T
tonyrey
Guest
I give up! You seem determined not to understand…
I shall repost to discover the opinions of others.
- Status
I shall repost to discover the opinions of others.
T
tonyrey
Guest
We don’t!
We cannot sit on the fence indefinitely. Even if we do nothing we commit ourselves to certain consequences. We are rarely convinced we’re absolutely right but we still have to make decisions. We may never work out how we might be wrong! So what? We’re not expected to be infallible but realistic and sincere. Do you think we should ever do what we believe is wrong or unjust or evil?
Indeed. Morals are always and everywhere in the context of an individual who has to make a decision about how to behave or not to behave in important matters.
The end result is the same. It is an absolute principle that we should always and everywhere follow the dictates of our conscience - if necessary after reflection, discussion and consultation. If we don’t we are abandoning our responsibility as unique individuals.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
No, I don’t see any statement that is objective here. The fragment a
is objective I guess.
Right out of the box you state
How is this shown objectively - it is a statement of faith.
All the statements about the chair are subjective, they are value and/or subjective statements.
This is the most truthful statement - imo
You do need to say it because the tail is wagging the dog. You can claim it is absolute and make conclusions based on that premise but you can’t show that statement to be true objectively. You can agree to the premise, other people can agree to the premise, but it doesn’t make it an objective truth, just an agreed upon one. Which is exactly what relativism is - an agreed upon premise on which to base morality. Saying something is “absolute” is relative to the faith, which is an act of will saying " I believe " - which is relative to the individual regardless of the number that are in communion with that belief. It still can’t be shown to be objective. It’s still an subjective act of an individual.
As my “headhunter” scenario (hopefully) shows any religious claim can be countered by another. You may disagree with the headhunter but you can’t show he’s wrong because it is a matter of faith, not objective fact. You can state your counter belief but their is no “winner” - it is all based on subjective beliefs.
G
grannymh
Guest
Eventually, I may reply to my own post since apparently the key points about statements being subjective or objective have been completely ignored.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I’ll address anything you think I ignored - can you be more specific?
G
grannymh
Guest
My internet is going out again and I just tried the reboot thing. Hopefully, it will continue to work.
I will put in bold what was ignored.
Of all these statements, which would be considered subjective because they proceed from a person’s mind rather than from the external world? Which statements would be considered objective because they pertain to the physical chair? Which statement can be considered both subjective and objective?
I will post this in case I run into trouble. If everything is o.k. I’ll redo my post with the examples of what is considered subjective and what would be considered objective.
Thanks for you offer. I didn’t mean to be rude.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I’m sorry for not being more specific but I don’t think any of the statements about the chair are objective because they are strung together. They are all subjective value statements. The chair fabric is velvet is objective but the stain resistance is subjective. It contains wool is objective but the allergic qualities of the wool are subjective.
The chair is made of wood and fabric. The fabric is a velvet wool, are objective ( dismissing any discussion of minutia of what qualifies as velvet and such nonsense) any interaction and reaction are subjective. If the statement addresses the relationship of the chair to you - it is subjective.
G
grannymh
Guest
From post 1074
This is how we distinguish between subjective and objective.
Subjective is based internally. Evaluations, judgments, thoughts proceed from a person’s mind rather than from something or someone existing in the external world?
Objective is based externally and is independent of what a person thinks. What pertains to physical chair is objective when the chair itself is examined.
A truth can be considered objective when it exists independently, i.e., when it does not depend on anyone’s affirmation. Of course, it is always good to have people affirm truth.
Some definitions of objective are “Of or having to do with a material object.” “Having actual existence or reality.” “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” In this case, the chair has objective existence because the change of the price tag did not change anything physically about the chair.
Memories are definitely internal and thus subjective.
Please note that in the above two examples, subjective should not be considered as something bad. Often our subjective values are better guides when decorating.
We do have the objective color and the objective decision that color clashes are bad. We can use the word objective because we have experienced actual bad color clashes. However, our idea of a bad color clash can be subjective, but we often consider it objective because it is unchangeable as far as we are concerned.
The above is what I mean by a mixed bag of objective and subjective reasoning. When there is a mixed bag regarding moral actions, it is best to go back to the basic objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Morality is an action so we ask is this action profound respect? In the course of history, many answers have been wrong. Sometimes, society says that the answers are right because this particular society says so. Society may adapt its actions to fit perverted thinking but the human person never loses the right to profound respect.
That can be proven with a real experiment independent of what we want to think. This would be objective.
Hopefully, these examples give a general idea of the difference between objective and subjective.
Blessings,
granny
This is how we distinguish between subjective and objective.
Subjective is based internally. Evaluations, judgments, thoughts proceed from a person’s mind rather than from something or someone existing in the external world?
Objective is based externally and is independent of what a person thinks. What pertains to physical chair is objective when the chair itself is examined.
A truth can be considered objective when it exists independently, i.e., when it does not depend on anyone’s affirmation. Of course, it is always good to have people affirm truth.
