In which case, we determine degree of objectivity either through application, and how our expectations match the consequences; or by comparing perspectives to a shared reality.
Like comparing two maps to a geography.
Nope, nothing to do with being soft or hard. Nothing to do with being humble or arrogant.
It’s all about taking what you think is true as a “subject” out into a particular world and, in particular contexts, interacting with others. In other words, figuring out ways that, for all practical purposes, allow you to live together with the least dysfunction.
Well, given the extent to which you are able to convince yourselves that some things seem true for all and some things do not. Then it all comes down to real world interactions embedded in the actual enforcement of behaviors legally and politically re might makes right, right makes might and/or moderation, negotiation and compromise superstructures.
In what I presume to be a No God world. And given the manner in which I have come to understand and intertwine all this [as an existential contraption] in my signature threads.
But Iambiguous! You already know for a fact that our limitations cause consent violations here BY NECESSITY!!
Let’s say that billions of people want to be your friend… and shake your hand with billions of different bodies… we know scientifically that the most friends a person can have is 150. That’s zero sum. 150 compared to billions. That’s going to violate the consent of billions of people!
Once you truly understand this truth, you’ll be furious about this aspect of the zero sum nature of reality, and then you’ll be on my mission – trying to eradicate this.
You haven’t joined me yet, because you’re still not sympathetic to the REAL PROBLEM WERE FACING HERE!!! You’re just churning out FAKE PROBLEMS
In regards to abortion, euthanasia or any moral dilemma…there is no absolute final answer.
It’s a triangulation.
Subject the circumstances and the goal.
What is the objective?
This determines if a choice is good or bad, productive or destructive.
But that’s the start.
The objective has to be realistic, not based on fantasies with no precedent. It has to be realistic - realizable.
The Spartans killed the cripples infants because of their objective - strong, healthy warriors. It was moral if by moral we understand good for the group.
Everything that’s happened in your entire life has been unprecedented – this is true for all of us. What’s wrong with the unprecedented?
I’m not too fond of quitters.
Get help.
And be like you, a slave to “fate”, to just roll over when your consent is being violated? No thanks. I guess I’ll just help you. Still suckling off mommys tits I see. The unprecedented is the fight. You know, if I didn’t have such good karma, I’d have been shot dead 11 years ago… you are all very lucky that I can teach. The ONLY reason I’m still alive is because I had the best karma in the world, you all owe me, and on some deep level, you know it.
This world was destroyed. I brought it back. I left easter eggs so that you’d know. I mean COMON!! REALLY? The washington DC license plates REALLY say “Taxation without representation”?!?!?! It’s my way of saying hello… Everyone knows that the phrase is “NO taxation without representation.” I wanted you all to know that you’re in a recreated world, I wanted to show you proof.
Yes…you truly understood me. I am a fatalist. Ask Brian.
I did not state they are exactly the same in every way and perspective.
Would it be right to state “disease” = “bacteria” or
“reality” = “energy”
To be philosophical responsible we must dig deeper.
Intersubjectivity is the process that enable the emergence of objectification.
Who will deny this objective fact;
Miss Universe 2019 is Zozibini Tunzi from South Africa!
missuniverse.com/
But this objective fact is based on the intersubjective consensus of all the judges who has to follow defined criteria by the Miss Universe Organization.
It is the same with scientific facts which are objective but they are grounded by the rules of the Scientific Framework and Scientific Methods plus peer review. Thus objective scientific truths are fundamentally intersubjective, i.e. based on intersubjective consensus.
To get to what is ‘objective’ we cannot ignore the fundamental process of intersubjective consensus.
Note my post above where I stated,
Intersubjectivity is the process that enable the emergence of objectification.
What is objective must always be qualified and conditioned upon its relevant defined framework, whether it is a beauty-contest-organization, boxing-association, scientific method, etc.
There cannot be a standalone standard that determined what is objective.
You are looking for something that is absolutely objective? This is an impossibility within reality.
However there are degrees of confidence level to what is objective which is dependent on the reliability of the framework concerned.
