The end of the subjectivity debate

[surreptitious75]

There is no Yin without Yang within reality as it is
Just the same as there is no subjectivity without objectivity and vice versa
Thus I am not a pure subjectivist but rather a subjectivist objectivist in complementariness

This is the correct postion to hold rather than simply claiming one to the total exclusion of the other one
As everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves

[Mad Man P]

everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves

Bingo

The subjectivists prefer to describe things from a first person perspective and the objectivists describe it from a 3rd person perspective.
But they are describing the same damned things... and then arguing about who can describe it better.

It can be pretty fun to watch though

[Serendipper]

everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves

Bingo

The subjectivists prefer to describe things from a first person perspective and the objectivists describe it from a 3rd person perspective.
But they are describing the same damned things... and then arguing about who can describe it better.

It can be pretty fun to watch though

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

How is that a 3rd person perspective?

Moral relativity and moral absolute is not the same damn thing anymore than Newtonian Physics and Relativity is the same damn thing.

[Ecmandu]

everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist regardless of how they personally choose to describe themselves

Bingo

The subjectivists prefer to describe things from a first person perspective and the objectivists describe it from a 3rd person perspective.
But they are describing the same damned things... and then arguing about who can describe it better.

It can be pretty fun to watch though

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

How is that a 3rd person perspective?

Moral relativity and moral absolute is not the same damn thing anymore than Newtonian Physics and Relativity is the same damn thing.

Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal.

Nobody really believe in "turn the other cheek"

"Oh, you really want to fuck me in the ass, with an aids dick? Ok, I'll turn the other cheek"

Nobody believes that shit.

[Mad Man P]

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

They are just expressing their personal opinion...

Those opinion are NOT logically NECESSARY as a consequence of being an objectivist or subjectivist.

You are no less an objectivist if you said "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation"
You are no less a subjectivist if you said "Murder is always wrong, when subject to my judgement"

[surreptitious75]

Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal

There is no such thing as murder in self defence because they are entirely separate categories
Murder is illegal eveywhere in the world whereas self defence is legal so they are not the same

[surreptitious75]

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong subject to specifics of situations
The objectivist says murder is always wrong subject to nothing it just is

How is that a 3rd person perspective

Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks subjectively
Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks objectively

The subjectivist does not think subjectively all of the time
The objectivist does not think objectively all of the time

Ergo everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist because everyone thinks either subjectively or objectively all of the time

I say that murder is always wrong and so as a subjectivist / objectivist this is an example of me thinking objectively
On other issues though I may think subjectively which is why I cannot label myself as just one or the other but both

[Ecmandu]

Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal

There is no such thing as murder in self defence because they are entirely separate categories
Murder is illegal eveywhere in the world whereas self defence is legal so they are not the same

Almost all murder is self defense. Once you know that, this defense no longer applies to you.

You see, everyone is constantly attacking everyone on this earth. Some people react differently to this than others. What you think of as murder, I see as self defense.

I've never physically wounded a person in my life, but I understand it.

[Prismatic567]

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong subject to specifics of situations
The objectivist says murder is always wrong subject to nothing it just is

How is that a 3rd person perspective

Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks subjectively
Sometimes the subjectivist / objectivist thinks objectively

The subjectivist does not think subjectively all of the time
The objectivist does not think objectively all of the time

Ergo everyone is a subjectivist / objectivist because everyone thinks either subjectively or objectively all of the time

I say that murder is always wrong and so as a subjectivist / objectivist this is an example of me thinking objectively
On other issues though I may think subjectively which is why I cannot label myself as just one or the other but both

The Law of Non-Contradiction states there cannot be p and not-p at the same time and in the same sense.
Therefore one cannot be a subjectivist and an objectivists at the same time in the same sense.
However one can be subjectivist and an objectivists at the same time in DIFFERENT senses or perspectives.