The chair itself remains the same because it exists externally, i.e. apart from us and our internal thoughts which lead to a negotiated discount price.
Some definitions of objective are “Of or having to do with a material object.” “Having actual existence or reality.” “Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.” In this case, the chair has objective existence because the change of the price tag did not change anything physically about the chair.
Soothing comes from our internal perceptions of what soothing is. It is a subjective evaluation. Someone else could consider the chair’s color harsh. In either case, the objective reality of the color remains.
.
Memories are definitely internal and thus subjective.
Please note that in the above two examples, subjective should not be considered as something bad. Often our subjective values are better guides when decorating.
The sensible decision would be to consider the purchase. This decision would be objectively based because the actual facts regarding the chair’s material were checked. On the other hand, a person may remember (subjectively) that she had seen a similar chair that had wool and decide not to buy the chair.
This statement is a mixed bag like most moral questions in this thread. A color clash with the rug would be a definite objective no because both the color of the physical chair and the physical rug are considered and besides I don’t like clashing colors. But first I need to consider if my friend’s idea of clashing colors is the same as mine. Just because we both consider the color soothing does not really say anything about clashing. Furthermore just because two colors clash does not mean that one color is o.k. and the other is awful. Both could be perfectly fine in themselves.
We do have the objective color and the objective decision that color clashes are bad. We can use the word objective because we have experienced actual bad color clashes. However, our idea of a bad color clash can be subjective, but we often consider it objective because it is unchangeable as far as we are concerned.
The above is what I mean by a mixed bag of objective and subjective reasoning. When there is a mixed bag regarding moral actions, it is best to go back to the basic objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. Morality is an action so we ask is this action profound respect? In the course of history, many answers have been wrong. Sometimes, society says that the answers are right because this particular society says so. Society may adapt its actions to fit perverted thinking but the human person never loses the right to profound respect.
Our subjective memories and emotions help us with that decision.
.
That can be proven with a real experiment independent of what we want to think. This would be objective.
Hopefully, these examples give a general idea of the difference between objective and subjective.
Blessings,
granny
G
grannymh
Guest
Correction to post 1083.
At the top there is this sentence.
At the top there is this sentence.
It shoud not have a ? at the end. My apology for the error.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
So are we on the same page in light of my last post (just prior to yours #1082) ? It appears to be. The only discrepancy that I can see is velvets dirt repelling properties - I think it begs the question in relation to what other materials? In relation (relative) to some it will be inferior, others superior.
I think we are clear - no?
I think we are clear - no?
G
grannymh
Guest
We may be clear in our individual presentations. But we are not on the same page.
Someone needs to write the follow up post which would have recommendations for a moral society.
Society has a choice. It can base its actions on its own determination of its own immediate goals or its own philosophy such as its own version of utilitarianism. This is the meaning of relativism. Or it can base its actions on the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
Obviously, a society can choose as an immediate goal to respect all human beings and work toward the good of humanity. However, the historical reality is that when society determines that moral actions are relative to whatever material goal is desired, the value or price tag of a human person can be lowered. She and he are seen as relative value to personal ambitions. The human person is no longer seen objectively as being worthy of profound respect.
The reality is that we live with a mixed bag of objective and subjective thinking. With all things considered, my recommendation is to choose the fundamental objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect because that option includes me.
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55: 6-9
J
John21652
Guest
Aha, you have evaded the main point of my argument about why your god is weak and you have demonstrated why your people are weak. Because your god gave you no valid references for your world view, you have made yourself the starting point, the central point of your subjective view of the world and everything in it. You do not value anything, any other life but your own. You make enemies because you do not understand and you kill what you do not understand because you fear it. You rationalise your killing of your enemies by saying you kill because you respect them. That is contrary to the order of things, which you do not comprehend. If you kill what you respect, then why haven’t you killed off your own god? He is your enemy in that he is encouraging you to have enemies and to provide much of the reason detre for your existence towards the unproductivity of chopping off heads. You rape and pillage the land because you do not see an ogjective order in the universe. You cannot, because you concentrate on your self and build a moral code from that point. That moral code leads you to kill that which you respect, which is contrary to what you value. You are missing the objective order and true nature of things because you have been left floundering in subjective misery by your thoughtless and selfish god who has not shown you the intrinsic value of things. He has not shown you that rational enquiry and sound reason will show that chopping off heads is morally unsound behaviour.
I
inocente
Guest
Thanks for both giving proofs you’re relativists at heart.
Interesting you chose a chair for your example. There are so many different kinds of chair, from highchair to deckchair, with so little in common that we can only define the general concept “chair” by using an abstraction relating to our (and similar
) species. It suggests morality falls into the exact same category - there are as many moralities as there are different kinds of chair.You didn’t pick me up on the feminist perspective earlier (post #1055), but it raised a number of interesting thoughts for me. One was suppose we had super-fast brains, so fast that we would think volumes about our every action. We could work out in depth the morality of our action for every case independently without any recourse to any rules whatsoever, by negotiating every nuance in detail inside our head. This argues that our intuitions and moral imperatives are merely shortcuts that we need because we don’t have super-fast brains, and must therefore be relative to what and who we are.