To date, Science [not perfect] is the most reliable intersubjective framework to establish what is objective to the most optimal degree at present, due to its process of testability, verifiability, repeatability, falsifiability, peer review, etc.
In the case of legal, it is objective X is a convicted murder, but that is only qualified to a specific legislature system and the intersubjective processes.
My point;
Objectivity is intersubjective.
Intersubjectivity consensus is dependent on the system and process that enable the emergence of objectification.
Objectivity is like omnipotence and omniscience, a projected ideal.
It approaches the indifference of the real world, without ever attaining absolute agreement - the organism will always be affected by care - its own need/suffering corrupting or prejudicing its judgments - and by the limitations of its own organic imperfections.
Objectivity is not an absolute, no more than power is omnipotence, or knowledge is ever omniscience.
Any claim of an absolute, i.e., complete, whole, total, perfect - theory is a lie, usually hiding the opposite.
A claim to absolute power, hides feebleness, powerlessness.
All declarations of self-aggrandizing attainment, reveal a secret insecurity.
Consider the arrogant self-importance expressed in Christianity. it hides a vulnerability in relation to mortality, and the human condition.
Science, mathematics and semiotics are all the children of logic.
Logic can most certainly detect things that are true for all POSSIBLE beings, thus entering a realm of the transcendent, the objective.
Any possible being born into existence, where there were no beings before, ever, will INSTANTLY be beholden to the law that they don’t want their consent violated. This law precedes life (assuming anything precedes life), the reason this is true, is because this truth is transcendent. No being has a choice in the matter.
Okay, so when contentions pop up regarding these distinctions, let’s take them out into the world and in regard to a context in which conflicts arise, let’s flesh out our meaning.
Huh? Take any issue in which disagreements thrive. Conflicting goods, for example. All we can do [for all practical purposes] is to note those things that are true for all of us. In regard to abortion, there are biological facts embedded in sets of circumstances that all can agree on. We can grapple with compromises in regard to when the unborn becomes a “human being”. Given the biological facts that we are certain of in regard to human life from conception to birth.
Clearly, all we can do there is our best. At least sans a demonstration that an actual omniscient/omnipotent God does in fact exist. If the evidence is overwhelming, indisputable that Jane was impregnated as a result of being raped by John, but some insist that she is not even pregnant at all, sure, you can claim this is all “subjective”.
See how far that get’s out in, for example, the real world.
Unless, of course, you’ve witnessed someone who has claimed this eating ice cream hundreds of times and in every instance she ate only vanilla ice cream. Things that individual subjects claim either can or cannot be verified. But what if someone claims that she eats chocolate ice cream because all rational men and women are obligated to only eat chocolate ice cream. Or what if someone poisoned the ice cream of another and they died. She had her reasons. How is it determined that in fact this behavior is necessarily immoral?
Yes, there are any number of things that can be said about chocolate ice cream that are either true or false. And I suspect that these things are embedded in the either/or world.
Really? What on earth are historical and cultural value judgments if not the embodiment of many different subjects coming together to concoct one or another consensus regarding one or another set of behaviors?
Iambiguous,
I already gave the prochoice and anti abortion proof on these boards, it’s like nothing sinks into your brain EVER!!
The proof is for pro choice:
If you want to treat fetuses as consensual adults, then do so!! Ask actual adults whether they’d have wanted to be aborted or not, whether they’d consent to their abortions. You’ll find that a certain percentage love their mothers and fathers enough that if the mother and father could go back and time and abort them, that they’d accept this.
Then I went into further proof mode by stating: who do we want here on earth? People who don’t give a shit about anyone else’s consent and want to be born no matter what (the anti-abortionists) or people who respect the people who are already here (the pro-choicers)?
The proof makes it obvious, even though pro choices may be aborted, they are the only ones that humans really want to be born on planet earth. NOBODY really wants an anti-abortionist to be born on earth!! They’re greedy, narcissistic, parent hating, soul sucking slime!!
Iambiguous… you’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer by far… you are mostly an “in one ear out the other” poster. You don’t actually engage in debate. I’m sure on some level that you believe your posts have EVER been a debate, but reality check, none of them have been.