Within morality and ethics, I am a moral objectivist but I accept absolute moral laws as guides only, i.e. not to be enforceable but to be encouraged.
But at the same time I am a ethical subjectivist [consequentialist] in that provisions and allowance must be made to accommodate the different circumstances and conditions a person is in.

The difference between the Moral Objective absolute standard and the practical ethical subjectivist state creates a Moral Gap which can be used as a measurement for improvements [closing the gap] towards the objective ideal.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Murder in self defense in any country on earth is legal

There is no such thing as murder in self defence because they are entirely separate categories
Murder is illegal eveywhere in the world whereas self defence is legal so they are not the same

Almost all murder is self defense.

Then it should not be called murder. It would be justifiable homocide (self defense), not murder in self-defense. the concept of murder includes the quality of being not justified, illegal and immoral. So it has to be a separate category from justifiable killings.

Once you know that, this defense no longer applies to you.

You see, everyone is constantly attacking everyone on this earth. Some people react differently to this than others. What you think of as murder, I see as self defense.

I've never physically wounded a person in my life, but I understand it.

Attacked is here being used vaguely. And understanding something, the motives, the feelings, does not change it from murder to self-defense. One can certainly feel like one is justified, because they 'said' 'did' something that was an attack or felt like one. The precise nature of murder means that the degree and kind of attack did not warrant killing the person. Which is precisely why you can understand the murderers, but have not killed yourself. You understand that they felt attacked and often there was some kind of attack or trigger to they idea of themselves or what they valued, but their response did not fit the situation. If you have some exceptions, and also do not kill but merely understand, than the separate of the categories murder and justifiable homocide is one you accept also. You may differ on specific cases, but you accept the difference.

[Serendipper]

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

They are just expressing their personal opinion...

Opinions are subjective, which makes everyone a subjectivist.

You are no less an objectivist if you said "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation"
You are no less a subjectivist if you said "Murder is always wrong, when subject to my judgement"

I don't understand that. If it's an opinion that "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation", then how does that make one an objectivist?

[Karpel Tunnel]

The subjectivist says murder is often wrong, subject to specifics of situations.
The objectivist says murder is always wrong, subject to nothing; it just is.

They are just expressing their personal opinion...

Opinions are subjective, which makes everyone a subjectivist.

You are no less an objectivist if you said "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation"
You are no less a subjectivist if you said "Murder is always wrong, when subject to my judgement"

I don't understand that. If it's an opinion that "murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation", then how does that make one an objectivist?

You'd have to be able to evaluate 'the situation', objectively ALSO.

Yes, it still has subjective aspects. But the above includes the idea that one bases the subjective evaluation of it being wrong by evaluating the facts. Oh, the other guy had a gun pointing at him. Oh, the burglar was in the guy's kid's bedroom holding a knife over the kid's head. You decide what was the case, then using your subjective evaluation of good, or justified, or bad, or understandible or legal, decide if it falls into the category murder or justifiable homicide.

So, subjective in the sense that one considers some actions wrong and some ok.
Objective in that one evaluates 'what happened', what were the circumstances.

It's not either or, it is both subjective and objective.

Of course murder is always wrong, since the word 'murder' includes the idea of wrongful killing. So if one is calling it a murder, then one thinks it is wrong. I decided to ignore that in the above since I figured this was not intentional. Some killings are murder, some are not, for anyone who uses the word murder and has some other category of killing. Which nearly everyone does.

[Serendipper]

You'd have to be able to evaluate 'the situation', objectively ALSO.

There is no way to do that because objectivity has no subject and no context to discern it. There is no logic that can be employed to observe objectively because what's observed will always be subject to the chosen logic.

Yes, it still has subjective aspects. But the above includes the idea that one bases the subjective evaluation of it being wrong by evaluating the facts. Oh, the other guy had a gun pointing at him. Oh, the burglar was in the guy's kid's bedroom holding a knife over the kid's head. You decide what was the case, then using your subjective evaluation of good, or justified, or bad, or understandible or legal, decide if it falls into the category murder or justifiable homicide.