J
John21652
Guest
If you hadn’t jumped the gun so quickly and read on, you would (I hope!) see a case developing. If you’d read on you could have chosen this quote -Thanks for both giving proofs you’re relativists at heart.
Patience, my friend, patience…why, we will soon be dealing with that chair!
J
jonfawkes
Guest
We respect what will kill, not kill what we respect. We respect the plants and animals that we kill for our food, clothing and shelter. We do know the value of things that is why we respect them.
Your god makes you like an infant on the teat. Weak and Helpless. Waiting to be fed.
BTW what’s your hat size?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
I posted somewhereThe reality is that we live with a mixed bag of objective and subjective thinking. With all things considered, my recommendation is to choose the fundamental objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect because that option includes me.
Blessings,
granny
Isaiah 55: 6-9
(perhaps earlier in this thread ) - that morality is an act of self interest ( which your post confirms or at least proposes the same view. ) -How wide we see our sphere of self interest determines the altruistic nature of our morality. If we can see that helping all men helps our self, it will be part of our morality. We we are tribalistic our morality will be inclusive of the “in group” the tribe and exclusive to the other. If we are self centered our sphere will be what is good for the one.
Regardless of the size of the sphere it is relative to the individual. Human’s being social creatures our morality usually falls into the “tribal” model. What is good for the group is good for the individual. Individual self centered is usually self defeating because it makes one a social outcast and you loose the benefits of social living. Strength in numbers etc.
How do you see “just war” doctrine fitting in with “the human person is worthy of profound respect.” - It seems that even the Church recognizes that there are cases when some people " just need some killin’ "
from the CCC
T
tonyrey
Guest
It was an atheist, Ernest Nagel, who pointed out that life is valuable because it is **a source of opportunities. **How does the moral subjectivist evade that fact?
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Why would they evade it?
J
John21652
Guest
Already the confusion sown in the minds of your morally impoverished tribe by your whimsical god becomes apparent. Firstly you kill something purely because you respect it, then you don’t kill what you respect. The contrariness of killing what you respect and killing what you don’t respect, but respecting it if it can kill should show you the error of making enemies as decreed by your capricious god. It would seem that your god has failed to show you a way of thinking which can overcome your passions, which undoubtedly change as does the wind. You state you know the value of things, which is why you say you respect them. I was drawing your attention to the fact that your god has not shown you the true nature of things, which is different from their value. Your next meal will increase in value as does your hunger, or as does your desire for a particular food. If you truly respected what you kill, the value of what you kill would not vary as does your hunger, or desire for a particular thing, but would remain constant because you understand its true nature. Understanding a things true nature requires a rational thinking process which will allow you to act above the level of purely instinctive behavior. It seems this desire to value things according to your whims is something which your god seems to have encouraged amongst you, as manifest in his enjoinder to chop heads off ‘enemy’ shoulders. I fear the voice of your god is little more than the pangs of desire crying out for satiation within the dark recesses of your impoverished souls.
BTW, my hat size is a tad smaller than yours.
My god taught me to be (a tad) humble.
J
jonfawkes
Guest
Ha! your god makes you stupid as well as weak - what man would deny the hunger of his belly. What man would not reach for the solution. An infant waits to be fed.Already the confusion sown in the minds of your morally impoverished tribe by your whimsical god becomes apparent. Firstly you kill something purely because you respect it, then you don’t kill what you respect. The contrariness of killing what you respect and killing what you don’t respect, but respecting it if it can kill should show you the error of making enemies as decreed by your capricious god. It would seem that your god has failed to show you a way of thinking which can overcome your passions, which undoubtedly change as does the wind. You state you know the value of things, which is why you say you respect them. I was drawing your attention to the fact that your god has not shown you the true nature of things, which is different from their value. Your next meal will increase in value as does your hunger, or as does your desire for a particular food. If you truly respected what you kill, the value of what you kill would not vary as does your hunger, or desire for a particular thing, but would remain constant because you understand its true nature. Understanding a things true nature requires a rational thinking process which will allow you to act above the level of purely instinctive behavior. It seems this desire to value things according to your whims is something which your god seems to have encouraged amongst you, as manifest in his enjoinder to chop heads off ‘enemy’ shoulders. I fear the voice of your god is little more than the pangs of desire crying out for satiation within the dark recesses of your impoverished souls.
BTW, my hat size is a tad smaller than yours.
My god taught me to be (a tad) humble.
He gives us our passions, so that we may how to treat our bodies. Hungry? Feed it. Full? Vacate. Tired? Sleep.
Your god seeks to confuse you with promises of “true value”. Our god shows us the value of life here and now. You god wants you to be weak, so he confuses you. Ours wants us to be strong with full bellies, while our enemy’s dead eye’s watch our feast.
P.S. There is some shrinkage with the mounting process. It’s part of the aesthetic appeal, I was just looking for a rough estimate.
- Status