The term “intersubjective” is a way of thinking about subjective and objective as on a continuum of agreement rather than as discrete. So to answer your question, when everyone agrees, that’s what we mean by “objective.”
Yes. “Intersubjective” means “existing in multiple conscious minds”. “Objective” would mean existing independently of those minds.
Sure. That tree is 11 feet and 7 inches tall.
No, I was having a bit of fun since you outed yourself recently as an atheist. Nothing personal was meant, nor anything disrespectful.
Though it might seem like that, general laws are the predominant laws dealing with actions of people not involving property. Go to the US Code Contents and you’ll see what I mean:
You could be right in some places, but, not in the US. Most of any disparity that occurs has more to do with who you are and who you know, than how much property you have. But, lots of money certainly helps. Nevertheless, any such travesties are exactly that, they are “travesties.” And the majority of the citizenry knows it.
If that were the case, then we are alone in the universe of mammals. A replacement male lion kills any existing cubs immediately upon taking over the pride. Males of the dog family do the same, and so forth and so on. Now, they’re “instincts” tell them to replace the yield of another’s seed with their own seed. But, if they could think it through, they might realize that the quicker they can raise the other’s seed to maturity, the better the odds of their own flourishing. On their level, there’s survival in numbers. So, there’s no thought and no “morality,”
Yes - for better or worse.
Neither do I. God knows, neither do I!
You are a walking, breathing encyclopedia! Excellent word. Perfect for that meaning.
Could not have been better said.ThanksI can see that being a useful term for ethical discussions, although I can also see it causing some raised hackles!
I can see some potential applications for it, though - it could be said that while murder is generally considered wrong, it’s only wrong in a human context; only those who argue that the universe was created for humans would assume that it is a universal moral transgression - whereas I and other atheists doubt that the universe, or even the non-human world, have any interest in the issue.
Then there is the problem of how one defines murder - and that varies widely depending upon one’s personal ethical opinions. There are those who would group abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, even killing animals for food or fur within the category of murder.
Thus it’s fair to say that some common understanding of terminology is vital to any discussion of ethics.
Good post, Sideline. It certainly highlights one of the core problems involved in ethical discussions, particularly between religious and nonreligious folks. Even if we have a clearly defined ethic, it’s still often wide open to debate as to whether certain human actions meet the set criteria for an immoral action. Was the killing really unjustified, or were there mitigating factors? Could the sex have been consensual to any extent? Could the thief be said to have any just claim to the stolen item?
Likewise!
I have remarked in another thread that knowing and understanding the nature of another - be it another person or another animal - enhances one’s appreciation thereof. I think that is a relevant point - that if theists and atheists can indeed engage in rational and courteous discussion, we can agree to disagree, but at least see where the other is coming from. Another concept that has come up often in my life is that you learn by doing. I think it’s far from inevitable that theist-atheist discussions will break down into flame wars, and as civil discussion seems to be what has happened on this thread (for the most part, anyway), perhaps that is exactly what’s needed.I was being serious. I don’t think there’s a such thing as an objective morality. Have you ever heard of the is-ought gap? We can’t reference the goodness of an object in the same way we can reference an object’s, such as that tree’s, height. Goodness is a conception–a mind’s response to objective, external stimuli. If we can agree that emotions play a part in all decisions, it would seem as though emotion has to do with every moral statement, thus making them subjective.
I don’t know about other people, but the reason you have trouble understanding me is because you’re using different definitions of “objective” and “subjective”, as illustrated by your last sentence in the quote.
It would be an objective, certain height. It would still cast a shadow which might impede the growth of a bush under it. The physical property of “height” would still be there, however the numbers describing the height would not be.