IMO, both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ are incomplete in describing reality, because they’re two sides of a coin. Thus you must start your analysis from one point or the other and limit analysis of one in the context of the other being true or false. An objective reality can’t accomodate the individual perspective (Nagel’s “What is it Like to be a Bat?”). In a subjective reality, the objective reality is limited to being created (the sound of the tree falling) only as the subject observes itself. What isn’t (yet?) known or understood is another thingie (state? realm? dimension?) where the subject and object dissolve and their relationships, or how they interact, reveal the truth of how they exist. Don’t know if or how this can be done. In a sense, it can be pointed to in the conceptual world, I guess, but there’s always the chance that it may be beyond even that. However, I’d like to think that some scientist will eventually explain it definitively (rather than some philosopher suggesting the possibility), although he or she may be subject to burning at the stake for it.
I think the definitions revolve around the concept of “perception”. That, by definition, “subjective” is the “perceived” reality, and “objective” is the “independent of perception reality”. It makes no claims as to what those things are, just that they exist. I think.
The idea is that “perception” has an objective reality associated with it.
there is no thing in itself.
-Imp
I think the belief in the existence of the “objective” assumes that there is. The idea requires this belief/assumption.
The idea seemed to be useful for explaining the concept of evil.
Gee, I sure hope there are, otherwise we are all deceived.
But I think the point Membrain is making would be how can there be an idea of a thing without a form of a thing.
I think the problem is here is mostly one of categorization, as I see no reason a notion connotates a form. Evil is not a thing as an idea, nor would it be a thing if it was objective.
It’s like asking… what is the color of sound?
Now then class, I am thinking of a paper knife… 
Exist how?
Is the form of the thing the same as the thing? If not, then it must possess some essential ‘thing-ness’, an inherently separate existence from other things. But we know that’s not possible.
To clarify: the idea is that an idea is a form of a thing.
It’s a bit of an idea about an idea.
Logically, as an argument opposed to non-existence (this is the most hard-core example that I can think of: the argument against asserting that things do not exist).
But I would discourage involvement in an argument in threads where one disagrees with a core tenet of the axiom. 
Ah, yeah I see your point.
But that is categorical projection. The earth was revolving around the sun before we knew about it. Does evil cease to be if we cease thinking about it? What does that say of its objective dependence on our idea?
I guess it depends on how you think objective reality is manifested.
You and I can conceive of a paper knife, but it lacks utility in the objective world.
Plus, I’d have to believe in evil being “in the world,” when I think it’s really only in people - and all the evil we see, is really from people. You just see the effect of the idea, not the idea existing objectively.
As things go “evil” is my perception of something, be it a person, thing, idea but i have given it a label, catergorised it if you will, and to me if its got a catergory then it has certain attributes and i think thats where the argument is, are certain attributes of an idea enough to give it objectivity.
Hey, Membrain, I was finally able to vote “yes” to one of your polls!
However, I had to redefine “objective” in a way you probably wouldn’t agree with in order to do that. As you know, I regard the question of whether there is “objective reality” defined as something that exists independently of observation to be meaningless. However, one may define “objective” operationally as “consistently observable by multiple observers, part of the collective as opposed to the individual and idiosynchratic reality.” By this definition, I have no problem with the idea of “objective” reality.
Using that definition, it seems clear to me that the fact that people make subjective value judgments is part of our collective, objective reality. So I voted “yes.”
However, I’m not sure this has much bearing on the question of objective good and evil, since that is dependent not on the mere FACT that subjective value judgments are being made, but rather on the CONTENT of those judgments. And there is no way to determine objectively what value judgments should be made in a particular context; one must reason from core value judgments that have already been made and agreed upon subjectively.
Lord o’ mercy! 
I think we can just agree that there is some kind of content without requiring knowing exactly what it is. Although if we define evil as a set of actions, can’t we witness those actions happening? I’m thinking that if a thing is subjectively defined, that its objective existence becomes provable since the conditions for its existence are manufactured.
Let’s take sport scores: In football a touchdown is six points. There is no objective reason for the score, it’s a purely subjective occurrence. But when the game is played, can we claim that six points are being added to the score objectively? It seems that there is an objective reality now to the sport scores because we subjectively enforce them.
That enforcement reflects intersubjective reality, not objective reality. There’s the common agreement amongst parties that when a certain event occurs (touchdown), there will be a particular outcome (6 points given).
An objective description (not that I agree with the idea of ‘objective reality’, btw) is that an event occurred: a guy crossed a line (albeit intersubjectively-determined) holding an object. Another event is that a human pressed a piece of plastic that sent an electrical current to some bulbs, lighting them up a pattern (forget digital, I can’t describe it, lol). Objectively speaking, these events aren’t ‘football’, because they can occur independently of each other. This isn’t to imply that the events exist independently, mind you, just that either can occur outside of the subjective context of ‘football’.
I suppose we can also include the “objective-intersubjective” as a definition in that the intersubjective has an objective reality associated with it just like the subjective has.
I suppose “football” objectively exists when the events that occur occur non-independently: crossing the line, pushing a button, changing the score; when these things happen dependent on each other , this is the objective reality of “football”. The objectivity takes into account the sequence.
So I guess I’m unclear as how those events happen independent of each other. They seem dependent (in the case of “football”).
Yep, but i’d argue its a survival instinct and also socially conditioned. As a survival instinct we use what’s scientifically known as “homeostasis” staying true to our beliefs, we stop being drawn by the crowd and retain our sense of individuality, giving us independence from a conformative few. (You could argue this point)
“Socially conditioned” anything that sounds ridiculous is shunned, or anything that takes time and effort is left up to someone else to convince us. That’s the way it’s always been hasn’t it?
I’m sure alot of you smart guys out there have had a time in your life when you knew 'THE FAST WAY" or “THE SMART WAY” to do something.
And everyone INSISTS that you’re wrong!
Not until they start doing it anyway. Then “they knew all along”.
shakes head
“Existence of subjectivity”
It’s in the nature of our logic, i’ve heard. In this westernized style of thinking, it’s always “you” or “I”. “Them” or “us”. “Subjective existence” i’m trying to argue something along the lines of “you exist due to the fact that something or someone else affirms you. In that sense you are subjective.”
Any takers? LoL 
My favorite common man’s philosopher Mortimer Adler articulated a basis for subjectivity having some form of pseudo-objectivity.
He approaches it from the view that mental processes can be conceptualized as ideas. These ideas are personal to us, but can be understood by others that perceive and develop ideas. So, subjective notions such as ‘a blue cup’ can be at once a personal perception, but also one that I can share with another person as a ‘public’ perception and we both can perceive and have a general idea of ‘a blue cup’. In this sense our subjective experiences can be shared and understood, objectively.
Of course, this is not the objectivity that science demands. My ‘blue cup’ and your ‘blue cup’ cannot be subjected to rigorous tests to establish that to borrow a tech word, they are invariant under all conditions.
But, the essential idea is sound. My personal perceptions once ideated can become understood and shared in a general sense applicable to a whole class of concepts. If this isn’t an objectivity. Then well blue cups don’t exists!