So, subjective in the sense that one considers some actions wrong and some ok.
Objective in that one evaluates 'what happened', what were the circumstances.

Oh, so you're saying the objective bit are the facts, but facts are consensus of opinion. That's the "earth is round" idea that we already determined was subjective long ago.

Of course murder is always wrong, since the word 'murder' includes the idea of wrongful killing. So if one is calling it a murder, then one thinks it is wrong. I decided to ignore that in the above since I figured this was not intentional. Some killings are murder, some are not, for anyone who uses the word murder and has some other category of killing. Which nearly everyone does.

But the fact that murder is considered wrong at all is an objective claim because there is no path of reasoning to arrive at that conclusion, and if there is, then the wrongness will be subject to that reasoning which means the wrongness is not objective.

[Ecmandu]

@ Karpel

Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.

There are a great many levels of evolution to how people respond to this.

The truest instinct is that it's ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.

However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn't going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don't attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.

People who are intelligent but with lesser insight, will.

It is not false to feel attacked and tortured by almost everyone. These are justifiable murders and tortures.

The problem that ultimately makes them unjustifiable is the vastness of the problem, then you just look like a stupid hypocrite.

You realize at that moment, that the only thing that CAN change it is words!

[Karpel Tunnel]

@ Karpel

Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.

Agreed.

The truest instinct is that it's ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.

Half agree. That is a (I will call it) yang instinct. There is an even deeper (I will call it) Yin instinct to move away, avoid, run from other people and to protect oneself from immediate threats. And we know deep down that in most situations, attacking increases immediate threats. People who tend towards rage and agressive action will think at the deepest level they have to attack, now.

However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn't going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don't attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.

and out of self-care. The threats are not just down the road. And attacking people instantly increases the danger and many of us get that in our deepest levels. For me it would only be in situations where I sense an immediate physical threat that I will gap into violence.

[Ecmandu]

@ Karpel

Everyone is killing and torturing everyone, especially the really smart intuitives, who can easily abstract this behavior to the future and present as an immediate threat.

Agreed.

The truest instinct is that it's ok to murder or torture anyone, because, everyone is destroying the species and they need to learn viscerally, what they are doing.

Half agree. That is a (I will call it) yang instinct. There is an even deeper (I will call it) Yin instinct to move away, avoid, run from other people and to protect oneself from immediate threats. And we know deep down that in most situations, attacking increases immediate threats. People who tend towards rage and agressive action will think at the deepest level they have to attack, now.

However, as that level of abstraction settles in, obviously, killing or torturing 1 or 10 or 1000 people isn't going to effect change where the species is a torturing homicide machine. So they just don't attack anyone, to not contradict themselves.

and out of self-care. The threats are not just down the road. And attacking people instantly increases the danger and many of us get that in our deepest levels. For me it would only be in situations where I sense an immediate physical threat that I will gap into violence.

When dealing with psychology, you have to understand that most people are just trying to get their bearings on wisdom nobody is taught, the mere fact that it's not being taught is enough to set someone off, as being in an immediate threat situation.

For example, someone like Jeffrey dahmer intuited that young black males commit a disproportionate amount of crime. They were directly affecting his life, well being and survival.

So he hunted them.

He would eat them to cleanse their sins, making them part of his "sinless" body.

It really doesn't take much for pathologies to grow in environments in this world. All you have to do is control data set exposure, and the ever present silence, and you'll end up with people who absorb all of the suicidality and/or homicidality in the species.

Meaning: the species is killing itself and everyon is murdering everyone, and all they do is double talk about ho much life means to them.

This is enough to drive anyone crazy, that the insane ones are causing the most damage (the happy bliss of double speak aggressive ignorance)

In terms of judgement, you have to look at what the person actually knows to truly make a harsh judgement.

I could convict anyone on earth as criminally insane right now.