You’d think that with every poster on ILP (with the exception of – well I can’t even say it) telling you that you never debate, that you’d understand “hmm… there might be something to that”
Look at me for example: people have at times stated that I don’t debate cough who’s name defends you and I cannot speak cough, but if you really ask people on these boards whether I debate, they’ll definitely agree that I do.
So we are two different types of posters here ambiguous. actually you are a different type of poster from almost everyone on this board… one of the non debaters cough like your defender cough
Everyone knows on this board that your defender is not a debater as well.
Common misconception about the subjective/objective distinction. The taste of pineapple is subjective. If we had different taste buds, it would taste different. Yet you could say all people taste pineapple the same way. It’s still subjective.
I don’t.
You mean like: there are no moral truths so it wouldn’t be immoral to violate my (lack of) consent?
Again, what do you mean? Is it: I don’t want to violate your consent (because I’m nice) so instead I’ll agree with your subjectivism. ← Are we really limited to those two options?
Hold on now. So you’re saying there are the subjectivists, and then there are those who believe the subjectivists. Doesn’t that mean that there are just subjectivists?
Now that’s just insulting.
Why does everything funnel down to sex with you?
All I got out of this is that subjectivists deceive people by sending out false sex signals.
The subjective is a relationship with the objective world.
The chemical composition of a fruit is objective reality. How it affects the organism is its subjective relationship with it. It may be beneficial and taste good; it may be toxic and taste bad.
The subjective is an interpretation of a shared objective reality.
The objective reality is not static but dynamic - fluctuating - meaning that the subject is contant revalidating and adjusting tis relationship to it, but the fluctuations are not so great as to make reality incomprehensible - patterns can be identified, by the subject, to help it predict, foresee and adapt.
We call such patterns Laws of Nature.
On a smaller scale we call them matter/energy, perceived as appearance. Therefore how something appears is not only not superficial but it is essential.
Organic life has evolved simplifying/generalizing methods of processing reality sensually.
Color, form, taste, shape, texture, smell, sound, may be subjective interpretations of the world but they are essential. Their quality - accuracy - determining the survival of the individual.
Gib,
I know you’re nice. My message was more directed at iambiguous who always calls us “kids”
It’s also about the fact that almost my whole life has been a supernatural life. I’m actually trying to help you. When you send out the message that ethics is only and always subjective, you become a target BY YOUR OWN WORDS. You’re not setting a boundary, and this is not only unhealthy… it’s like sending a spotlight to the spirit world “please, please violate my consent”. It’s literally one of the dumbest things you can do. There’s a good reason why people don’t say”it’s JUST objective”, but they do say, “it’s JUST subjective” because subjective is meaningless.
I don’t want you to experience what I have. So I offer you my best advice.
Because a frustrated libido is an incredible force and can cause all kinds of emotional and intellectual disturbances… some materializing into complex forms of delusion. The greater the intelligence of the sufferer, the more sophisticated the delusion becomes… sometimes involving elaborate philosophical schemes which work to justify the suffering intellectually. In classical psychology this is an example of the defense mechanism called ‘rationalization’. One convinces oneself that they purposely abstain from the thing they have failed at attaining so that they can make themselves believe they have chosen to endure such suffering.
Remember when Pee-wee Herman fell off his bike, jumped up and said ‘i meant to do that?’ same kinda thing here.
Ecmandu,
There’s several ways to interpret that. First, what is the violation based on? Is it based on the fact that, by the subjectivist’s own words, his morality is only subjective (relative) and therefore it is okay to violate it according to a different morality?
If that’s what you mean, a couple things:
-
the subjectivist doesn’t have to suspend his own morality just because, relative to another person, a different morality holds.
-
Given that the subjectivist still defends his own morality (based on 1), the scenario becomes no different than two objectivists simply disagreeing about morality.
Second, what do we mean by subjective exactly? Do we mean, not real? Or do we mean, relative? There’s a difference. Motion is said to be relative according to Einsteinian physics, but no one says that motion isn’t real.
If subjective meant not real, you’d have a point. But if it means relative, that just means my right to defend my morality is conditional on it being my morality (which it always is).
You mean Ecmandu just needs to get laid?