homosapian barely fitting into that category.
The defining characteristics of a living being distinguishes it from the non-living by requiring a type of behavior, specifically the effort to survive (which happens to also include joy, but that is another subject). The idea of morality merely gives social foundation to that inherent function. If you are living, then you already are trying to survive. And to be moral merely means that you are doing it “properly” (assuming “proper” to mean “in the best way”).
The inanimate, non-living, or dead have no morality issues because they can not strive toward a purpose (even if they happen to serve one). Morality is about how one strives, struggles, or attempts to survive such as to be one of the living. Thus morality and being one of the living are eternally and objectively bound as each serves the other.
Phyllo: Morality, at least what I mean when I say morality, deals with not only human beings but all potential persons. Perhaps this disagreement arises from us meaning different things when we use the word “morality”. What exactly do you mean by “morality”? What I mean is “The way in which persons ought to be or act where ought is understood in a universal, categorical way”.
Phyllo second comment: Yes I am a real laugh-riot. Are you suggesting that the precise definition of life is particularly important to morality? Must be nail down whether viruses ought to be considered alive before we deal with any moral questions? That strikes me as rather an odd position to take.
James: I don’t know. Depends what we mean by living. I could conceive of an artificial intelligence that I would call a moral agent, but do we want to call that “living”? More importantly, and I think we are in agreement on this, it is not all living beings that are morally relevant. The case of an insect you discuss is a good one, it is certainly alive, but it is not a moral agent and it would be silly to talk of it acting rightly or wrongly. Morality applies to persons. That is; to conscious, rational and free entities.
However, I would say that being alive does not require trying to survive. There are many things, both persons and not, which are alive right now that are most certainly not trying to survive and are actively trying to end their life. From the seriously ill seeking to hasten the end through assisted suicide protocols to spiders that hop in the mouth of the female to be eaten once they are done mating or the antechinus literally shagging itself to death. Living beings do not all try to survive for the duration of the time they ought to be classified as living. What you are saying about living beings is factually inaccurate.
On a different note, what do you mean humans “barely” fit into the category of moral agents? Are you suggesting that we have only just made it over the moral bar? It is certainly possible that we are the only animal to do this, though I suspect that some of the great apes may require more investigation before we can rule them out as at least persons in the same way that a child is a person.
.
Everything that isn’t living is dying … or dead.
If we can’t settle on what being alive means, we can’t settle on whether being alive is relevant to morality.
Defining morality as “how one ought to behave” is tautological. The term “ought to” conveys no more meaning than “moral” and both presume a standard. My question to you is whether you believe that;
A) There is an objective moral standard,
B) Moral standards are rationally founded,
C) Moral standards are aberrantly emergent,
D) Moral standards are passed down from “above”.
I support the notion that morality is rationally founded and that foundation can be discovered via the definition of “being alive”, thus morality is actually objective but not necessarily anything like what morality has always been taught to be. Perhaps the highest moral code allows or disallows different things than normally expected.
One thing that I can tell for certain is that without clear, unambiguous definitions of the terms, nothing can be resolved in discussion (e.g. “rational”, “moral”, “living”, “ought”…).
My understanding of the highest moral code reveals that homosapian cannot actually maintain it, although he senses something close to it. This trait appears to be a function of the limit of homosapian intelligence. By “barely fitting into the category [of being a moral agent]”, I am referring to the apparent fact that homosapian has a very difficult time comprehending true morality (and in fact, has never shown a precisely accurate understanding of it).
If reality, realism =objective, and meaning=subjective, (drawn with grossly wide brush), the mechanism that’s in play here is of meaning and reality have been confounded, so as to avail to the question of ‘the meaning of reality’.As if, meaning had some kind of a goal or project to become real. Ultimately, the question becomes meaningless, as meaning strives to completely overlap reality, with the projection of a being in the world with no difference(s).
But why such a goal, or project? Because of the signification of that need.
For that reason, different consciousnesses will have to reduce to imperceptibility, by virtue of, and in spite of it’s self. That exclusion is not a conscious mechanism, is the further progression of this, and therefore, there may be very little, if any, excersize of will in the matter.
The representations , or the recognition falters, remotely, not because the horizon is shrinking, but because it looses significance.
I know you are not asking why, or how, but stating the thesis, representing the the mechanism of what is, because it is, but the absolute subjective as the objective needs existence as value.