I wouldn't bother, because the judges and jury are criminally insane, but I know how to prove it.

Just a few more thoughts along these lines.

[Ecmandu]

I wanted to add, that MagsJ's executive decision to sensor me on the issue of rape is actually doing a disservice to the human population.

Yes, all heterosexual and bisexual men are indeed rapists, and they enjoy it, and all heterosexual women are the willing participants, joyfully I might add, to their own rapes. That's a species fact.

All humans on this earth, including the Jesus story (though it wasn't sexual - so not rape proper) are no means yes relationships - we are all rape babies.

Someone who projects a lot would be very offended by this. The facts are incontrovertible...

You can actually have the types of rapists that MagsJ acknowledges come to terms with their acting out, by pointing out everyone else's hypocrisy ... from there they can rationalize their old behavior and stop projecting it onto others, remove that anger and rage and move on.

There's atonement to be had as well.

Atonement is when you stop acting out, and you prevent as many instances of your acting out as you did to others.

[Serendipper]

Everyone is a criminally insane rapist? I seem to have stumbled into the wrong thread

[Ecmandu]

Everyone is a criminally insane rapist? I seem to have stumbled into the wrong thread

Lol. Welcome to the real world for a moment.

I'll actually use a Christian phrase for this:

"Those who are without sin, cast the first stone"

I'm casting a stone.

What do you think?

[Serendipper]

Everyone is a criminally insane rapist? I seem to have stumbled into the wrong thread

Lol. Welcome to the real world for a moment.

Is that where I am?

I'll actually use a Christian phrase for this:

"Those who are without sin, cast the first stone"

I'm casting a stone.

What do you think?

I'm not casting stones, but your world seems a lil different from mine lol

I'll agree there is no objective standard of insane, but I'm not seeing everyone as a rapist.

[Ecmandu]

Everyone is a criminally insane rapist? I seem to have stumbled into the wrong thread

Lol. Welcome to the real world for a moment.

Is that where I am?

I'll actually use a Christian phrase for this:

"Those who are without sin, cast the first stone"

I'm casting a stone.

What do you think?

I'm not casting stones, but your world seems a lil different from mine lol

I'll agree there is no objective standard of insane, but I'm not seeing everyone as a rapist.

9 pages of this... if you're so inclined

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194592

[Serendipper]

9 pages of this... if you're so inclined

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194592

Ugh... where's the "Everyone's a Rapist for Dummies" version?

[Ecmandu]

9 pages of this... if you're so inclined

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194592

Ugh... where's the "Everyone's a Rapist for Dummies" version?

Alright, I can do that.

Every sociological, psychological and cultural anthropology study ever done in this topic, reaches the same conclusion.

Globally, women are more averse to sexual signaling from men than men are for women, using the same exact signal.

What this means is that all women have a "no" for any male behavior that can be interpreted as a sexual signal.

If a woman accepts a male for a sexual signal, she has decided that the first "no" for all women means "yes".

Every heterosexual relationship in the human species follows this pattern.

[Serendipper]

9 pages of this... if you're so inclined

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194592

Ugh... where's the "Everyone's a Rapist for Dummies" version?

Alright, I can do that.

Every sociological, psychological and cultural anthropology study ever done in this topic, reaches the same conclusion.

Globally, women are more averse to sexual signaling from men than men are for women, using the same exact signal.

Depends on the man. Women are pickier than men. To do a proper comparison requires sampling only men that the women find attractive, which is nearly impossible to do since one woman's hunk will be an "ew" to another woman.

What this means is that all women have a "no" for any male behavior that can be interpreted as a sexual signal.

If a woman accepts a male for a sexual signal, she has decided that the first "no" for all women means "yes".

I can't figure out what you meant there.

[Ecmandu]

The female "no" is a relative "no"

For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones... no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.

Now if women did this... are the men scared? No!!

Not a chance!!

The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn't interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.

The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however... women relative to men.